GustavBahler wrote:

Chandler wrote:

fishmike wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

TPercy wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

TPercy wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

fishmike wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

TPercy wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

TPercy wrote:In 2015-16 and 2014-15 kyrie had a pass frequency of 24% and 23.8% to Kevin Love. However the numbers did drop to
17.9% in the most recent season but LBJ witnessed a near six percent increase in passes recurved from Kyrie. Derrick rose in comparison had a 17.6 pass frequency to KP. Without Melo, I think kyrie gets the ball to KP more.

And I'm sure Kyrie would be passing the ball more to Love if LeBron wasn't on the court. I don't think KP would have a problem playing with Kyrie. I think he'd be impressed with how much more efficient Kyrie is and he'd wonder why he ever liked playing with Melo. And I definitely think the team would win more than it's been wining. I still don't want to overpay for Kyrie though.

What classifies as overpay to you?

Probably the amount he'd actually cost. He's soon going to get the super max most likely. So I can't justify giving up lottery picks for him. I'd give up Melo and a top 12 protected pick. That's about it. They can get better offers. If we do pay more for him, I'll still be excited to see the team though.

so if you dont overpay your just another sub tier NBA team that doesnt have talent at the level Kyrie

Talent at the wrong price is no good. No team with Kyrie as its best player is going anywhere special. I'm not implying that things will be great if we don't overpay for guys like Kyrie. It depends on how intelligent the rebuilding is. $40 mil a year on Kyrie basically locks you into mediocrity or at least makes it a lot harder to have an elite team. (I expect he will get the supermax soon.) It also makes it a lot harder to have a terrible team since Kyrie is productive. Do we just want a fun, decent product? Kyrie would definitely help and I can understand that thinking. DJ seems to have a lot of fun watching the Raptors! It would be fun to watch Kyrie next year. Do we want to have an elite team? Kyrie is not good enough to be the best player on an elite team. We can't pay him like he is. Using 40% of the cap on him is too limiting, especially if we don't have productive lottery picks compensating for his high salary. (People are talking about giving up at least 1 lottery pick.) Now, if they can get him at a decent price, it gives us good options since we wouldn't have to re-sign him for the supermax, though I suspect we would end up doing that.

Shouldn't it also be kept in mind that since Kyrie has just 25 and as such he is only going to get better? Who is to say that he won't be a player worthy of a super max at the end of his 3 year tenure, especially after playing with arguably the greatest player to ever touch a basketball?

Statistically, there's not a lot of improving most players do after age 25 though there certainly are exceptions. Irving hasn't really improved that much in his first 6 years. His scoring volume and turnover rate are a bit better. That's about it. So, I wouldn't trade for him with the expectation that he'll become a new, better player.

John wall
Stephen curry
Isaiah Thomas
Kyle Lowry
Demare derozan
Brodie

Nearly all the league best guards have seen improvements post the year they turn 25. Why is Kyrie any different?

I'm not going to look up each one but I'm sure that in a league with 400 players, you'll find many who defy the general trend. The general trend is still the most likely trajectory, especially in the case of a player whose production has basically been a flat line all 6 years already.

Steve Nash is another. Many players, MANY have shown another level they can achieve if given a chance or a change in role/team/system.

There are far too many HUMAN factors to brush off potential because of "general trends" and "most likely trajectory."

I agree. BUT can anyone think of a player who this many years into his career all of a sudden found the heart to play defense? A lot of great players add elements to their game for sure, but that seems to always be offense

FWIW: I'm in on Kyrie but only at a real modest price. If he truly wants NY we can get him soon enough for nothing

Doug Christie? Might not have been in the league as long at the time (4 years), but Christie's defense was lousy. JVG told Christie about the importance of defense, which is why he didn't last in NY back then.

Christie took the advice to heart, eventually becoming one of the best defenders in the league. First team Defense. Becoming a better defender can be done if you really work at it.

Kyrie is a hell of a talent. Not much defense, probably the best ball handler in the league. He's def a shiny object. While he played #2 to Lebron there were many times he carried the offense in critical spots including during deep playoff runs. Does he have another level? Assuming he's the same player pre and post Lebron is silly, simply because his numbers are similar. Also his post season stats the last 2 years are eye popping.

It mostly depends on the cost right?

fishmike wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:

Chandler wrote:

fishmike wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

TPercy wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

TPercy wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

fishmike wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

TPercy wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

TPercy wrote:In 2015-16 and 2014-15 kyrie had a pass frequency of 24% and 23.8% to Kevin Love. However the numbers did drop to
17.9% in the most recent season but LBJ witnessed a near six percent increase in passes recurved from Kyrie. Derrick rose in comparison had a 17.6 pass frequency to KP. Without Melo, I think kyrie gets the ball to KP more.

And I'm sure Kyrie would be passing the ball more to Love if LeBron wasn't on the court. I don't think KP would have a problem playing with Kyrie. I think he'd be impressed with how much more efficient Kyrie is and he'd wonder why he ever liked playing with Melo. And I definitely think the team would win more than it's been wining. I still don't want to overpay for Kyrie though.

What classifies as overpay to you?

Probably the amount he'd actually cost. He's soon going to get the super max most likely. So I can't justify giving up lottery picks for him. I'd give up Melo and a top 12 protected pick. That's about it. They can get better offers. If we do pay more for him, I'll still be excited to see the team though.

so if you dont overpay your just another sub tier NBA team that doesnt have talent at the level Kyrie

Talent at the wrong price is no good. No team with Kyrie as its best player is going anywhere special. I'm not implying that things will be great if we don't overpay for guys like Kyrie. It depends on how intelligent the rebuilding is. $40 mil a year on Kyrie basically locks you into mediocrity or at least makes it a lot harder to have an elite team. (I expect he will get the supermax soon.) It also makes it a lot harder to have a terrible team since Kyrie is productive. Do we just want a fun, decent product? Kyrie would definitely help and I can understand that thinking. DJ seems to have a lot of fun watching the Raptors! It would be fun to watch Kyrie next year. Do we want to have an elite team? Kyrie is not good enough to be the best player on an elite team. We can't pay him like he is. Using 40% of the cap on him is too limiting, especially if we don't have productive lottery picks compensating for his high salary. (People are talking about giving up at least 1 lottery pick.) Now, if they can get him at a decent price, it gives us good options since we wouldn't have to re-sign him for the supermax, though I suspect we would end up doing that.

Shouldn't it also be kept in mind that since Kyrie has just 25 and as such he is only going to get better? Who is to say that he won't be a player worthy of a super max at the end of his 3 year tenure, especially after playing with arguably the greatest player to ever touch a basketball?

Statistically, there's not a lot of improving most players do after age 25 though there certainly are exceptions. Irving hasn't really improved that much in his first 6 years. His scoring volume and turnover rate are a bit better. That's about it. So, I wouldn't trade for him with the expectation that he'll become a new, better player.

John wall
Stephen curry
Isaiah Thomas
Kyle Lowry
Demare derozan
Brodie

Nearly all the league best guards have seen improvements post the year they turn 25. Why is Kyrie any different?

I'm not going to look up each one but I'm sure that in a league with 400 players, you'll find many who defy the general trend. The general trend is still the most likely trajectory, especially in the case of a player whose production has basically been a flat line all 6 years already.

Steve Nash is another. Many players, MANY have shown another level they can achieve if given a chance or a change in role/team/system.

There are far too many HUMAN factors to brush off potential because of "general trends" and "most likely trajectory."

I agree. BUT can anyone think of a player who this many years into his career all of a sudden found the heart to play defense? A lot of great players add elements to their game for sure, but that seems to always be offense

FWIW: I'm in on Kyrie but only at a real modest price. If he truly wants NY we can get him soon enough for nothing

Doug Christie? Might not have been in the league as long at the time (4 years), but Christie's defense was lousy. JVG told Christie about the importance of defense, which is why he didn't last in NY back then.

Christie took the advice to heart, eventually becoming one of the best defenders in the league. First team Defense. Becoming a better defender can be done if you really work at it.

JVG had a similar effect on Camby. Look at his #s pre and post JVG, especially rebounding.

Kyrie is a hell of a talent. Not much defense, probably the best ball handler in the league. He's def a shiny object. While he played #2 to Lebron there were many times he carried the offense in critical spots including during deep playoff runs. Does he have another level? Assuming he's the same player pre and post Lebron is silly, simply because his numbers are similar. Also his post season stats the last 2 years are eye popping.

It mostly depends on the cost right?

this is all good to hear. Agree on cost and it needs to be modest.

I like Kyrie's handle and that he can hit shots (and actually seems to play better) in the clutch.

Bonn1997 wrote:

TPercy wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

TPercy wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

fishmike wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

TPercy wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

TPercy wrote:In 2015-16 and 2014-15 kyrie had a pass frequency of 24% and 23.8% to Kevin Love. However the numbers did drop to
17.9% in the most recent season but LBJ witnessed a near six percent increase in passes recurved from Kyrie. Derrick rose in comparison had a 17.6 pass frequency to KP. Without Melo, I think kyrie gets the ball to KP more.

And I'm sure Kyrie would be passing the ball more to Love if LeBron wasn't on the court. I don't think KP would have a problem playing with Kyrie. I think he'd be impressed with how much more efficient Kyrie is and he'd wonder why he ever liked playing with Melo. And I definitely think the team would win more than it's been wining. I still don't want to overpay for Kyrie though.

What classifies as overpay to you?

Probably the amount he'd actually cost. He's soon going to get the super max most likely. So I can't justify giving up lottery picks for him. I'd give up Melo and a top 12 protected pick. That's about it. They can get better offers. If we do pay more for him, I'll still be excited to see the team though.

so if you dont overpay your just another sub tier NBA team that doesnt have talent at the level Kyrie

Talent at the wrong price is no good. No team with Kyrie as its best player is going anywhere special. I'm not implying that things will be great if we don't overpay for guys like Kyrie. It depends on how intelligent the rebuilding is. $40 mil a year on Kyrie basically locks you into mediocrity or at least makes it a lot harder to have an elite team. (I expect he will get the supermax soon.) It also makes it a lot harder to have a terrible team since Kyrie is productive. Do we just want a fun, decent product? Kyrie would definitely help and I can understand that thinking. DJ seems to have a lot of fun watching the Raptors! It would be fun to watch Kyrie next year. Do we want to have an elite team? Kyrie is not good enough to be the best player on an elite team. We can't pay him like he is. Using 40% of the cap on him is too limiting, especially if we don't have productive lottery picks compensating for his high salary. (People are talking about giving up at least 1 lottery pick.) Now, if they can get him at a decent price, it gives us good options since we wouldn't have to re-sign him for the supermax, though I suspect we would end up doing that.

Shouldn't it also be kept in mind that since Kyrie has just 25 and as such he is only going to get better? Who is to say that he won't be a player worthy of a super max at the end of his 3 year tenure, especially after playing with arguably the greatest player to ever touch a basketball?

Statistically, there's not a lot of improving most players do after age 25 though there certainly are exceptions. Irving hasn't really improved that much in his first 6 years. His scoring volume and turnover rate are a bit better. That's about it. So, I wouldn't trade for him with the expectation that he'll become a new, better player.

John wall
Stephen curry
Isaiah Thomas
Kyle Lowry
Demare derozan
Brodie

Nearly all the league best guards have seen improvements post the year they turn 25. Why is Kyrie any different?

I'm not going to look up each one but I'm sure that in a league with 400 players, you'll find many who defy the general trend. The general trend is still the most likely trajectory, especially in the case of a player whose production has basically been a flat line all 6 years already.

The good thing is that we have a new, experienced GM who won't rush into a foolish trade. Thank God Mills won't be doing the negotiating as he overpaid for THJr and Baker. And Dolan is content to stay out of Knicks management.

The trade will have to be at least 3 teams as Melo will go to Houston. Kyrie here and Cleveland needs some good incoming players and picks. Probably 4 teams are needed but it can be done.

Perry, get it done.

Bonn1997 wrote:

Welpee wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

TPercy wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

TPercy wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

fishmike wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

TPercy wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

TPercy wrote:In 2015-16 and 2014-15 kyrie had a pass frequency of 24% and 23.8% to Kevin Love. However the numbers did drop to
17.9% in the most recent season but LBJ witnessed a near six percent increase in passes recurved from Kyrie. Derrick rose in comparison had a 17.6 pass frequency to KP. Without Melo, I think kyrie gets the ball to KP more.

And I'm sure Kyrie would be passing the ball more to Love if LeBron wasn't on the court. I don't think KP would have a problem playing with Kyrie. I think he'd be impressed with how much more efficient Kyrie is and he'd wonder why he ever liked playing with Melo. And I definitely think the team would win more than it's been wining. I still don't want to overpay for Kyrie though.

What classifies as overpay to you?

Probably the amount he'd actually cost. He's soon going to get the super max most likely. So I can't justify giving up lottery picks for him. I'd give up Melo and a top 12 protected pick. That's about it. They can get better offers. If we do pay more for him, I'll still be excited to see the team though.

so if you dont overpay your just another sub tier NBA team that doesnt have talent at the level Kyrie

Talent at the wrong price is no good. No team with Kyrie as its best player is going anywhere special. I'm not implying that things will be great if we don't overpay for guys like Kyrie. It depends on how intelligent the rebuilding is. $40 mil a year on Kyrie basically locks you into mediocrity or at least makes it a lot harder to have an elite team. (I expect he will get the supermax soon.) It also makes it a lot harder to have a terrible team since Kyrie is productive. Do we just want a fun, decent product? Kyrie would definitely help and I can understand that thinking. DJ seems to have a lot of fun watching the Raptors! It would be fun to watch Kyrie next year. Do we want to have an elite team? Kyrie is not good enough to be the best player on an elite team. We can't pay him like he is. Using 40% of the cap on him is too limiting, especially if we don't have productive lottery picks compensating for his high salary. (People are talking about giving up at least 1 lottery pick.) Now, if they can get him at a decent price, it gives us good options since we wouldn't have to re-sign him for the supermax, though I suspect we would end up doing that.

Shouldn't it also be kept in mind that since Kyrie has just 25 and as such he is only going to get better? Who is to say that he won't be a player worthy of a super max at the end of his 3 year tenure, especially after playing with arguably the greatest player to ever touch a basketball?

Statistically, there's not a lot of improving most players do after age 25 though there certainly are exceptions. Irving hasn't really improved that much in his first 6 years. His scoring volume and turnover rate are a bit better. That's about it. So, I wouldn't trade for him with the expectation that he'll become a new, better player.

John wall
Stephen curry
Isaiah Thomas
Kyle Lowry
Demare derozan
Brodie

Nearly all the league best guards have seen improvements post the year they turn 25. Why is Kyrie any different?

I'm not going to look up each one but I'm sure that in a league with 400 players, you'll find many who defy the general trend. The general trend is still the most likely trajectory, especially in the case of a player whose production has basically been a flat line all 6 years already.

Players are not just stats and numbers they're individuals. You have to look at each player individually not has a collective saying "well, since other players couldn't do ______ that means we shouldn't expect player X to do ______." Chauncey Billups is another example. He even developed into an all-defense player in his late 20s.

For every player in the league, you could imagine that they'll become much better. There's no need to give me examples of players who improved at an old age. I never denied that it has happened. I've not seen convincing evidence that anyone can predict which players will show this unexpected improvement though.
If Irving isn't playing with LeBron next year, I'd say it's more likely his shooting percentage goes down and turnovers go up than it is that he shows big improvement though either is obviously possible.

Markji wrote:

reub wrote:

Markji wrote:You definitely do the trade for Kyrie if it can be worked out. We need a pg now. We have needed a good pg for years. Kyrie fills that need. He was a #1 pick and has lived up to that level of expectation. In a trade he is worth Melo and 2 1st round picks. To expect any of our future 1st round picks to be anywhere near as good as Kyrie is a longshot and just wishful thinking.

The good thing is that we have a new, experienced GM who won't rush into a foolish trade. Thank God Mills won't be doing the negotiating as he overpaid for THJr and Baker. And Dolan is content to stay out of Knicks management.

The trade will have to be at least 3 teams as Melo will go to Houston. Kyrie here and Cleveland needs some good incoming players and picks. Probably 4 teams are needed but it can be done.

Perry, get it done.

Why do we need a point guard now? Are we going for the championship this year? Don't we have a promising young point guard already in young Frank? Can't we give him a little time to develop into our point guard of the future? We should NOT do another Melo trade and Kyrie is a younger, shorter Melo with bad knees.

No we won't win a championship this year if we get Kyrie, but we can have a very exciting team which will play Hornie's uptempo style game. It will be fun to watch and we should make the playoffs. The idea that we have to win a championship or its a bust season just doesn't go over with me. I'd like to watch good basketball and root my team on. Not sit around and bitch and moan how terrible the Knicks are.

And we get a better player back, i.e. Kyrie, than Melo in the trade. We're using Melo's value as a asset. Not just dumping Melo and his contract. or buying him out for $54 mil.

Exactly. This franchise has been so pathetic the last 2 decades that just becoming a perennial playoff team for the next several seasons would be a breath of fresh air.

The championship or bust mentality is stupid. 29 teams in the league have a 0% shot of winning it next year. Should they all just stop improving?

reub wrote:

Markji wrote:You definitely do the trade for Kyrie if it can be worked out. We need a pg now. We have needed a good pg for years. Kyrie fills that need. He was a #1 pick and has lived up to that level of expectation. In a trade he is worth Melo and 2 1st round picks. To expect any of our future 1st round picks to be anywhere near as good as Kyrie is a longshot and just wishful thinking.

The good thing is that we have a new, experienced GM who won't rush into a foolish trade. Thank God Mills won't be doing the negotiating as he overpaid for THJr and Baker. And Dolan is content to stay out of Knicks management.

The trade will have to be at least 3 teams as Melo will go to Houston. Kyrie here and Cleveland needs some good incoming players and picks. Probably 4 teams are needed but it can be done.

Perry, get it done.

Why do we need a point guard now? Are we going for the championship this year? Don't we have a promising young point guard already in young Frank? Can't we give him a little time to develop into our point guard of the future? We should NOT do another Melo trade and Kyrie is a younger, shorter Melo with bad knees.

The reason you do the Kyrie trade is because Kyrie's talent is better than everything the Knicks have right now and he fits the long-term timeline (On top of that, nobody has any idea what Frank is although I see the long-term plan is the two of them playing next to each other).

In Cleveland, Kyrie is a gunner because that's what they ask him do. LeBron is essentially the point guard there. He's the best ball handler in the league, he can drive, and he's a good 3-point shooter. It's a bit of a risk in the sense that the Knicks will probably ask him to distribute the ball a little more and nobody knows whether or not he can do that, but there is a price point where it's worth it to see. Like I think that if Cleveland asks for Melo and a couple of first round picks that I can attach some protections to, that's worth it to me to get Kyrie's talent because the Knicks could move Lee and O'Quinn later to recoup some of the lost draft assets in a Kyrie deal. I definitely don't move Porzingis, Hernangomez, or Frank N. combined with picks, but if some combination of Melo and picks or Melo and Lee gets a deal done I'm listening.

The biggest plus is that it adds another proven all-star to the Knicks. Considering that Melo isn't part of the future, right now New York has Porzingis, who's a little proven, and a lot of relatively average talent. Hardaway and Courtney Lee are average more or less, Hernangomez is probably a solid starter (but again there's no sample size to prove this) and Frank N. is a good prospect, but that doesn't always pan out.

Bonn1997 wrote:

TPercy wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

TPercy wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

TPercy wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

TPercy wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

fishmike wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

TPercy wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

TPercy wrote:In 2015-16 and 2014-15 kyrie had a pass frequency of 24% and 23.8% to Kevin Love. However the numbers did drop to
17.9% in the most recent season but LBJ witnessed a near six percent increase in passes recurved from Kyrie. Derrick rose in comparison had a 17.6 pass frequency to KP. Without Melo, I think kyrie gets the ball to KP more.

And I'm sure Kyrie would be passing the ball more to Love if LeBron wasn't on the court. I don't think KP would have a problem playing with Kyrie. I think he'd be impressed with how much more efficient Kyrie is and he'd wonder why he ever liked playing with Melo. And I definitely think the team would win more than it's been wining. I still don't want to overpay for Kyrie though.

What classifies as overpay to you?

Probably the amount he'd actually cost. He's soon going to get the super max most likely. So I can't justify giving up lottery picks for him. I'd give up Melo and a top 12 protected pick. That's about it. They can get better offers. If we do pay more for him, I'll still be excited to see the team though.

so if you dont overpay your just another sub tier NBA team that doesnt have talent at the level Kyrie

Talent at the wrong price is no good. No team with Kyrie as its best player is going anywhere special. I'm not implying that things will be great if we don't overpay for guys like Kyrie. It depends on how intelligent the rebuilding is. $40 mil a year on Kyrie basically locks you into mediocrity or at least makes it a lot harder to have an elite team. (I expect he will get the supermax soon.) It also makes it a lot harder to have a terrible team since Kyrie is productive. Do we just want a fun, decent product? Kyrie would definitely help and I can understand that thinking. DJ seems to have a lot of fun watching the Raptors! It would be fun to watch Kyrie next year. Do we want to have an elite team? Kyrie is not good enough to be the best player on an elite team. We can't pay him like he is. Using 40% of the cap on him is too limiting, especially if we don't have productive lottery picks compensating for his high salary. (People are talking about giving up at least 1 lottery pick.) Now, if they can get him at a decent price, it gives us good options since we wouldn't have to re-sign him for the supermax, though I suspect we would end up doing that.

Shouldn't it also be kept in mind that since Kyrie has just 25 and as such he is only going to get better? Who is to say that he won't be a player worthy of a super max at the end of his 3 year tenure, especially after playing with arguably the greatest player to ever touch a basketball?

Statistically, there's not a lot of improving most players do after age 25 though there certainly are exceptions. Irving hasn't really improved that much in his first 6 years. His scoring volume and turnover rate are a bit better. That's about it. So, I wouldn't trade for him with the expectation that he'll become a new, better player.

John wall
Stephen curry
Isaiah Thomas
Kyle Lowry
Demare derozan
Brodie

Nearly all the league best guards have seen improvements post the year they turn 25. Why is Kyrie any different?

I'm not going to look up each one but I'm sure that in a league with 400 players, you'll find many who defy the general trend. The general trend is still the most likely trajectory, especially in the case of a player whose production has basically been a flat line all 6 years already.

Yeah but kyrie Irving is not just any league player and we have established that. Kyrie has just as much raw talent as those players mentioned. Second of all, player growth isn't something that is always linear. Look at John Wall a player for the most part was obsessed with being a showman rather than a winner for most of his career until the most recent season where he started to play more aggressively.

Any trade is a gamble based on probabilities since the future is unknown. Is it more likely than not that a straight line stays straight? Yes. Is it guaranteed? Of course not. How many players get better once they stop playing with LeBron? He's considered one of the best in terms of elevating his teammates.

Let me put it to you this way: how many guards in the NBA right now who are 25 years old and younger are better than or as good as kyrie? (The only names I can think of are Bradley Beal(24) and the Greek Freak.)

First we'd have to agree on what "better" means. What metrics are you looking at? Are you going by what you see rather than numbers? Based on what I see (scoring specialist who struggles in other areas of the game) and the numbers, I'd call Irving a top 30 player/borderline all-star. Someone who greatly values PPG and flashiness will rank Irving much higher. In terms of rating by position, I'd have to actually sit down and look at all the guards in the league. I'd also have to take into account that Irving doesn't really fit either guard position. If he's a top 30 player and we're soon going to pay him like he's a top 5 player, that's like paying $4 mil for a $1 mil house. Great house. Bad deal.

What guard at the age of 25 million or younger is better than Kyrie from using advanced metrics and the eye test? I ask this because assuming that there is only a small list of players better than him, who is to say that Kyrie won't be among the NBA's best in his prime since he is the best within his age group right now?

TPercy wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

TPercy wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

TPercy wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

TPercy wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

TPercy wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

fishmike wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

TPercy wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

TPercy wrote:In 2015-16 and 2014-15 kyrie had a pass frequency of 24% and 23.8% to Kevin Love. However the numbers did drop to
17.9% in the most recent season but LBJ witnessed a near six percent increase in passes recurved from Kyrie. Derrick rose in comparison had a 17.6 pass frequency to KP. Without Melo, I think kyrie gets the ball to KP more.

And I'm sure Kyrie would be passing the ball more to Love if LeBron wasn't on the court. I don't think KP would have a problem playing with Kyrie. I think he'd be impressed with how much more efficient Kyrie is and he'd wonder why he ever liked playing with Melo. And I definitely think the team would win more than it's been wining. I still don't want to overpay for Kyrie though.

What classifies as overpay to you?

Probably the amount he'd actually cost. He's soon going to get the super max most likely. So I can't justify giving up lottery picks for him. I'd give up Melo and a top 12 protected pick. That's about it. They can get better offers. If we do pay more for him, I'll still be excited to see the team though.

so if you dont overpay your just another sub tier NBA team that doesnt have talent at the level Kyrie

Talent at the wrong price is no good. No team with Kyrie as its best player is going anywhere special. I'm not implying that things will be great if we don't overpay for guys like Kyrie. It depends on how intelligent the rebuilding is. $40 mil a year on Kyrie basically locks you into mediocrity or at least makes it a lot harder to have an elite team. (I expect he will get the supermax soon.) It also makes it a lot harder to have a terrible team since Kyrie is productive. Do we just want a fun, decent product? Kyrie would definitely help and I can understand that thinking. DJ seems to have a lot of fun watching the Raptors! It would be fun to watch Kyrie next year. Do we want to have an elite team? Kyrie is not good enough to be the best player on an elite team. We can't pay him like he is. Using 40% of the cap on him is too limiting, especially if we don't have productive lottery picks compensating for his high salary. (People are talking about giving up at least 1 lottery pick.) Now, if they can get him at a decent price, it gives us good options since we wouldn't have to re-sign him for the supermax, though I suspect we would end up doing that.

Shouldn't it also be kept in mind that since Kyrie has just 25 and as such he is only going to get better? Who is to say that he won't be a player worthy of a super max at the end of his 3 year tenure, especially after playing with arguably the greatest player to ever touch a basketball?

Statistically, there's not a lot of improving most players do after age 25 though there certainly are exceptions. Irving hasn't really improved that much in his first 6 years. His scoring volume and turnover rate are a bit better. That's about it. So, I wouldn't trade for him with the expectation that he'll become a new, better player.

John wall
Stephen curry
Isaiah Thomas
Kyle Lowry
Demare derozan
Brodie

Nearly all the league best guards have seen improvements post the year they turn 25. Why is Kyrie any different?

I'm not going to look up each one but I'm sure that in a league with 400 players, you'll find many who defy the general trend. The general trend is still the most likely trajectory, especially in the case of a player whose production has basically been a flat line all 6 years already.

Yeah but kyrie Irving is not just any league player and we have established that. Kyrie has just as much raw talent as those players mentioned. Second of all, player growth isn't something that is always linear. Look at John Wall a player for the most part was obsessed with being a showman rather than a winner for most of his career until the most recent season where he started to play more aggressively.

Any trade is a gamble based on probabilities since the future is unknown. Is it more likely than not that a straight line stays straight? Yes. Is it guaranteed? Of course not. How many players get better once they stop playing with LeBron? He's considered one of the best in terms of elevating his teammates.

Let me put it to you this way: how many guards in the NBA right now who are 25 years old and younger are better than or as good as kyrie? (The only names I can think of are Bradley Beal(24) and the Greek Freak.)

First we'd have to agree on what "better" means. What metrics are you looking at? Are you going by what you see rather than numbers? Based on what I see (scoring specialist who struggles in other areas of the game) and the numbers, I'd call Irving a top 30 player/borderline all-star. Someone who greatly values PPG and flashiness will rank Irving much higher. In terms of rating by position, I'd have to actually sit down and look at all the guards in the league. I'd also have to take into account that Irving doesn't really fit either guard position. If he's a top 30 player and we're soon going to pay him like he's a top 5 player, that's like paying $4 mil for a $1 mil house. Great house. Bad deal.

What guard at the age of 25 million or younger is better than Kyrie from using advanced metrics and the eye test? I ask this because assuming that there is only a small list of players better than him, who is to say that Kyrie won't be among the NBA's best in his prime since he is the best within his age group right now?

Better from a cost perspective? On the current contract or an anticipated supermax? There's no one agreed upon way to answer these questions. If you want to look at the cost of each win ($40 mil salary divided by his win share total), he would rank pretty poorly. I'm going to guess his WS48 ranking is around 40. (BBall reference only shows the top 20 but he's nowhere near that.) I don't any stats other than PPG will say he's better than top 25 or 30. So paying him like a top 5 player would be a terrible deal.

I wouldn't focus just on guards. FA money can be used on any position and team rosters are so fluid. Just because we need a PG now doesn't mean that would be our biggest need in 12 months even if we don't get Kyrie. But if you want to see which guards are clearly ahead of him, you could look at the leader board on basketball reference as a starting point.
https://www.basketball-reference.com/leagues/NBA_2017_leaders.html
You could scroll down to see the top 20 for win shares per 48 and box plus minus. It's worth taking a look at the offensive and defensive ratings too. These ratings just value efficiency not total production, though. All of these stats are towards the bottom of the page.

This is just a start. Kyrie's defensive player tracking stats on nba.com are worrisome.

Markji wrote:

reub wrote:

Markji wrote:You definitely do the trade for Kyrie if it can be worked out. We need a pg now. We have needed a good pg for years. Kyrie fills that need. He was a #1 pick and has lived up to that level of expectation. In a trade he is worth Melo and 2 1st round picks. To expect any of our future 1st round picks to be anywhere near as good as Kyrie is a longshot and just wishful thinking.

The good thing is that we have a new, experienced GM who won't rush into a foolish trade. Thank God Mills won't be doing the negotiating as he overpaid for THJr and Baker. And Dolan is content to stay out of Knicks management.

The trade will have to be at least 3 teams as Melo will go to Houston. Kyrie here and Cleveland needs some good incoming players and picks. Probably 4 teams are needed but it can be done.

Perry, get it done.

Why do we need a point guard now? Are we going for the championship this year? Don't we have a promising young point guard already in young Frank? Can't we give him a little time to develop into our point guard of the future? We should NOT do another Melo trade and Kyrie is a younger, shorter Melo with bad knees.

No we won't win a championship this year if we get Kyrie, but we can have a very exciting team which will play Hornie's uptempo style game. It will be fun to watch and we should make the playoffs. The idea that we have to win a championship or its a bust season just doesn't go over with me. I'd like to watch good basketball and root my team on. Not sit around and bitch and moan how terrible the Knicks are.

And we get a better player back, i.e. Kyrie, than Melo in the trade. We're using Melo's value as a asset. Not just dumping Melo and his contract. or buying him out for $54 mil.

Two future firsts is mortgaging our future, and we should ONLY do that if we're ready to contend now. If we can't get it done with a single future first and other assets, we should walk away.

GoNyGoNyGo wrote:Begley has a column out today.

Basically, saying that a trade for Kyrie is going to cost Melo and picks or KP with picks and or Frank.

http://www.espn.com/blog/new-york/knicks/post/_/id/66705/houston-remains-carmelo-anthonys-top-priority-which-makes-kyrie-irving-to-the-knicks-a-long-shot

If I am NY, I say No thanks. The only offer, I would give them is Melo, a protected 1st rounder in 2020. In return, I would want Irving and perhaps a salary to match contracts.

My question is why are columnists so quick to offer up the teams best player and foundation piece like KP? With no KP, why would Irving want to come here? 2 picks for Irving? A bit high considering Irving has only 2 years left on his deal. As I said earlier, I like Kyrie but he is not a TEAM CHANGER type player. He has not shown the ability to be the main man when LBJ was in Miami. I know he was young but current stats when Lebron was out are similar.

NY must stand firm with the plan. 1 pick, no more, no Frank and definitely no KP. If that means they don't get him, so be it.

way too much. i would offer melo and throw ins, not picks

Kyrie has essentially advertised he wants to leave in 2 years and is probably not a happy camper this year

NO PICKs, no KP, no Frank