Maybe, but if I'm Monroe I'd think after I got bought out a team gave me 5M for the last two months of the year. If I can't beat 3/18 I'd rather take a one year deal, probably for a higher salary, and bet on myself.
Jurassic World 3: Where the Dinosaurs have Quad Injuries and Hate Their Shoe Deals
- Thread starter Sox Puppet
- Start date
I just don't see a match between Boston and SA. Anything that would be intriguing to SA would be too much for BOS to give up.
If Kawhi gets traded I don't see how it wouldn't be to PHI. Something like Fultz/Saric/Bayless/Lakers pick should get it done. The only question would be if PHI could still clear enough room to sign LBJ, because that would be terrifying.
If Kawhi gets traded I don't see how it wouldn't be to PHI. Something like Fultz/Saric/Bayless/Lakers pick should get it done. The only question would be if PHI could still clear enough room to sign LBJ, because that would be terrifying.
yep, basically what I posted earlier...
SA can have Kyrie + MaMo for Kawhi + Bertans (re-signed). Otherwise, wish them well. Hang up if they ask for Tatum or Brown
I love Kyrie's offense BUT like many have posted Kawhi is a top 5 two-way player when healthy/motivated. Kyrie's regular season defense was pedestrian at best.
He certainly can’t defend the PG position. No chance Ainge gives up Kyrie this summer.
Yea but Smart and Rozier can defend the PG spot
Odds are very small Kyrie gets moved.... but if the right situation presented itself Danny would pull the trigger
I would expect that if the Spurs traded Kawhi they would be thinking of blowing it up. Wouldn't they want a future asset rather than Kyrie?
Kyrie is only 26 years-old so he could be part of any rebuilding effort although I’m sure he wouldn’t be excited about it.
If the Spurs are serious about a rebuild, then they would need to trade Aldridge too but he’s 33 this summer and an UFA next summer so he wouldn’t bring back much.
They have every incentive to see if they can patch things up with Kawhi. Otherwise, they’re basically screwed for a long time.
Not from the bench, though.
I think that there's a legit concern that by moving guys like Kyrie and Horford the Celtics would do some damage to their reputation among players.
Agree 100%. I think we have to see it through with this group. It hasn’t even been seen what Kyrie and Hayward can do with this team as constructed.
If Davis were available, sure. He’s worth whatever damage that causes. But he’s it. And he isn’t anyway.
I don't want to hijack the Kawhi thread but why would Smart/Rozier be on the bench if they traded Kyrie for Kawhi? "With Kyrie" this year, Smart and Rozier averaged 5th and 6th in minutes played. One of those two would be on the floor as the PG and our defense would be much better.
As far as moving players, its a case by case basis. IT4 was as emotional as it gets from a player's perspective and many pundits were critical of the Celtics. BUT at the end of the day Danny moved him to improve the team this year and years to come. Universally, the postscript on that deal is Danny made a brilliant move on many levels by trading Isiah. If anything that deal showed the league/players that the Celtics/Danny are committed to winning. Danny is coldblooded/shrewd, but so was Red. The best players respect that.
Well, you were responding to someone speculating about a Gordon, Kawhi, Jaylen, Jayson, Al lineup...
True that it is case by case, but Kyrie >>>>>>>>>>>>> IT. A lateral-ish move shipping Kyrie out of town within a year of his arrival would cause some blowback for the C's if Kyrie wasn't on board with the deal.
It is an interesting discussion though, cause Kyrie can barely defend the PG position himself. And you also have the other end, where the opposing teams PG (most of them) could not adequately cover Hayward/Kawhi/Brown/Tatum.
IT was coming off a 3rd place MVP finish. You can go back to the Kyrie/IT trade thread and see many who considered that a lateral-ish move at the time. Danny/Brad knew better.
The spread between Kawhi's defense and Kyrie's defense is massive. Probably greater than Kyrie compared to IT.
Anyways the likelihood of Irving for Kawhi is incredibly slim, but its fun to kick around while we wait for Game 7 tonight.
Plus Hayward and Kawhi easily have the ball skills to run an offense, and have done it at high volume on good teams.
Yeah, especially in the minds of players. Kyrie is really highly regarded around the league, and maybe even overrated by his peers, just because his handle and shot creation ability are so amazing.
Edit: the usual disclaimer that this isn't happening. Kyrie wouldn't re-sign with a rebuilding Spurs team, and everyone involved knows that.
I'm not touching any player that won't play for Pop. Just forget it - I love this team too much as it is too.
I would be about 1,000% more reticent to "go to war" in the public/social sphere against Kyrie than IT.
That depends, next year Irving’s knee will be clean for the first time in years and he’ll be on a team with a lot of younger players full of piss & vinegar. So his defense might be closer to averagish next year as it was earlier this year. Especially given that with Hayward, Tatum, and Brown, Irving can conserve energy for the final five minutes when he’ll be needed to close out.
Last edited:
A lot of people knew better. Just from the publicly available info a lot of us had accurately predicted that Lil’ Zeke’s impact this season would be minimal and that due to age it was unlikely that he would ever approach his 2017 numbers.
cool, I was shocked Danny could pull off that deal with the Cavs. I'll have to go back and read it, guess you were a huge fan of it at the time along with Eddie J.
I didn't watch last year, but became intrigued by the debates.
It might really be interesting to revisit, because I can't make heads or tails of the debate if you bracket out emotion. Kyries strikes me as not only better, but younger, bigger, and more disciplined.
I get that love is love, but even without the retrospective data, it seems like a no-brainer--unless someone believed that Kyrie was a bad seed kind of player (which was defensible, of course).
It might really be interesting to revisit, because I can't make heads or tails of the debate if you bracket out emotion. Kyries strikes me as not only better, but younger, bigger, and more disciplined.
I get that love is love, but even without the retrospective data, it seems like a no-brainer--unless someone believed that Kyrie was a bad seed kind of player (which was defensible, of course).
As I recall, most of the objection centered around the idea that the Brooklyn pick was a slam-dunk top 5 in an absolutely loaded draft, and that giving that up (plus Jae) for only a slight upgrade at PG seemed like trading high upside for low upside.
Of course, now we know it was a huge upgrade over even 2016-17 Thomas, that Izayer barely played at all this year (and when he did, wasn't effective), and that the brooklyn pick is likely to be #8 or 9. But at the time it was a defensible position.
Of course, now we know it was a huge upgrade over even 2016-17 Thomas, that Izayer barely played at all this year (and when he did, wasn't effective), and that the brooklyn pick is likely to be #8 or 9. But at the time it was a defensible position.
Yes, this was the entire discussion from my memory as well. There wasn’t much doubt that Kyrie was a better player. It was that we overpaid for the upgrade. There was also considerable chatter about whether Kyrie would fit in or be likable, in contrast to Isaiah’s extreme likability (in Boston, at least), and that made the overpay even harder to swallow for some.
For some reason this post made me want to go back and see where SoSH stood on the Kyrie trade at the time of the trade. My impression was that while I felt it was a good trade, the majority's reaction was overwhelmingly negative. After tallying up the 1st 10 pages (~1st day post trade), I discovered that my memory was definitely distorted by the 14 posters or so who were so negative that they were prohibited from walking over any bridges.
For those that are interested:
Great Trade: 5
Good Trade: 41
Ok/Fair: 25
Meh: 14
Bad: 30
Terrible/sky is falling: 14
So almost exactly 50-50 between Good to great as compared to Bad/Terrible.
DeJesus distorted those numbers
SoSH does a damn good job on trades compared to the mainstream media
I was, as was HRB (who was even more vocal that Lil’ Zeke’s primary value in the Irving trade was as a matching salary). I got into an argument with Dean Demarkis about this on another board, as he was one of the “Crowder is a better NBA player than Irving” people (based on an advanced metric that actually doesn’t pretend to be an objective comparative rating system, but which people use that way anyway) that thought that Boston got shafted in the deal.
As it turns it Boston got the much better end of the deal, but that had as much to do with Cleveland’s mismanagement as anything else (that and Tank Battle! 2018 leaving the Brooklyn pick possibly devalued).
I haven't gone back and looked at my posts in the thread. I didn't hate it, but I didn't come to love it until we got well into the season.
If you go back to the threads on that trade and about Brooklyn prior to the season, many people noted that there was a good chance Brooklyn would improve, and also that tankers would sneak just under them. If Lin had been healthy, they probably would have been in the 10-12 range. I chalk that part of the trade up to the Celtics doing good modeling and selling high on the pick.
Given some pieces of a similar nature from ESPN re: the Patriots I tend to take these pieces with a massive grain of salt, but it's hardly encouraging that it sounds like from all sides it's not even entirely clear what Kawhi's injury even is.
Wasn't that sort of ossification exactly what destroyed Cam Neely's career? (Fuck you, Ulf.)
https://sports.yahoo.com/report-spurs-worried-kawhi-leonard-140039871.html
This is basically a rehash of the ESPN report, but the teams mentioned are Lakers, Clippers, Knicks, Sixers.
This is basically a rehash of the ESPN report, but the teams mentioned are Lakers, Clippers, Knicks, Sixers.
Yeah, at the time of the deal I said that they gave up the right pick as I thought the likelihood was that the LA/Sac pick would likely end up better than the Brooklyn one, though I added the caveat that it is the Cavs and they're destined to win the lottery.
This is exactly the first thought that popped into my head. I want nothing to do with that injury.
Also, Fuck Ulf.
The Knicks seem like the type of utterly hopeless, perpetually wheel-spinning franchise who should make a strong play. They have a top 10 pick and plenty of bad-but-not-terrible contracts they could move; and It's not like they really have anything to lose if Kawhi ends up damaged goods. And Kawhi seems to have doctors and connections in NYC.
If I'm the MFK, I hire Fizdale, try to get rid of everyone except for Porzingis, and build around Kristaps (22) and Kawhi (26).
Would have to be something like #9/Ntilikina/filler/future pick for Kawhi, which could certainly be topped by another team. However, if Kawhi power plays this, it’s possible they may accept it.
I am not a MD or anatomist, but it seems very weird to me that they can't confirm if it is ossification. AFAIK it ought to be fairly obvious on an MRI.
https://radiopaedia.org/articles/myositis-ossificans-1
https://radiopaedia.org/articles/myositis-ossificans-1
I was thinking the "filler" could be a half-decent young player like Tim Hardaway Jr. With Parker/Manu both possibly gone and Mills/Green in decline, Ntilikina-Murray-Hardaway Jr. would give them the seedlings of a young, athletic backcourt. But yeah ... other teams could certainly offer more.
Hardaway is making about $18M / year for next 3 years and has a 15% trade kicker so can’t imagine Spurs would be interested. I was thinking perhaps Kanter if he exercises his player option.
Think it is worth remembering Kawhi has only one year left before he can be a free agent.
The package for a guy who may be damaged goods and you don't have much time to find out before committing a max is pretty unclear to be honest.
The package for a guy who may be damaged goods and you don't have much time to find out before committing a max is pretty unclear to be honest.
Yes, Yes we can. No, no we shouldn't.
This team is setup to be great for a long run, he isn't worth the expected required value to obtain. Roll with what we have when healthy, bad injury luck still made it to the second round. Looking forward to watching this core develop in the next 3-4 years.
This team is setup to be great for a long run, he isn't worth the expected required value to obtain. Roll with what we have when healthy, bad injury luck still made it to the second round. Looking forward to watching this core develop in the next 3-4 years.
Stephen A. Smith threw out on SC, that Rozier is so good that the C’s should look to swap Kyrie for Kawhi.