meloshouldgo wrote:

joec32033 wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:

reub wrote:No to trading our young kids and future draft picks for a high scoring, ball-hogging, no defense kind of guy. Haven't we learned our lesson yet?

No I don't think we have, NY is the definition of the perpetual starfukk. The next shiny object always wins. Because THIS time it will be different.

I hate that stupid "starfukk" term. Anytime someone disagrees with a trade it's a starfukk. It went from being a term that meant trading for old past their prime names because it make a splash to now apparently meaning trading for any star because it's not homegrown talent just because someone happens to not like a trade. It's turned into the UK version of "Yo momma". It's so "fukking" lame.

You can disagree with it all you like. To me anytime we overpay for one dimensional players who can only do one thing will and are "all star" or worse "all star potential" it's starfukking. It's not about the age of the player we are trading for it's about the skillset and the fit and whether we are overpaying for him or not. In my opinion Kyrie can do only one thing well, he doesn't fit our chosen path of young athletic players that play good defense he is at the outside limit of the age range we are supposedly looking at and giving up draft picks and or Frank would basically mean we are repeating the Melo trade. So in my opinion it's just another dumb starfukk and that's what I am going to call it

How many top players in the NBA are great 2 way players? Lebron, Kawai, Klay, maybe a guy like Anthony Davis....Every player has faults and they key to winning is building a team that can compensate for each other's faults. You wanna keep getting low cost high risk high reward guys like Chason Randle, Jonathan Simmons, whoever fine. Your success rate will be like 5%. Eventually you need proven players.

joec32033 wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:

joec32033 wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:

reub wrote:No to trading our young kids and future draft picks for a high scoring, ball-hogging, no defense kind of guy. Haven't we learned our lesson yet?

No I don't think we have, NY is the definition of the perpetual starfukk. The next shiny object always wins. Because THIS time it will be different.

I hate that stupid "starfukk" term. Anytime someone disagrees with a trade it's a starfukk. It went from being a term that meant trading for old past their prime names because it make a splash to now apparently meaning trading for any star because it's not homegrown talent just because someone happens to not like a trade. It's turned into the UK version of "Yo momma". It's so "fukking" lame.

You can disagree with it all you like. To me anytime we overpay for one dimensional players who can only do one thing will and are "all star" or worse "all star potential" it's starfukking. It's not about the age of the player we are trading for it's about the skillset and the fit and whether we are overpaying for him or not. In my opinion Kyrie can do only one thing well, he doesn't fit our chosen path of young athletic players that play good defense he is at the outside limit of the age range we are supposedly looking at and giving up draft picks and or Frank would basically mean we are repeating the Melo trade. So in my opinion it's just another dumb starfukk and that's what I am going to call it

How many top players in the NBA are great 2 way players? Lebron, Kawai, Klay, maybe a guy like Anthony Davis....Every player has faults and they key to winning is building a team that can compensate for each other's faults. You wanna keep getting low cost high risk high reward guys like Chason Randle, Jonathan Simmons, whoever fine. Your success rate will be like 5%. Eventually you need proven players.

Bonn1997 wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:

joec32033 wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:

reub wrote:No to trading our young kids and future draft picks for a high scoring, ball-hogging, no defense kind of guy. Haven't we learned our lesson yet?

No I don't think we have, NY is the definition of the perpetual starfukk. The next shiny object always wins. Because THIS time it will be different.

I hate that stupid "starfukk" term. Anytime someone disagrees with a trade it's a starfukk. It went from being a term that meant trading for old past their prime names because it make a splash to now apparently meaning trading for any star because it's not homegrown talent just because someone happens to not like a trade. It's turned into the UK version of "Yo momma". It's so "fukking" lame.

You can disagree with it all you like. To me anytime we overpay for one dimensional players who can only do one thing will and are "all star" or worse "all star potential" it's starfukking. It's not about the age of the player we are trading for it's about the skillset and the fit and whether we are overpaying for him or not. In my opinion Kyrie can do only one thing well, he doesn't fit our chosen path of young athletic players that play good defense he is at the outside limit of the age range we are supposedly looking at and giving up draft picks and or Frank would basically mean we are repeating the Melo trade. So in my opinion it's just another dumb starfukk and that's what I am going to call it

I agree with all of this. If he did that one thing as well as Curry or Durant, that would be another story.

So there are exceptions.Curry is 29 now. He didn't start becoming the Curry we know now until at furthest back 2012-2013. He was 24-25 at that time.

Bonn1997 wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:

joec32033 wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:

reub wrote:No to trading our young kids and future draft picks for a high scoring, ball-hogging, no defense kind of guy. Haven't we learned our lesson yet?

No I don't think we have, NY is the definition of the perpetual starfukk. The next shiny object always wins. Because THIS time it will be different.

I hate that stupid "starfukk" term. Anytime someone disagrees with a trade it's a starfukk. It went from being a term that meant trading for old past their prime names because it make a splash to now apparently meaning trading for any star because it's not homegrown talent just because someone happens to not like a trade. It's turned into the UK version of "Yo momma". It's so "fukking" lame.

You can disagree with it all you like. To me anytime we overpay for one dimensional players who can only do one thing will and are "all star" or worse "all star potential" it's starfukking. It's not about the age of the player we are trading for it's about the skillset and the fit and whether we are overpaying for him or not. In my opinion Kyrie can do only one thing well, he doesn't fit our chosen path of young athletic players that play good defense he is at the outside limit of the age range we are supposedly looking at and giving up draft picks and or Frank would basically mean we are repeating the Melo trade. So in my opinion it's just another dumb starfukk and that's what I am going to call it

Also, considering how excited some here are about getting Kyrie, I'm surprised no one has disagreed with me when I've been calling him just a top 40 NBA player. I'm not going to actually take the time to count every player that I think is better than Kyrie now, but I'll go through the list at PG. If we ignore age for a minute and just look at current performance, I'd put these players (in no particular order) ahead of Kyrie: Chris Paul, Isaiah Thomas, James Harden, Russell Westbrook, Kyle Lowry, and Damian Lillard. I'd say he's tied with Mike Conley. I'd put Kyrie ahead of John Wall but I'm sure some would disagree. I'll say he's tied for 7th at his position, which would extrapolate to around 35th to 40th in the league, though a better analysis would actually count the players at each position. (If we're considering age and long-term planning, I'd have to go through the list again. Some of those guys I'd remove but I'm sure there are younger players on cheaper contracts that I'd throw in ahead of Kyrie too.)

Thomas Harden Lillard all are almost non defenders, Harden was one dimensional until he had the ball 95% of the time, and while I cant look it up now, i am willing to bet Kyrie had stats similar to Millard and Thomas, and was in a different league than Conley, although I look at Irving as Conley on roids.

nixluva wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

joec32033 wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:

joec32033 wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:

reub wrote:No to trading our young kids and future draft picks for a high scoring, ball-hogging, no defense kind of guy. Haven't we learned our lesson yet?

No I don't think we have, NY is the definition of the perpetual starfukk. The next shiny object always wins. Because THIS time it will be different.

I hate that stupid "starfukk" term. Anytime someone disagrees with a trade it's a starfukk. It went from being a term that meant trading for old past their prime names because it make a splash to now apparently meaning trading for any star because it's not homegrown talent just because someone happens to not like a trade. It's turned into the UK version of "Yo momma". It's so "fukking" lame.

You can disagree with it all you like. To me anytime we overpay for one dimensional players who can only do one thing will and are "all star" or worse "all star potential" it's starfukking. It's not about the age of the player we are trading for it's about the skillset and the fit and whether we are overpaying for him or not. In my opinion Kyrie can do only one thing well, he doesn't fit our chosen path of young athletic players that play good defense he is at the outside limit of the age range we are supposedly looking at and giving up draft picks and or Frank would basically mean we are repeating the Melo trade. So in my opinion it's just another dumb starfukk and that's what I am going to call it

How many top players in the NBA are great 2 way players? Lebron, Kawai, Klay, maybe a guy like Anthony Davis....Every player has faults and they key to winning is building a team that can compensate for each other's faults. You wanna keep getting low cost high risk high reward guys like Chason Randle, Jonathan Simmons, whoever fine. Your success rate will be like 5%. Eventually you need proven players.

There's a difference between being a one way player and a one dimensional player, though. Steve Nash was a one way player but he excelled at everything on offense. Kyrie is a one dimensional player, as he is more of a scoring specialist.

You know people keep saying this but in the entire NBA Kyrie does actually pass the ball a lot

In terms of general production Kyrie is one of the top PG's

Hollinger Stats - Player Efficiency Rating - Qualified Point Guards
RK	PLAYER	                GP	MPG	TS%	AST	TO	USG	ORR	DRR	REBR	PER	VA	EWA
1	Russell Westbrook, OKC	81	34.6	.554	23.4	12.2	42.5	5.4	28.8	17.1	30.70	823.7	27.5
2	Isaiah Thomas, BOS	76	33.8	.625	18.5	8.7	32.8	1.9	7.0	4.4	26.59	597.9	19.9
3	Chris Paul, LAC	        61	31.5	.614	35.0	9.1	25.8	2.4	14.9	8.8	26.25	437.3	14.6
4	Stephen Curry, GS	79	33.4	.624	22.2	10.1	29.5	2.7	11.4	7.3	24.74	541.1	18.0
5	Damian Lillard, POR	75	35.9	.586	18.6	8.3	30.7	1.9	13.3	7.6	24.15	528.7	17.6
6	John Wall, WSH	        78	36.4	.541	29.5	11.4	31.7	2.4	10.6	6.5	23.28	519.7	17.3
7	Mike Conley, MEM	69	33.2	.604	24.6	8.9	26.8	1.5	10.8	6.0	23.26	419.3	14.0
8	Kyrie Irving, CLE	72	35.1	.580	19.3	8.3	29.9	2.3	7.5	5.0	23.09	455.6	15.2
9	Kyle Lowry, TOR	        60	37.4	.623	25.0	10.4	25.2	2.4	12.0	7.2	22.92	399.1	13.3
10	Kemba Walker, CHA	79	34.7	.569	19.6	7.6	28.3	1.8	10.6	6.2	21.41	425.4	14.2

I believe if Kyrie was on the Knicks he'd improve on these numbers. Jeff has had PG's exactly like Kyrie and had some success with them.

Bonn1997 wrote:

joec32033 wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:

joec32033 wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:

reub wrote:No to trading our young kids and future draft picks for a high scoring, ball-hogging, no defense kind of guy. Haven't we learned our lesson yet?

No I don't think we have, NY is the definition of the perpetual starfukk. The next shiny object always wins. Because THIS time it will be different.

I hate that stupid "starfukk" term. Anytime someone disagrees with a trade it's a starfukk. It went from being a term that meant trading for old past their prime names because it make a splash to now apparently meaning trading for any star because it's not homegrown talent just because someone happens to not like a trade. It's turned into the UK version of "Yo momma". It's so "fukking" lame.

You can disagree with it all you like. To me anytime we overpay for one dimensional players who can only do one thing will and are "all star" or worse "all star potential" it's starfukking. It's not about the age of the player we are trading for it's about the skillset and the fit and whether we are overpaying for him or not. In my opinion Kyrie can do only one thing well, he doesn't fit our chosen path of young athletic players that play good defense he is at the outside limit of the age range we are supposedly looking at and giving up draft picks and or Frank would basically mean we are repeating the Melo trade. So in my opinion it's just another dumb starfukk and that's what I am going to call it

Also, considering how excited some here are about getting Kyrie, I'm surprised no one has disagreed with me when I've been calling him just a top 40 NBA player. I'm not going to actually take the time to count every player that I think is better than Kyrie now, but I'll go through the list at PG. If we ignore age for a minute and just look at current performance, I'd put these players (in no particular order) ahead of Kyrie: Chris Paul, Isaiah Thomas, James Harden, Russell Westbrook, Kyle Lowry, and Damian Lillard. I'd say he's tied with Mike Conley. I'd put Kyrie ahead of John Wall but I'm sure some would disagree. I'll say he's tied for 7th at his position, which would extrapolate to around 35th to 40th in the league, though a better analysis would actually count the players at each position. (If we're considering age and long-term planning, I'd have to go through the list again. Some of those guys I'd remove but I'm sure there are younger players on cheaper contracts that I'd throw in ahead of Kyrie too.)

Thomas Harden Lillard all are almost non defenders, Harden was one dimensional until he had the ball 95% of the time, and while I cant look it up now, i am willing to bet Kyrie had stats similar to Millard and Thomas, and was in a different league than Conley, although I look at Irving as Conley on roids.

That puts them on par with Irving then. It would be interesting to compare their opponent FG%s. I'll try to do that later today.

You said those guys were all better markedly better than Irving. Half of them have the same knock as Irving and Irving put up comparable number-i haven't had a chance to look them up but other than Westbrook and Harden, and Paul's assists, I am willing to bet they are similar. And his numbers are flat out better than Conley.

joec32033 wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

joec32033 wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:

joec32033 wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:

reub wrote:No to trading our young kids and future draft picks for a high scoring, ball-hogging, no defense kind of guy. Haven't we learned our lesson yet?

No I don't think we have, NY is the definition of the perpetual starfukk. The next shiny object always wins. Because THIS time it will be different.

I hate that stupid "starfukk" term. Anytime someone disagrees with a trade it's a starfukk. It went from being a term that meant trading for old past their prime names because it make a splash to now apparently meaning trading for any star because it's not homegrown talent just because someone happens to not like a trade. It's turned into the UK version of "Yo momma". It's so "fukking" lame.

You can disagree with it all you like. To me anytime we overpay for one dimensional players who can only do one thing will and are "all star" or worse "all star potential" it's starfukking. It's not about the age of the player we are trading for it's about the skillset and the fit and whether we are overpaying for him or not. In my opinion Kyrie can do only one thing well, he doesn't fit our chosen path of young athletic players that play good defense he is at the outside limit of the age range we are supposedly looking at and giving up draft picks and or Frank would basically mean we are repeating the Melo trade. So in my opinion it's just another dumb starfukk and that's what I am going to call it

Also, considering how excited some here are about getting Kyrie, I'm surprised no one has disagreed with me when I've been calling him just a top 40 NBA player. I'm not going to actually take the time to count every player that I think is better than Kyrie now, but I'll go through the list at PG. If we ignore age for a minute and just look at current performance, I'd put these players (in no particular order) ahead of Kyrie: Chris Paul, Isaiah Thomas, James Harden, Russell Westbrook, Kyle Lowry, and Damian Lillard. I'd say he's tied with Mike Conley. I'd put Kyrie ahead of John Wall but I'm sure some would disagree. I'll say he's tied for 7th at his position, which would extrapolate to around 35th to 40th in the league, though a better analysis would actually count the players at each position. (If we're considering age and long-term planning, I'd have to go through the list again. Some of those guys I'd remove but I'm sure there are younger players on cheaper contracts that I'd throw in ahead of Kyrie too.)

Thomas Harden Lillard all are almost non defenders, Harden was one dimensional until he had the ball 95% of the time, and while I cant look it up now, i am willing to bet Kyrie had stats similar to Millard and Thomas, and was in a different league than Conley, although I look at Irving as Conley on roids.

That puts them on par with Irving then. It would be interesting to compare their opponent FG%s. I'll try to do that later today.

You said those guys were all better markedly better than Irving. Half of them have the same knock as Irving and Irving put up comparable number-i haven't had a chance to look them up but other than Westbrook and Harden, and Paul's assists, I am willing to bet they are similar. And his numbers are flat out better than Conley.

Memphis made the playoffs in the West with not much on their squad. Gasol, past it Randolph, & Conley. Broken down Parson who had a terrible year injury plagued year. Conley held a 209 WS48 which is better then what Irving held with more talent. Conley put up a .604 TS% which is great for a guard and also better than Irving. Conley held higher Win Shares offensively and defensively. Held a higher Offensive plus minus and Defensive plus minus and doubled Irving in Box plus minus which is the total score of both. As well as a higher Value Over Replacement than Irving. Outperformed Irving in per 100 possessions offensive rating & defensive rating 120-108 to 116-112.

Conley was a flat out better player then Irving last year with less help vs tougher comp.

joec32033 wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

joec32033 wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:

joec32033 wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:

reub wrote:No to trading our young kids and future draft picks for a high scoring, ball-hogging, no defense kind of guy. Haven't we learned our lesson yet?

No I don't think we have, NY is the definition of the perpetual starfukk. The next shiny object always wins. Because THIS time it will be different.

I hate that stupid "starfukk" term. Anytime someone disagrees with a trade it's a starfukk. It went from being a term that meant trading for old past their prime names because it make a splash to now apparently meaning trading for any star because it's not homegrown talent just because someone happens to not like a trade. It's turned into the UK version of "Yo momma". It's so "fukking" lame.

You can disagree with it all you like. To me anytime we overpay for one dimensional players who can only do one thing will and are "all star" or worse "all star potential" it's starfukking. It's not about the age of the player we are trading for it's about the skillset and the fit and whether we are overpaying for him or not. In my opinion Kyrie can do only one thing well, he doesn't fit our chosen path of young athletic players that play good defense he is at the outside limit of the age range we are supposedly looking at and giving up draft picks and or Frank would basically mean we are repeating the Melo trade. So in my opinion it's just another dumb starfukk and that's what I am going to call it

Also, considering how excited some here are about getting Kyrie, I'm surprised no one has disagreed with me when I've been calling him just a top 40 NBA player. I'm not going to actually take the time to count every player that I think is better than Kyrie now, but I'll go through the list at PG. If we ignore age for a minute and just look at current performance, I'd put these players (in no particular order) ahead of Kyrie: Chris Paul, Isaiah Thomas, James Harden, Russell Westbrook, Kyle Lowry, and Damian Lillard. I'd say he's tied with Mike Conley. I'd put Kyrie ahead of John Wall but I'm sure some would disagree. I'll say he's tied for 7th at his position, which would extrapolate to around 35th to 40th in the league, though a better analysis would actually count the players at each position. (If we're considering age and long-term planning, I'd have to go through the list again. Some of those guys I'd remove but I'm sure there are younger players on cheaper contracts that I'd throw in ahead of Kyrie too.)

Thomas Harden Lillard all are almost non defenders, Harden was one dimensional until he had the ball 95% of the time, and while I cant look it up now, i am willing to bet Kyrie had stats similar to Millard and Thomas, and was in a different league than Conley, although I look at Irving as Conley on roids.

That puts them on par with Irving then. It would be interesting to compare their opponent FG%s. I'll try to do that later today.

You said those guys were all better markedly better than Irving. Half of them have the same knock as Irving and Irving put up comparable number-i haven't had a chance to look them up but other than Westbrook and Harden, and Paul's assists, I am willing to bet they are similar. And his numbers are flat out better than Conley.

http://nba.nbcsports.com/2017/07/29/report-suns-tell-devin-booker-they-wont-trade-him/?cid=yahoo

The Suns reportedly proposed a trade for Kyrie Irving.

What did Phoenix offer the Cavaliers?

Eric Bledsoe makes sense in a deal as a replacement point guard, but he’s worse and older than Irving, so the Suns would have to add more. They reportedly told Josh Jackson they wouldn’t trade him – and apparently made the same pledge to Devin Booker.

Joe Vardon of Cleveland.com:

a source said the Suns told Devin Booker he would not be traded

Booker is one of the NBA’s most overrated players – a young, high-volume scorer with only moderate efficiency and undeveloped periphery skills. He’s also just 20 and on a low-paying rookie-scale contract for two more years. He’s incredibly valuable, and it’s unsurprising Phoenix views him as untradable, as teams typically overvalue their own players.

I wouldn’t refuse to trade him (or Jackson), and the Suns aren’t beholden to anything they told either player. But they probably evaluated which trades they’d be willing to make before assuring Booker and Jackson anything. So, both are probably off the table.

Without Booker or Jackson included, it’s tough to see a workable two-team trade for Irving.

Marquese Chriss and Dragan Bender are intriguing, but far too unpolished to help the Cavs win now. Phoenix also has all its own future first-rounders plus two from the Heat – one top-seven protected in 2018 and unprotected in 2019, the other unprotected in 2021. Those picks present the same problem: They don’t help the Cavaliers now. T.J. Warren and Tyler Ulis are more advanced, but carry too little upside to excite.

Perhaps, those other assets could be swung to a third team on a different timeline from the Cavaliers, but that gets complex.

GustavBahler wrote:If this is true, Phoenix might be out of the running unless they get very creative...

http://nba.nbcsports.com/2017/07/29/report-suns-tell-devin-booker-they-wont-trade-him/?cid=yahoo

The Suns reportedly proposed a trade for Kyrie Irving.

What did Phoenix offer the Cavaliers?

Eric Bledsoe makes sense in a deal as a replacement point guard, but he’s worse and older than Irving, so the Suns would have to add more. They reportedly told Josh Jackson they wouldn’t trade him – and apparently made the same pledge to Devin Booker.

Joe Vardon of Cleveland.com:

a source said the Suns told Devin Booker he would not be traded

Booker is one of the NBA’s most overrated players – a young, high-volume scorer with only moderate efficiency and undeveloped periphery skills. He’s also just 20 and on a low-paying rookie-scale contract for two more years. He’s incredibly valuable, and it’s unsurprising Phoenix views him as untradable, as teams typically overvalue their own players.

I wouldn’t refuse to trade him (or Jackson), and the Suns aren’t beholden to anything they told either player. But they probably evaluated which trades they’d be willing to make before assuring Booker and Jackson anything. So, both are probably off the table.

Without Booker or Jackson included, it’s tough to see a workable two-team trade for Irving.

Marquese Chriss and Dragan Bender are intriguing, but far too unpolished to help the Cavs win now. Phoenix also has all its own future first-rounders plus two from the Heat – one top-seven protected in 2018 and unprotected in 2019, the other unprotected in 2021. Those picks present the same problem: They don’t help the Cavaliers now. T.J. Warren and Tyler Ulis are more advanced, but carry too little upside to excite.

Perhaps, those other assets could be swung to a third team on a different timeline from the Cavaliers, but that gets complex.

With Bledsoe, Warren, Chriss, Bender and multiple available future first. They def have the pieces for a 3 team deal. Suns also have cap space. They could look at Chi and eat Wades contract for maybe TJ Warren and forward him in a 3 team for Shumpert & Jr Smith.

Suns would offer Bledsoe, Wade and a future pick for Irving, Shump, Jr Smith. Which would save the Cavs 30 mil in cap the following season. And give them 2 Bledsoe and a pick to go forward with. And allow them to compete again today by upgrading Wade for Shump and Jr.