• Follow us on Twitter @buckeyeplanet and @bp_recruiting, like us on Facebook! Enjoy a post or article, recommend it to others! BP is only as strong as its community, and we only promote by word of mouth, so share away!
  • Consider registering! Fewer and higher quality ads, no emails you don't want, access to all the forums, download game torrents, private messages, polls, Sportsbook, etc. Even if you just want to lurk, there are a lot of good reasons to register!

Cleveland Cavs (2016 NBA Champions)

Jump to latest Follow Reply
Sort by date Sort by votes
Jake said:
IT was the "main guy" so Kyrie will definitely be that in Boston. As a Celtics' fan, the price was kind of steep but Boston has had no shortage of draft picks and I wasn't interested in giving a max contract to a 5'9" PG. The Cavs need that first round pick more than the Celtics. Irving is signed for at least 2 years, 3 if he doesn't opt out of the final year, giving Boston time to decide if he's worthy of a max deal.

Good trade for both teams, although I would've liked to have kept Crowder. The Celtics have several other guys cut from that mold, and Hayward was taking that starting spot anyway. Jaylen Brown's continued development will be key.
Click to expand...

In the current NBA the Celtics will have to offer Kyrie a max deal, because someone else will if they don't.
 
Upvote 0
exhawg said:
In the current NBA the Celtics will have to offer Kyrie a max deal, because someone else will if they don't.
Click to expand...

I'm guessing that's the intention. I'd rather offer him one than IT, which is where the Celtics were headed with him before this trade. The best part to me is how the Celtics got Thomas in the first place - Marcus Thornton and the Cavs 2016 first round pick went to the Suns.

It'll be interesting to watch how the deal works for both teams this season.
 
Upvote 0
I can't understand the thinking behind this deal unless another move is coming. The Cavs needed to commit to making this trade about winning in 2018 or winning after LeBron leaves. It looks like they tried to cover both of their bases, and as a result, they failed at both. The Brooklyn pick should be in the top 3, but I still wouldn't have made this deal without either Brown or Tatum. If Ainge really wanted a true superstar, he would've been willing to put another piece on the board (while potentially retracting Crowder).

I never liked Thomas's game, and he certainly won't make the Cavs better. He won't be able to stay on the floor against Golden State, and that's if the Cavs get to Golden State. I would have to think that Boston's the favorite to win the East now, even if the best player in the world suits up for the Cavs.

I won't even entertain the idea of paying Thomas the money he'll get in a year, either.
 
Upvote 0
BuckeyeMafia said:
I can't understand the thinking behind this deal unless another move is coming. The Cavs needed to commit to making this trade about winning in 2018 or winning after LeBron leaves. It looks like they tried to cover both of their bases, and as a result, they failed at both. The Brooklyn pick should be in the top 3, but I still wouldn't have made this deal without either Brown or Tatum. If Ainge really wanted a true superstar, he would've been willing to put another piece on the board (while potentially retracting Crowder).

I never liked Thomas's game, and he certainly won't make the Cavs better. He won't be able to stay on the floor against Golden State, and that's if the Cavs get to Golden State. I would have to think that Boston's the favorite to win the East now, even if the best player in the world suits up for the Cavs.

I won't even entertain the idea of paying Thomas the money he'll get in a year, either.
Click to expand...

The Celtics aren't giving up Tatum or Brown if they are giving up the Nets pick in the same deal. Maybe the Cavs could have had one of them, MAYBE but not with the Nets pick too.

As far as next year, the Cavs IMO are now slightly better. Sure Thomas isn't good at defense but Kyrie is bad too. The NBA is now simply an outscore the other team league. The Cavs will outscore the Celtics.

Unfortunately, barring an injury you are just playing for the chance to play the champions and hope something weird happens.

If Lebron leaves then you let Thomas walk too or sign and trade him for some sort of asset and you then have a ton of cap space and a top 3 pick. You also then have the options to trade guys like Love, Thompson, etc too for picks and youth. Your rebuild (to be a playoff team) takes much less time.
 
Upvote 0
Egger33 said:
The Celtics aren't giving up Tatum or Brown if they are giving up the Nets pick in the same deal. Maybe the Cavs could have had one of them, MAYBE but not with the Nets pick too.

As far as next year, the Cavs IMO are now slightly better. Sure Thomas isn't good at defense but Kyrie is bad too. The NBA is now simply an outscore the other team league. The Cavs will outscore the Celtics.

Unfortunately, barring an injury you are just playing for the chance to play the champions and hope something weird happens.

If Lebron leaves then you let Thomas walk too or sign and trade him for some sort of asset and you then have a ton of cap space and a top 3 pick. You also then have the options to trade guys like Love, Thompson, etc too for picks and youth. Your rebuild (to be a playoff team) takes much less time.
Click to expand...

Why not? If the Celtics aren't willing to give up a second-year player or a rookie who hasn't played a minute of NBA basketball, they aren't getting Kyrie. You can play hardball when you have the leverage. The Cavs may have been rushing into a trade, but that's their own fault. They had Irving—one of the eight best players in the league—under contract for two more years. Worst case, you hold onto him. Ainge wasn't going to stumble into one of the seven guys better than Irving because those guys don't get traded. The Celtics may have been bidding against themselves in the end, but Irving isn't going to damage his reputation by playing like shit just to spite the Cavs. Keep him if you don't get the Godfather offer.

I'm not sure how you think the Cavs are better. You could hide Irving on defense. Thomas is one of the worst defenders in the league. And Crowder hasn't lived up to his defensive reputation in years. We basically made this trade for Thomas on a one-year rental and the Brooklyn pick. They could've done better, and if they couldn't have, they should've held onto Irving.

I think we should all remember how overvalued the #1 pick is, too. Look at the last 10 years of #1 overall picks. How many of those players are special? Towns and Davis for sure. Rose, Irving, Wall, and Griffin all had the potential to be the second-best guy on a title team. Bennett was terrible, Oden got hurt, and we don't know what to make of Simmons or Wiggins yet. And that's if we get the #1 overall pick. The chances of getting a star decrease considerably if the pick falls to #2 or #3. I'm not saying we shouldn't have wanted the Brooklyn pick, but it isn't a guaranteed home run. Picks like this are always sexier on paper. We're all enticed because we may wind up with the next LeBron. But there's just as good of a chance that we wind up with the next Kwame Brown.
 
Upvote 0
They should have just traded Lebron, Kyrie wants to be the man.. let him.. Lebron is gone at the end of the year anyway.. surely you can get a kings ransom for lebron.. demand 1st round picks in the future from your trade partner 2 or 3 years in advance so you get the good picks once lebron bails on them too.. you could have set yourself up for a decade and been the team to beat once the warriors finally cant afford all of their stars.
 
Upvote 0
BuckeyeSoldier said:
They should have just traded Lebron, Kyrie wants to be the man.. let him.. Lebron is gone at the end of the year anyway.. surely you can get a kings ransom for lebron.. demand 1st round picks in the future from your trade partner 2 or 3 years in advance so you get the good picks once lebron bails on them too.. you could have set yourself up for a decade and been the team to beat once the warriors finally cant afford all of their stars.
Click to expand...

Lebron has a full no trade clause so that doesn't work.

Even if you tell Lebron that you want to trade him he then tells you 1 team he'd go to and then you have zero leverage.
 
Upvote 0
BuckeyeSoldier said:
They should have just traded Lebron, Kyrie wants to be the man.. let him.. Lebron is gone at the end of the year anyway.. surely you can get a kings ransom for lebron.. demand 1st round picks in the future from your trade partner 2 or 3 years in advance so you get the good picks once lebron bails on them too.. you could have set yourself up for a decade and been the team to beat once the warriors finally cant afford all of their stars.
Click to expand...

Even if they wanted to Lebron has a no trade clause. Lebron is the best player of his generation and Kyrie doesn't have what it takes to lead his team to a championship as the man. If he did the Cavs would have played better when Lebron sat out. It will be interesting to see if he plays Stevens kind of game or if he continues to iso the whole game. Best for the Cavs to give it one more season then rebuild if Lebron leaves. Unfortunately for him he'll either have to give up money or more championships, because I don't see a way he can have both. The only guarantee for more rings would be to take a vet min deal with GS.
 
Upvote 0
BuckeyeMafia said:
Why not? If the Celtics aren't willing to give up a second-year player or a rookie who hasn't played a minute of NBA basketball, they aren't getting Kyrie. You can play hardball when you have the leverage. The Cavs may have been rushing into a trade, but that's their own fault. They had Irving—one of the eight best players in the league—under contract for two more years. Worst case, you hold onto him. Ainge wasn't going to stumble into one of the seven guys better than Irving because those guys don't get traded. The Celtics may have been bidding against themselves in the end, but Irving isn't going to damage his reputation by playing like [Mark May] just to spite the Cavs. Keep him if you don't get the Godfather offer.

I'm not sure how you think the Cavs are better. You could hide Irving on defense. Thomas is one of the worst defenders in the league. And Crowder hasn't lived up to his defensive reputation in years. We basically made this trade for Thomas on a one-year rental and the Brooklyn pick. They could've done better, and if they couldn't have, they should've held onto Irving.

I think we should all remember how overvalued the #1 pick is, too. Look at the last 10 years of #1 overall picks. How many of those players are special? Towns and Davis for sure. Rose, Irving, Wall, and Griffin all had the potential to be the second-best guy on a title team. Bennett was terrible, Oden got hurt, and we don't know what to make of Simmons or Wiggins yet. And that's if we get the #1 overall pick. The chances of getting a star decrease considerably if the pick falls to #2 or #3. I'm not saying we shouldn't have wanted the Brooklyn pick, but it isn't a guaranteed home run. Picks like this are always sexier on paper. We're all enticed because we may wind up with the next LeBron. But there's just as good of a chance that we wind up with the next Kwame Brown.
Click to expand...

So you would rather wait for that Godfather offer that they obviously haven't been offered and have a guy who, while he wouldn't play bad on purpose, has made it clear he doesn't want to play for your team? All this while you are also trying to convince the best player in the world to stick around after this coming year?

Everyone has an opinion and that's what makes sports great. The drop off from Kyrie to Thomas is worth getting Crowder and the Nets pick when you factor in the situation Irving put you in.

And yes, picks don't always work out. The Cavs also don't have to make the pick. They could use it to trade for their own stud player that would help keep Lebron around.
 
Upvote 0
This is a pretty good way to look at the Kyrie trade.

Also, let's not forget that the Nets pick is an asset to be parlayed into a known commodity now rather than a player who might develop down the road. The Cavs are not interested in entering rebuilding mode. The goal is to keep Lebron (who doesn't really have any viable options other than the Cavs) and continue to build a championship caliber team a around him.

I'm pretty sure that the Cavs will package that Nets pick plus Shumpert and/or Frye for another "star" player, preferably a decent 3-and-D guy and/or an athletic big man. Or maybe Kevin Love plus the pick gets you a true superstar who might be a be a better fit against the Warriors. If they can pull off the right trade, then they will legitimately challenge the Warriors this season.

Right now, here's the Cavs' line-up:

-C: Tristan Thompspn
PF: Kevin Love
SF: Lebron James
SG: J.R. Smith
PG: Isaiah Thomas
----
SF: Jae Crowder
SG: Kyle Korver
PG: Derrick Rose
SF: Richard Jefferson
PF: Jeff Green
----
SG: Iman Shumpert
-C: Channing Frye
----
Misc: Ante Zizic, Cedi Osman, Kay Felder, Jose Calderon, Edy Tavares

The starting five doesn't change much with Irving for Thomas. The bench gets a lot better with the addition of Crowder. The key will be using current assets to get one (or ideally) two more key pieces - someone who can move Jefferson and/or Green out of the rotation.

An interesting side note: In 2018, the Cavs would need to spend nearly $400 million to sign both Lebron James and Isaiah Thomas to 5-year "max" contracts.
 
Upvote 0
Celtics went from one of the best defensive teams to one of the worst in less than two months. And they still haven't addressed any of their needs. Dumb trade because you basically gave the Cavs the depth they didn't have plus an asset to trade at the deadline for a late season push. Gilbert is going to squeeze one last big payday before LeBron leaves again.
 
Upvote 0
No way do I trade that nets pick. Good odds are both LeBron and Thomas are not Cavs in 18-19.

You gotta have something to build on.

Unless they can somehow swing it for a legit younger player who has at least 3 years left under contract. Which probably isnt even possible with the cap situation.
 
Upvote 0
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top