Poll

Are you okay with that type of Money for Kyrie

Yes.
65 (76.5%)
No.
12 (14.1%)
If Rozier accepted an 80 million dollar extension, I'd rather trade Irving
8 (9.4%)

Total Members Voted: 85

Author Topic: Poll: Are you okay with paying Irving 200 Million  (Read 8660 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: Poll: Are you okay with paying Irving 200 Million
« Reply #75 on: May 08, 2018, 07:19:44 PM »

Offline gouki88

  • NCE
  • Red Auerbach
  • *******************************
  • Posts: 31552
  • Tommy Points: 3141
  • 2019 & 2021 CS Historical Draft Champion
We're all heartless monsters now!
I'm not emotionally attached to players we didn't draft not named Kevin Garnett. Sue me :P
I get that, I'm just a softie
'23 Historical Draft: Orlando Magic.

PG: Terry Porter (90-91) / Steve Francis (00-01)
SG: Joe Dumars (92-93) / Jeff Hornacek (91-92) / Jerry Stackhouse (00-01)
SF: Brandon Roy (08-09) / Walter Davis (78-79)
PF: Terry Cummings (84-85) / Paul Millsap (15-16)
C: Chris Webber (00-01) / Ralph Sampson (83-84) / Andrew Bogut (09-10)

Re: Poll: Are you okay with paying Irving 200 Million
« Reply #76 on: May 08, 2018, 07:32:01 PM »

Offline PhoSita

  • NCE
  • Robert Parish
  • *********************
  • Posts: 21835
  • Tommy Points: 2182

Just to be clear. The vast majority of people advocating for trading Irving are doing so only for two players: AD or Kawhi. Some people have mentioned Ayton as a possibility, as well.


A.D. isn't going anywhere.

I don't see the point in trading Kyrie for Kawhi when the Celts already have Jaylen, Tatum, Hayward.

I don't think the Celts need to add another super young piece.  I would rather have an established superstar with 5+ years of his prime left.
You’ll have to excuse my lengthiness—the reason I dread writing letters is because I am so apt to get to slinging wisdom & forget to let up. Thus much precious time is lost.
- Mark Twain

Re: Poll: Are you okay with paying Irving 200 Million
« Reply #77 on: May 08, 2018, 08:55:27 PM »

Offline tarheelsxxiii

  • Don Nelson
  • ********
  • Posts: 8593
  • Tommy Points: 1389
Think about it though...with this core - Hayward, Jaylen, Tatum, Al - are you better off with Kyrie or with Smart and Rozier?  This team's calling card is it's defense and Hayward's going to solve a lot of issues next year.  You can always find shooters.

Nothing is etched in stone - especially with Ainge calling the shots.  Let's see how Rozier plays next season.

I think this is a really valid question.  I'm not entirely sold that the team is better with Kyrie than without.

My question is, who are we trading Kyrie for?  I don't think it makes any sense at all just to plan on letting him walk in free agency.  We'd need to get a serious asset in return.

At that point, I think there's a legit debate that the asset + Rozier is better for this team than Kyrie + Rozier.

I'm doubtful that an upgrade will be available, especially with respect to fit.  He was also a costly acquisition, and obviously a great player.  It would probably be a mistake to let him walk.

My concern is how his high usage rate may affect the growth of our youth and even what's making the team so successful now.  High high usage (in part, time of possession) + his need for a lot of space to create his own could detract from what's working so well.  And it's tough to imagine Tatum and Brown, in particular, reverting to smaller roles.
The Tarstradamus Group, LLC

Re: Poll: Are you okay with paying Irving 200 Million
« Reply #78 on: May 08, 2018, 09:07:23 PM »

Offline droopdog7

  • Paul Silas
  • ******
  • Posts: 6970
  • Tommy Points: 466
Think about it though...with this core - Hayward, Jaylen, Tatum, Al - are you better off with Kyrie or with Smart and Rozier?  This team's calling card is it's defense and Hayward's going to solve a lot of issues next year.  You can always find shooters.

Nothing is etched in stone - especially with Ainge calling the shots.  Let's see how Rozier plays next season.

I think this is a really valid question.  I'm not entirely sold that the team is better with Kyrie than without.

My question is, who are we trading Kyrie for?  I don't think it makes any sense at all just to plan on letting him walk in free agency.  We'd need to get a serious asset in return.

At that point, I think there's a legit debate that the asset + Rozier is better for this team than Kyrie + Rozier.

I'm doubtful that an upgrade will be available, especially with respect to fit.  He was also a costly acquisition, and obviously a great player.  It would probably be a mistake to let him walk.

My concern is how his high usage rate may affect the growth of our youth and even what's making the team so successful now.  High high usage (in part, time of possession) + his need for a lot of space to create his own could detract from what's working so well.  And it's tough to imagine Tatum and Brown, in particular, reverting to smaller roles.
Of course Tatum and Brown are going to revert to smaller roles.  And there will be no issues either.

Re: Poll: Are you okay with paying Irving 200 Million
« Reply #79 on: May 08, 2018, 09:30:33 PM »

Offline tarheelsxxiii

  • Don Nelson
  • ********
  • Posts: 8593
  • Tommy Points: 1389
Think about it though...with this core - Hayward, Jaylen, Tatum, Al - are you better off with Kyrie or with Smart and Rozier?  This team's calling card is it's defense and Hayward's going to solve a lot of issues next year.  You can always find shooters.

Nothing is etched in stone - especially with Ainge calling the shots.  Let's see how Rozier plays next season.

I think this is a really valid question.  I'm not entirely sold that the team is better with Kyrie than without.

My question is, who are we trading Kyrie for?  I don't think it makes any sense at all just to plan on letting him walk in free agency.  We'd need to get a serious asset in return.

At that point, I think there's a legit debate that the asset + Rozier is better for this team than Kyrie + Rozier.

I'm doubtful that an upgrade will be available, especially with respect to fit.  He was also a costly acquisition, and obviously a great player.  It would probably be a mistake to let him walk.

My concern is how his high usage rate may affect the growth of our youth and even what's making the team so successful now.  High high usage (in part, time of possession) + his need for a lot of space to create his own could detract from what's working so well.  And it's tough to imagine Tatum and Brown, in particular, reverting to smaller roles.
Of course Tatum and Brown are going to revert to smaller roles.  And there will be no issues either.

You seem to say that flippantly, as if it doesn't matter.  It could not only hurt their growth, but detract from the quality of the team as soon as next season.  Tatum has scored 20 points in 5 straight playoff games, and Jaylen has been awesome this year.  Pretty phenomenal for their age and level of experience.
The Tarstradamus Group, LLC

Re: Poll: Are you okay with paying Irving 200 Million
« Reply #80 on: May 08, 2018, 09:38:59 PM »

Offline jambr380

  • K.C. Jones
  • *************
  • Posts: 13002
  • Tommy Points: 1756
  • Everybody knows what's best for you

Just to be clear. The vast majority of people advocating for trading Irving are doing so only for two players: AD or Kawhi. Some people have mentioned Ayton as a possibility, as well.


A.D. isn't going anywhere.

I don't see the point in trading Kyrie for Kawhi when the Celts already have Jaylen, Tatum, Hayward.

I don't think the Celts need to add another super young piece.  I would rather have an established superstar with 5+ years of his prime left.

I think the only realistic option is Kawhi and pre-injury he was considered a top 5 player while Kyrie is at best top 10. It really becomes all about value and whether or not you think a team can have 'too many' wings. Once we attach other potential names (ie - Steven Adams) in a potential Kyrie deal, people quickly lose interest in dealing Kyrie.

It also depends on how much confidence you have in Rozier. I think people hate the idea that there is no reasonable way to keep him beyond next season. If we assume max or near max contracts for Kyrie, Brown, Tatum, and again for Hayward (~120M in salary obligations), we may not have room for Smart, Morris, Horford, or anyone else who is half-decent. It really sucks that we've had so many injuries in one of the two years we are able to put out such a stacked team top to bottom.

Re: Poll: Are you okay with paying Irving 200 Million
« Reply #81 on: May 08, 2018, 09:42:48 PM »

Offline jambr380

  • K.C. Jones
  • *************
  • Posts: 13002
  • Tommy Points: 1756
  • Everybody knows what's best for you
You seem to say that flippantly, as if it doesn't matter.  It could not only hurt their growth, but detract from the quality of the team as soon as next season.  Tatum has scored 20 points in 5 6 straight playoff games, and Jaylen has been awesome this year.  Pretty phenomenal for their age and level of experience.

Just because we lost last game doesn't mean Tatum didn't score 20 again (as the only Cs player who didn't shoot horribly).

As I am typing this, Donovan Mitchell has just finished putting up 22 points in the 3rd quarter on the Rockets to take the lead. Let the 'best rookie' debate begin once again!

Re: Poll: Are you okay with paying Irving 200 Million
« Reply #82 on: May 08, 2018, 09:55:03 PM »

Offline gouki88

  • NCE
  • Red Auerbach
  • *******************************
  • Posts: 31552
  • Tommy Points: 3141
  • 2019 & 2021 CS Historical Draft Champion
Think about it though...with this core - Hayward, Jaylen, Tatum, Al - are you better off with Kyrie or with Smart and Rozier?  This team's calling card is it's defense and Hayward's going to solve a lot of issues next year.  You can always find shooters.

Nothing is etched in stone - especially with Ainge calling the shots.  Let's see how Rozier plays next season.

I think this is a really valid question.  I'm not entirely sold that the team is better with Kyrie than without.

My question is, who are we trading Kyrie for?  I don't think it makes any sense at all just to plan on letting him walk in free agency.  We'd need to get a serious asset in return.

At that point, I think there's a legit debate that the asset + Rozier is better for this team than Kyrie + Rozier.

I'm doubtful that an upgrade will be available, especially with respect to fit.  He was also a costly acquisition, and obviously a great player.  It would probably be a mistake to let him walk.

My concern is how his high usage rate may affect the growth of our youth and even what's making the team so successful now.  High high usage (in part, time of possession) + his need for a lot of space to create his own could detract from what's working so well.  And it's tough to imagine Tatum and Brown, in particular, reverting to smaller roles.
Of course Tatum and Brown are going to revert to smaller roles.  And there will be no issues either.

You seem to say that flippantly, as if it doesn't matter.  It could not only hurt their growth, but detract from the quality of the team as soon as next season.  Tatum has scored 20 points in 5 straight playoff games, and Jaylen has been awesome this year.  Pretty phenomenal for their age and level of experience.
Golden State manages with two guys who shoot more than Kyrie, Klay and Draymond all handling the ball a lot. I really don’t see that being a problem at all
'23 Historical Draft: Orlando Magic.

PG: Terry Porter (90-91) / Steve Francis (00-01)
SG: Joe Dumars (92-93) / Jeff Hornacek (91-92) / Jerry Stackhouse (00-01)
SF: Brandon Roy (08-09) / Walter Davis (78-79)
PF: Terry Cummings (84-85) / Paul Millsap (15-16)
C: Chris Webber (00-01) / Ralph Sampson (83-84) / Andrew Bogut (09-10)

Re: Poll: Are you okay with paying Irving 200 Million
« Reply #83 on: May 08, 2018, 10:07:12 PM »

Offline tarheelsxxiii

  • Don Nelson
  • ********
  • Posts: 8593
  • Tommy Points: 1389
You seem to say that flippantly, as if it doesn't matter.  It could not only hurt their growth, but detract from the quality of the team as soon as next season.  Tatum has scored 20 points in 5 6 straight playoff games, and Jaylen has been awesome this year.  Pretty phenomenal for their age and level of experience.

Just because we lost last game doesn't mean Tatum didn't score 20 again (as the only Cs player who didn't shoot horribly).

As I am typing this, Donovan Mitchell has just finished putting up 22 points in the 3rd quarter on the Rockets to take the lead. Let the 'best rookie' debate begin once again!

Mistake, unintentional.  Yeah, Mitchell has been awesome.  Credit to the Jazz for that pick.  You may enjoy this recent article:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/the-day-donovan-mitchell-won-over-the-jazz/2018/05/07/78fa2d3e-521c-11e8-abd8-265bd07a9859_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.63e808c917bb
The Tarstradamus Group, LLC

Re: Poll: Are you okay with paying Irving 200 Million
« Reply #84 on: May 08, 2018, 10:19:12 PM »

Offline tarheelsxxiii

  • Don Nelson
  • ********
  • Posts: 8593
  • Tommy Points: 1389
Think about it though...with this core - Hayward, Jaylen, Tatum, Al - are you better off with Kyrie or with Smart and Rozier?  This team's calling card is it's defense and Hayward's going to solve a lot of issues next year.  You can always find shooters.

Nothing is etched in stone - especially with Ainge calling the shots.  Let's see how Rozier plays next season.

I think this is a really valid question.  I'm not entirely sold that the team is better with Kyrie than without.

My question is, who are we trading Kyrie for?  I don't think it makes any sense at all just to plan on letting him walk in free agency.  We'd need to get a serious asset in return.

At that point, I think there's a legit debate that the asset + Rozier is better for this team than Kyrie + Rozier.

I'm doubtful that an upgrade will be available, especially with respect to fit.  He was also a costly acquisition, and obviously a great player.  It would probably be a mistake to let him walk.

My concern is how his high usage rate may affect the growth of our youth and even what's making the team so successful now.  High high usage (in part, time of possession) + his need for a lot of space to create his own could detract from what's working so well.  And it's tough to imagine Tatum and Brown, in particular, reverting to smaller roles.
Of course Tatum and Brown are going to revert to smaller roles.  And there will be no issues either.

You seem to say that flippantly, as if it doesn't matter.  It could not only hurt their growth, but detract from the quality of the team as soon as next season.  Tatum has scored 20 points in 5 straight playoff games, and Jaylen has been awesome this year.  Pretty phenomenal for their age and level of experience.
Golden State manages with two guys who shoot more than Kyrie, Klay and Draymond all handling the ball a lot. I really don’t see that being a problem at all

I see two important differences: 1. GSW aren't developing a 20- and 21-year old that have had a phenomenal playoffs and are showing star potential; 2. Number of shots differ from time of possession with respect to usage; Kyrie seems to be less efficient in his ability to create shots (not to be confused with shooting efficiency).
The Tarstradamus Group, LLC

Re: Poll: Are you okay with paying Irving 200 Million
« Reply #85 on: May 08, 2018, 10:44:24 PM »

Offline gouki88

  • NCE
  • Red Auerbach
  • *******************************
  • Posts: 31552
  • Tommy Points: 3141
  • 2019 & 2021 CS Historical Draft Champion
Think about it though...with this core - Hayward, Jaylen, Tatum, Al - are you better off with Kyrie or with Smart and Rozier?  This team's calling card is it's defense and Hayward's going to solve a lot of issues next year.  You can always find shooters.

Nothing is etched in stone - especially with Ainge calling the shots.  Let's see how Rozier plays next season.

I think this is a really valid question.  I'm not entirely sold that the team is better with Kyrie than without.

My question is, who are we trading Kyrie for?  I don't think it makes any sense at all just to plan on letting him walk in free agency.  We'd need to get a serious asset in return.

At that point, I think there's a legit debate that the asset + Rozier is better for this team than Kyrie + Rozier.

I'm doubtful that an upgrade will be available, especially with respect to fit.  He was also a costly acquisition, and obviously a great player.  It would probably be a mistake to let him walk.

My concern is how his high usage rate may affect the growth of our youth and even what's making the team so successful now.  High high usage (in part, time of possession) + his need for a lot of space to create his own could detract from what's working so well.  And it's tough to imagine Tatum and Brown, in particular, reverting to smaller roles.
Of course Tatum and Brown are going to revert to smaller roles.  And there will be no issues either.

You seem to say that flippantly, as if it doesn't matter.  It could not only hurt their growth, but detract from the quality of the team as soon as next season.  Tatum has scored 20 points in 5 straight playoff games, and Jaylen has been awesome this year.  Pretty phenomenal for their age and level of experience.
Golden State manages with two guys who shoot more than Kyrie, Klay and Draymond all handling the ball a lot. I really don’t see that being a problem at all

I see two important differences: 1. GSW aren't developing a 20- and 21-year old that have had a phenomenal playoffs and are showing star potential; 2. Number of shots differ from time of possession with respect to usage; Kyrie seems to be less efficient in his ability to create shots (not to be confused with shooting efficiency).
I just don't get how point 1 could ever be remedied. We have too much talent for JT and JB to get a regular high usage. If we trade Kyrie for Kawhi, we have a guy who is more of a ball-stopper than Kyrie (defence though), and a worse passing PG in Rozier. If we don't trade Kyrie, we have a 20-25ppg point guard who looks to score first. Either way JT and JB won't see the same amount of touches, unless Al starts shooting like 6 times a game and focuses on passing (which isn't unrealistic).

With point 2, I think we need to give him a year where he's healthy and actually running the point surrounded by the weapons we have. He had weapons in Cleveland, but also was the secondary guy. But #2 might be true anyway
'23 Historical Draft: Orlando Magic.

PG: Terry Porter (90-91) / Steve Francis (00-01)
SG: Joe Dumars (92-93) / Jeff Hornacek (91-92) / Jerry Stackhouse (00-01)
SF: Brandon Roy (08-09) / Walter Davis (78-79)
PF: Terry Cummings (84-85) / Paul Millsap (15-16)
C: Chris Webber (00-01) / Ralph Sampson (83-84) / Andrew Bogut (09-10)

Re: Poll: Are you okay with paying Irving 200 Million
« Reply #86 on: May 08, 2018, 11:03:09 PM »

Offline tarheelsxxiii

  • Don Nelson
  • ********
  • Posts: 8593
  • Tommy Points: 1389
Think about it though...with this core - Hayward, Jaylen, Tatum, Al - are you better off with Kyrie or with Smart and Rozier?  This team's calling card is it's defense and Hayward's going to solve a lot of issues next year.  You can always find shooters.

Nothing is etched in stone - especially with Ainge calling the shots.  Let's see how Rozier plays next season.

I think this is a really valid question.  I'm not entirely sold that the team is better with Kyrie than without.

My question is, who are we trading Kyrie for?  I don't think it makes any sense at all just to plan on letting him walk in free agency.  We'd need to get a serious asset in return.

At that point, I think there's a legit debate that the asset + Rozier is better for this team than Kyrie + Rozier.

I'm doubtful that an upgrade will be available, especially with respect to fit.  He was also a costly acquisition, and obviously a great player.  It would probably be a mistake to let him walk.

My concern is how his high usage rate may affect the growth of our youth and even what's making the team so successful now.  High high usage (in part, time of possession) + his need for a lot of space to create his own could detract from what's working so well.  And it's tough to imagine Tatum and Brown, in particular, reverting to smaller roles.
Of course Tatum and Brown are going to revert to smaller roles.  And there will be no issues either.

You seem to say that flippantly, as if it doesn't matter.  It could not only hurt their growth, but detract from the quality of the team as soon as next season.  Tatum has scored 20 points in 5 straight playoff games, and Jaylen has been awesome this year.  Pretty phenomenal for their age and level of experience.
Golden State manages with two guys who shoot more than Kyrie, Klay and Draymond all handling the ball a lot. I really don’t see that being a problem at all

I see two important differences: 1. GSW aren't developing a 20- and 21-year old that have had a phenomenal playoffs and are showing star potential; 2. Number of shots differ from time of possession with respect to usage; Kyrie seems to be less efficient in his ability to create shots (not to be confused with shooting efficiency).
I just don't get how point 1 could ever be remedied. We have too much talent for JT and JB to get a regular high usage. If we trade Kyrie for Kawhi, we have a guy who is more of a ball-stopper than Kyrie (defence though), and a worse passing PG in Rozier. If we don't trade Kyrie, we have a 20-25ppg point guard who looks to score first. Either way JT and JB won't see the same amount of touches, unless Al starts shooting like 6 times a game and focuses on passing (which isn't unrealistic).

With point 2, I think we need to give him a year where he's healthy and actually running the point surrounded by the weapons we have. He had weapons in Cleveland, but also was the secondary guy. But #2 might be true anyway

Yeah, I don't know if it can either.  They'd obviously get more opportunity, but I don't think I would trade Kyrie for Kawhi if only for the logjam it'd create.  Definitely not unless Rozier showed a lot before next trade deadline.  At that time, both Kyrie's trade value will presumably be higher and we'll have as much evidence as we possibly can re: Rozier's ability.  It's a concern nonetheless, as I want to Jaylen and Jayson to have every opportunity to reach their ceilings.

The second situation probably has a better chance of smoothing out.  Kyrie showed signs of being a much more willing passer and playmaker in the first half of the season.  I was surprised by how well he worked in the PnR esp.  But he appeared to revert to his old, higher usage self as the year went on.



The Tarstradamus Group, LLC

Re: Poll: Are you okay with paying Irving 200 Million
« Reply #87 on: May 08, 2018, 11:43:25 PM »

Offline droopdog7

  • Paul Silas
  • ******
  • Posts: 6970
  • Tommy Points: 466
Think about it though...with this core - Hayward, Jaylen, Tatum, Al - are you better off with Kyrie or with Smart and Rozier?  This team's calling card is it's defense and Hayward's going to solve a lot of issues next year.  You can always find shooters.

Nothing is etched in stone - especially with Ainge calling the shots.  Let's see how Rozier plays next season.

I think this is a really valid question.  I'm not entirely sold that the team is better with Kyrie than without.

My question is, who are we trading Kyrie for?  I don't think it makes any sense at all just to plan on letting him walk in free agency.  We'd need to get a serious asset in return.

At that point, I think there's a legit debate that the asset + Rozier is better for this team than Kyrie + Rozier.

I'm doubtful that an upgrade will be available, especially with respect to fit.  He was also a costly acquisition, and obviously a great player.  It would probably be a mistake to let him walk.

My concern is how his high usage rate may affect the growth of our youth and even what's making the team so successful now.  High high usage (in part, time of possession) + his need for a lot of space to create his own could detract from what's working so well.  And it's tough to imagine Tatum and Brown, in particular, reverting to smaller roles.
Of course Tatum and Brown are going to revert to smaller roles.  And there will be no issues either.

You seem to say that flippantly, as if it doesn't matter.  It could not only hurt their growth, but detract from the quality of the team as soon as next season.  Tatum has scored 20 points in 5 straight playoff games, and Jaylen has been awesome this year.  Pretty phenomenal for their age and level of experience.
You’re right, I don’t see a problem.  First, the Celtics are set up to compete and win a title right now, once Hayward and Kyrie are healthy.  Why are we obsessimg over potential when these guys are ALREADY stars?  Winning a title NEXT YEAR should be the main focus, not placating two young guys that aren’t ready to lead a team to a title.  I really have no idea what what you mean by taking away from the teams quality?  Simply doesn’t compute.

Second, there will be no stunting of anyone’s growth.  These guys are going to develop at the same rate regardless of whether they’re getting 5, 10, or 20 shots a game.  Was Harden stunted by playing with Westbrook and Durant?  Don’t confuse points and touches with development.  Anyway, at this point, both Tatum and brown can be even more effective in lesser roles.
« Last Edit: May 09, 2018, 11:51:30 AM by droopdog7 »

Re: Poll: Are you okay with paying Irving 200 Million
« Reply #88 on: May 08, 2018, 11:54:46 PM »

Offline gouki88

  • NCE
  • Red Auerbach
  • *******************************
  • Posts: 31552
  • Tommy Points: 3141
  • 2019 & 2021 CS Historical Draft Champion
Think about it though...with this core - Hayward, Jaylen, Tatum, Al - are you better off with Kyrie or with Smart and Rozier?  This team's calling card is it's defense and Hayward's going to solve a lot of issues next year.  You can always find shooters.

Nothing is etched in stone - especially with Ainge calling the shots.  Let's see how Rozier plays next season.

I think this is a really valid question.  I'm not entirely sold that the team is better with Kyrie than without.

My question is, who are we trading Kyrie for?  I don't think it makes any sense at all just to plan on letting him walk in free agency.  We'd need to get a serious asset in return.

At that point, I think there's a legit debate that the asset + Rozier is better for this team than Kyrie + Rozier.

I'm doubtful that an upgrade will be available, especially with respect to fit.  He was also a costly acquisition, and obviously a great player.  It would probably be a mistake to let him walk.

My concern is how his high usage rate may affect the growth of our youth and even what's making the team so successful now.  High high usage (in part, time of possession) + his need for a lot of space to create his own could detract from what's working so well.  And it's tough to imagine Tatum and Brown, in particular, reverting to smaller roles.
Of course Tatum and Brown are going to revert to smaller roles.  And there will be no issues either.

You seem to say that flippantly, as if it doesn't matter.  It could not only hurt their growth, but detract from the quality of the team as soon as next season.  Tatum has scored 20 points in 5 straight playoff games, and Jaylen has been awesome this year.  Pretty phenomenal for their age and level of experience.
Golden State manages with two guys who shoot more than Kyrie, Klay and Draymond all handling the ball a lot. I really don’t see that being a problem at all

I see two important differences: 1. GSW aren't developing a 20- and 21-year old that have had a phenomenal playoffs and are showing star potential; 2. Number of shots differ from time of possession with respect to usage; Kyrie seems to be less efficient in his ability to create shots (not to be confused with shooting efficiency).
I just don't get how point 1 could ever be remedied. We have too much talent for JT and JB to get a regular high usage. If we trade Kyrie for Kawhi, we have a guy who is more of a ball-stopper than Kyrie (defence though), and a worse passing PG in Rozier. If we don't trade Kyrie, we have a 20-25ppg point guard who looks to score first. Either way JT and JB won't see the same amount of touches, unless Al starts shooting like 6 times a game and focuses on passing (which isn't unrealistic).

With point 2, I think we need to give him a year where he's healthy and actually running the point surrounded by the weapons we have. He had weapons in Cleveland, but also was the secondary guy. But #2 might be true anyway

Yeah, I don't know if it can either.  They'd obviously get more opportunity, but I don't think I would trade Kyrie for Kawhi if only for the logjam it'd create.  Definitely not unless Rozier showed a lot before next trade deadline.  At that time, both Kyrie's trade value will presumably be higher and we'll have as much evidence as we possibly can re: Rozier's ability.  It's a concern nonetheless, as I want to Jaylen and Jayson to have every opportunity to reach their ceilings.

The second situation probably has a better chance of smoothing out.  Kyrie showed signs of being a much more willing passer and playmaker in the first half of the season.  I was surprised by how well he worked in the PnR esp.  But he appeared to revert to his old, higher usage self as the year went on.
I think having Hayward next to him will really help, as Hayward is a very underrated facilitator. Perfect guy next to Kyrie.

Agreed about the logjam if we moved for Kawhi. We'd just be fielding all wing lineups lol. I'm glad DA has all this to think about. Really good problems to have
'23 Historical Draft: Orlando Magic.

PG: Terry Porter (90-91) / Steve Francis (00-01)
SG: Joe Dumars (92-93) / Jeff Hornacek (91-92) / Jerry Stackhouse (00-01)
SF: Brandon Roy (08-09) / Walter Davis (78-79)
PF: Terry Cummings (84-85) / Paul Millsap (15-16)
C: Chris Webber (00-01) / Ralph Sampson (83-84) / Andrew Bogut (09-10)

Re: Poll: Are you okay with paying Irving 200 Million
« Reply #89 on: May 09, 2018, 10:59:55 PM »

Offline tarheelsxxiii

  • Don Nelson
  • ********
  • Posts: 8593
  • Tommy Points: 1389
Think about it though...with this core - Hayward, Jaylen, Tatum, Al - are you better off with Kyrie or with Smart and Rozier?  This team's calling card is it's defense and Hayward's going to solve a lot of issues next year.  You can always find shooters.

Nothing is etched in stone - especially with Ainge calling the shots.  Let's see how Rozier plays next season.

I think this is a really valid question.  I'm not entirely sold that the team is better with Kyrie than without.

My question is, who are we trading Kyrie for?  I don't think it makes any sense at all just to plan on letting him walk in free agency.  We'd need to get a serious asset in return.

At that point, I think there's a legit debate that the asset + Rozier is better for this team than Kyrie + Rozier.

I'm doubtful that an upgrade will be available, especially with respect to fit.  He was also a costly acquisition, and obviously a great player.  It would probably be a mistake to let him walk.

My concern is how his high usage rate may affect the growth of our youth and even what's making the team so successful now.  High high usage (in part, time of possession) + his need for a lot of space to create his own could detract from what's working so well.  And it's tough to imagine Tatum and Brown, in particular, reverting to smaller roles.
Of course Tatum and Brown are going to revert to smaller roles.  And there will be no issues either.

You seem to say that flippantly, as if it doesn't matter.  It could not only hurt their growth, but detract from the quality of the team as soon as next season.  Tatum has scored 20 points in 5 straight playoff games, and Jaylen has been awesome this year.  Pretty phenomenal for their age and level of experience.
You’re right, I don’t see a problem.  First, the Celtics are set up to compete and win a title right now, once Hayward and Kyrie are healthy.  Why are we obsessimg over potential when these guys are ALREADY stars?  Winning a title NEXT YEAR should be the main focus, not placating two young guys that aren’t ready to lead a team to a title.  I really have no idea what what you mean by taking away from the teams quality?  Simply doesn’t compute.

Second, there will be no stunting of anyone’s growth.  These guys are going to develop at the same rate regardless of whether they’re getting 5, 10, or 20 shots a game.  Was Harden stunted by playing with Westbrook and Durant?  Don’t confuse points and touches with development.  Anyway, at this point, both Tatum and brown can be even more effective in lesser roles.

Yes, it will stunt their growth.  And no, they wouldn't be more effective in lesser roles -- I don't understand what you mean by that?

I was laughed at, ridiculed, and considered to be baiting/trolling when I said that Tatum was the best 1:1 player on our team.  Guess what?  I was right.  His usage in these playoffs is 6% less than Kyrie's on the season and he's far more efficient.  It will be a huge mistake to relegate him (and Jaylen) to lesser roles next year.  Tatum's ceiling is significantly higher than Kyrie's and I don't even think it's debatable.  TP, tar.
The Tarstradamus Group, LLC