Knicks are dreaming if they think we will trade Capela who might be the best pick and roll centre in the NBA.Clint has way more value then Melo
Locked on Rockets. Part of the Locked on podcast series that I believe each team in the nba has their own podcast. I also highly recommend "Locked on the NBA."
No they aren't stupid enough to do a straight up swap. Everything really depends on what they actually get offered though. This is a bad time of year to be stuck trying to trade a star. No more sign and trade options with free agents, guys who did sign can't be traded until December, teams don't have cap room, teams already traded draft picks so a lot of teams are locked up and can't offer certain picks, etc. How committed will the Cavs be to dealing Kyrie before the season? And though he has two years left, how many teams NOT on his list will trade a boatload for him knowing he's a 2 year player? At some point does something like this become attractive? Melo to Houston Courtney Lee, Hernangomez, young PG, 2 first round draft picks, 2 seconds to Cleveland Kyrie Irving, Ryan Anderson, Iman Shumpert to NY Saves the Cavs close to $40 million in hard dollars (salary+luxury tax), gives them a starter, 2 future picks and a young center that looked good last season. (for purposes of this deal pretend that Taylor is actually Uthoff) Why the Knicks do it: Well they get Kyrie Irving, a star PG that wants to be there. They pay a heavy price as they are sending out their own first rounder in this deal, their own second rounder AND they are eating $30 million in contracts from Ryan Anderson and Iman Shumpert. The only reason they agree to this is because they want Kyrie Irving. Realistically though they can look at their roster and talk themselves into being a playoff team in the East year 1 and then hope they can deal off Shump or Ryno to the Nets or someone later. Yes, HUGE price to pay, but they get Kyrie. Would think getting a star to pair with Kyrie NOW would change their perspective on taking back bad contracts. Why the Cavs do it: Let's get it out of the way; this is NOT great value for Kyrie Irving. This deal requires there to be a small market for Irving because of timing. The Cavs are getting some value though. 2 first rounders, 2 seconds isn't a bad start, but they are also getting a good starter in Courtney Lee that should be a perfect fit next to Lebron and then Hernangomez who looked like a good contributor for the Knicks last year to come off the bench (or free them up to deal Tristan Thompson.) Additionally they are creating about a $12 million trade exception. Last, but certainly not least, after they cut all of the non guaranteed bros, the Cavaliers will be taking back only $14.4 million in salary and sending out about $30. Without doing the math, this should save the Cavs something like $40 million in cash and give them a TPE to go get a contributor during hte season if they want to. Flexibility is back in Cleveland! That's $16 million or so in salary + as a repeater team they will save a ton in tax penalties. And by dumping Shump they'll be in a situation that if Lebron DOES leave next year, they will fall below the luxury tax line. Why the Rockets do it: Duh, they get Melo for Ryan Anderson and nothing really, but they did have to include a future first round pick. So, is this a good deal for everyone? Probably not. You would THINK that the Cavs would get something better than this for Kyrie, but it's not nothing. A good NBA starter, a good NBA bench guy and 2 first rounders isn't NOTHING. I always repeat this rule about trades: players never get traded for the value you think they will.
Understood. It's just especially strange from Aldridge, because he was more optimistic about a HOU deal when most were pessimistic... and now that there seems to be at least some optimism again, he's suddenly more pessimistic. Just feels like his takes are a few days old in each instance, if that makes sense.
There is no way Kyrie Irving is getting traded for that. He has like 3 years left on his deal. Makes no sense for Cavs.
I don't think it happens either and I said that. However, I'll repeat, players are never traded for what you think they'll be traded for. It is extremely rare for a player to get traded for the value they deserve.
You make some valid points.. I still think you have to include Ntilikina going to Cavs in the deal... which I kind of think you did. But I wasn't sure if you were talking about Ntilikina or Taylor when you said young PG.
I can't imagine in any scenario, even if Irving lost an eye, where they get that kind of return for him. I hear you when you say stars don't yield proper returns, but your scenario is just never, ever going to have semblance to the value they get for Irving.
I understand what you mean, but Kyrie has multiple years left on deal and is only 25. Bulls got a better haul for Jimmy Butler then what you showed. If I were them I would just wait it out until before season and wait for best possible deal.
Melo has a NTC, is 33 years old, with 1 year left (+ an option), Kyrie is 25, has 2 years left and no NTC, it's not Cleveland who is getting boned in this. The Cavs can get way better value having nothing to do with NY or Houston really.
I was talking about Ntilikina but couldn't spell his name and couldn't put him in the deal on trade machine.
Cavs would be insane for this. They have interest from tons of teams, including random teams like the Bucks and Suns which can offer intriguing pieces. Blending the Kyrie fiasco with the Melo fiasco just doesn't make any kind of sense for Cleveland.
Maybe they can. Like I said, we'll have to see. I don't see how they can do a star for star swap. There isn't one out there. They can't do a sign and trade for a free agent because they are all gone. People mention the Celtics, but the Celtics will not give up a king's ransom for Kyrie. They won't do it for ANYONE. Who is going to give them a king's ransom and at some point does the attraction of future picks, a few young players and a good NBA starter combined with MASSIVE savings look attractive? I really don't know. I'm not trying to advocate for a deal like that, I'm just saying that the Cavs are in a bad spot because of timing of all of this. And even though everyone keeps pointing out two years on Kyrie, two years isn't that long for a non contender. Sure, a team that thinks it can contend if it adds Kyrie doesn't care that he can leave in two years, but a young non contender might. 2 years really means 1. After this year if he doesn't want to be there that becomes the whole focus of your team the following year.
There you go. Like I said, I don't think that's a deal that would happen and I would think the Cavs could get better, but it won't shock me if the Knicks wait it out hoping that there aren't great offers out there for Kyrie and they can structure something. The Suns for example, they aren't giving Cleveland a star back for Irving. So they can get Bledsoe great. Is that really exciting? Cleveland isn't going to get great value. When this offseason is over, the team that will have made the best star trade will be the Clippers who traded a guy who told them he wanted to leave for a 1st round pick, 2 good NBA players and 2 young guys with upside.
