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.

+1000. Stand firm unless the deal suits NYKs needs. Kyrie ain't Lebron. Writers saying give up KP are morons.

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.

Melo/KOQ plus two top 3 protected #1s for Kyrie, Shumpert and Frye has some potential. Cle gets a couple of picks, Knicks get two 3 protection but barring winning the lottery most likely give them up. Cavs drop $6.5mm payroll with this and I believe as a luxury repeater that a 2.5x savings slashing $15mm in cost. I think this would be hard to pass up (for the Knicks). For the Cavs, maybe they can do better. Maybe not.

fishmike wrote:

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.

Does he have to be THE main man? I mean your adding him to Frank/THjr/Willy/KP... plus you still have guys like Lee, Lance, Noah... suddenly that group looks different no? And the main 5 guys are all younger than 25 so you create a situation where your roster has great upside (KP/Willy/Frank), some more seasoned firepower in the backcourt (Kyrie/THjr) and some hopefuls (Baker/Dotson).

Melo/KOQ plus two top 3 protected #1s for Kyrie, Shumpert and Frye has some potential. Cle gets a couple of picks, Knicks get two 3 protection but barring winning the lottery most likely give them up. Cavs drop $6.5mm payroll with this and I believe as a luxury repeater that a 2.5x savings slashing $15mm in cost. I think this would be hard to pass up (for the Knicks). For the Cavs, maybe they can do better. Maybe not.

If Kyrie leaves in 2 years, giving up 2 picks will hurt too much.

Allanfan20 wrote:If we gave up all of that and Kyrie left, it would be a disaster on so many fronts or it would expose just how big of a disaster the Knicks have become.

It's not much better if he stays and is taking up almost half the cap for 5 years.

Bonn1997 wrote:

Allanfan20 wrote:If we gave up all of that and Kyrie left, it would be a disaster on so many fronts or it would expose just how big of a disaster the Knicks have become.

It's not much better if he stays and is taking up almost half the cap for 5 years.

Allanfan20 wrote:

fishmike wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

Allanfan20 wrote:If we gave up all of that and Kyrie left, it would be a disaster on so many fronts or it would expose just how big of a disaster the Knicks have become.

It's not much better if he stays and is taking up almost half the cap for 5 years.

why? if we drafted him, extended him and he was due for his huge max you wouldnt pay him? You would just say "too much" and let him walk for nothing?

The extension is worth it if we become contenders with him but if we don't, then it's not.

People too often judge these situations in a vacuum. Guys like Conley and Holiday are probably overpaid. Somehow somewhere guys like Bonn have spun "overpaying" into some dire catastrophic mistake. Can someone show me all the teams that are doing great because they let their own high end talent walk out of fear of overpaying? Sure, nobody wants a bunch of bad contracts. However the reason they exist in the first place is teams are hurt far more by losing talent than overpaying for it. Its really that simple. Its why teams not only offer crazy money to RFA, but why those teams generally match as well. Except of course the Hawks

Allanfan20 wrote:

fishmike wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

Allanfan20 wrote:If we gave up all of that and Kyrie left, it would be a disaster on so many fronts or it would expose just how big of a disaster the Knicks have become.

It's not much better if he stays and is taking up almost half the cap for 5 years.

why? if we drafted him, extended him and he was due for his huge max you wouldnt pay him? You would just say "too much" and let him walk for nothing?

The extension is worth it if we become contenders with him but if we don't, then it's not.

Exactly. That's what I said in like 10 sentences but you put it very well.

meloshouldgo wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

Welpee wrote:

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.

No, fans can't predict it. Sport writers can't predict it. But the people best able to determine if a player is capable of making such a transition would be coaches, GMs, scouts and other people paid to evaluate talent. So just because message board posters aren't privy to such information and knowledge we shouldn't assume others in the business can't make reasonable assessments regarding a player. People try to make it seem like when situations like with Billups happens it's just pure luck.

I think you overrate GMs, scouts, etc. This stuff is pretty much unknowable IMO. Any time something happens to work out way better than expected, it's easy to say "that GM must be a genius!" but he may just be lucky. Or it may be mostly luck and a little skill. Twice a day a broken clock is right after all.
I would not say there's any reason that a GM or scout using their eyes would be any better at predicting player development than a mathematical approach. A mathematical approach could look at the player's general trend and could see how the player does in the kinds of situations he'd be used in on your team. Ideally, a team would incorporate this approach and an eyeball approach and would hopefully also have plenty of LUCK.

I agree, luck is usually rewarded as competence almost on a daily basis and not just in the NBA The only way to truly eliminate luck is to look for larger and larger sample sizes, there I said it. 😂
I also agree that players should not be judged based on stats only.

Bonn1997 wrote:

fishmike wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

Allanfan20 wrote:If we gave up all of that and Kyrie left, it would be a disaster on so many fronts or it would expose just how big of a disaster the Knicks have become.

It's not much better if he stays and is taking up almost half the cap for 5 years.

why? if we drafted him, extended him and he was due for his huge max you wouldnt pay him? You would just say "too much" and let him walk for nothing?

If the cost of Irving is 2 lottery picks and $40 mil per year, that is not the same as extending him after you drafted him, in which case the cost is $40 mil and you have your own picks (which partly helps off-set the cost). I'm gonna guess that the average lottery pick gives production worth at least $10 mil a year (probably more like $15 mil). How much would KP be making right now? The average lottery pick is definitely as productive as Lee ($12 mil). With an average lottery pick you've probably got at least $10 mil in surplus production per year (production minus salary). $40 mil plus giving up 2 lottery picks is more like paying Kyrie $60 or mil and having your own picks IMO.

Also, I'm not sure if I would extend Kyrie or trade him before he hit free agency if we already had him. (I think I said a million times I wanted the Knicks to trade Melo before he hit free agency.) It would depend on our team's situation. If we were already an elite team and completely capped out anyway, I'd probably extend him. Otherwise, I'd trade him. But I'd know well in advance of the trade deadline what I wanted to do.

I know Irving is a good player and it would be exciting to have him but this is a case where delay of gratification is a better gamble IMO.

I miss your logic.. how we acquire Irving is a factor on whether or not paying him 2 years later makes sense?

fishmike wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

fishmike wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

Allanfan20 wrote:If we gave up all of that and Kyrie left, it would be a disaster on so many fronts or it would expose just how big of a disaster the Knicks have become.

It's not much better if he stays and is taking up almost half the cap for 5 years.

why? if we drafted him, extended him and he was due for his huge max you wouldnt pay him? You would just say "too much" and let him walk for nothing?

If the cost of Irving is 2 lottery picks and $40 mil per year, that is not the same as extending him after you drafted him, in which case the cost is $40 mil and you have your own picks (which partly helps off-set the cost). I'm gonna guess that the average lottery pick gives production worth at least $10 mil a year (probably more like $15 mil). How much would KP be making right now? The average lottery pick is definitely as productive as Lee ($12 mil). With an average lottery pick you've probably got at least $10 mil in surplus production per year (production minus salary). $40 mil plus giving up 2 lottery picks is more like paying Kyrie $60 or mil and having your own picks IMO.

Also, I'm not sure if I would extend Kyrie or trade him before he hit free agency if we already had him. (I think I said a million times I wanted the Knicks to trade Melo before he hit free agency.) It would depend on our team's situation. If we were already an elite team and completely capped out anyway, I'd probably extend him. Otherwise, I'd trade him. But I'd know well in advance of the trade deadline what I wanted to do.

I know Irving is a good player and it would be exciting to have him but this is a case where delay of gratification is a better gamble IMO.

How many stars of Irving's caliber get traded before hitting FA?

I miss your logic.. how we acquire Irving is a factor on whether or not paying him 2 years later makes sense?

IMO he's really just an excellent scoring specialist who's average to below average in most parts of the game, including below average in the entire defensive half of the game. I think Butler is better on both ends of the court and we could have gotten him much cheaper.

On a side note, now that the supermax is so high, you will probably see more teams go the Butler/George/Cousins route of trading players before free agency. That doesn't mean it's always a good decision - the Bulls got too little for Butler. But I think it will be much more common and in a few years we'll be talking about which teams made smart and which made bad all-star trades before free agency.

Tweet was deleted or there was problem with the URL:

https://twitter.com/BleacherReport/status/890249386697142273

Hmmm...it could be just that he is on his way back from China....OR....