No, we won't. Irving is established NBA talent that is still young. Picks and prospects are... picks and prospects. On average, you may or may not end up with someone as good as Irving -- with "may not" being the more probably outcome. That's what you don't seem to understand.
Those picks and prospects can be used to acquire a star that Stevens feels fits his system more adequately.
Right, let's just spin our wheels and refuse to pick top talent that's available because, God forbid, Brad Stevens may have to change his system.
We're not "spinning our wheels." In all likelihood Rondo leaves us this offseason. Netting Giannis and a pick that gets us closer to Okafor/Towns immediately improves our team next year and affords us the flexibility of either assembling a homegrown power or trading the pieces if a star more suitable for this team than Irving comes on the market.
We all understand Rondo may be leaving in the offseason. The discussion here is about where to pick up a top tier player in Irving, or to instead deal him for a bag of spare parts, picks and future maybes with the intention to resell them for a hypothetically available hypothetically better fitting player who may hypothetically be as talented as Irving.
Of course, this is all presuming that Irving may be available. As far as I am concerned, in the current NBA where talent is at a premium, it's completely insane to pass on a known commodity of Irving's caliber. And especially not for the reasons you're pointing out.
Irving won't be available. This is all just useless fun.
You have a legitimate point but you weaken your credibility IMO by trying to undermine the legitimacy of my own point. Again, as I said before, going after stars is not something I discourage the Cs from doing. What I have a problem with is dismissing any other offer because it doesn't include a bona fide star. A bag of spare parts is Julius Randle and expiring contracts. A bag of spare parts is Stoudemire, Hardaway Jr. and mid first rounders. A bag of spare parts is Terrence Jones and the Pelicans pick. A bag of spare parts is not Giannis Antetokounmpo, Knight and a lotto pick from Milwaukee, just as Andrew Wiggins and Anthony Bennett wasn't dismissed as just a "bag of spare parts" for Kevin Love.
I'm not sure where I stand on this anymore. You've persuaded me to believe that Kyrie would be the better deal. But I remain firm that Giannis + Knight + 2015 MIL 1st is not being beaten by many other offers. And I remain firm about the benefits of the flexibility that such an offer affords us.
In my eyes, this is a classic example of risk and reward. Kyrie to me is a medium risk high reward guy. But the package of Giannis/Knight/2015 MIL 1st is high risk high
er reward. If Giannis blossoms into a superstar and that MIL 1st plays a major role in us landing a top 3 pick this year (either by luck or fair trade in combination with our own pick), we end up better off than if we took Kyrie. If Knight continues (22) his development and we can flip him in a Jrue Holiday-type deal, even better. For emphasis, the chances of all that happening are lower than the chances of Kyrie reaching his own full potential, but the reward is greater. To dismiss the high potential of such an offer reveals your defense of a preconceived notion.
I have a feeling at the core of this debate resides drastically different perspectives on Giannis and Knight. I think if Giannis entered the 2015 draft today he'd go in the top 5. And I think Brandon Knight is a legitimate starting point guard already with borderline All-Star potential. I sense there is some disagreement about both claims and that is why the Milwaukee offer has been called "horrible."
Topic: T-Mac tells LeBron to "get Rondo;" radical three-team ideas (Read 17353 times)