What's new
By:
Filters

Kyrie to Utah?

In the latest Lowe Post pod Windhorst said Utah/Cle have been talking on/off for the past few months about deals. Said Cleveland would be interested in Favors *if* they move Love.
 
Kyrie should've won without Lebron when he was 21 years old and had no one around him. Just like Durant and Westbrook. Oh wait they had each other and didn't win **** for a couple years.

Cy dumb as ****.
 
Saint Cy of JFC said:
Irving to me is like a souped up version of Alec Burks. He does a lot of nifty and fancy things to make people think he is better than he actually is. This is super evident when people call him the best under the rim finisher in the NBA despite it not being close to the truth. He just occasionally makes some of the most difficult looking finishes that end up on Sportscenter. He is stuck in a mindset of playing in an inefficient way where he worships Hero ball over efficiency and plays no defense.
Click to expand...


The dude is the very definition of clutch. And the very definition of the 'go to' option.
 
Saint Cy of JFC said:
It's something like the Cavs have a worse net rating than the Lakers when Irving plays and Lebron is on the bench.
Click to expand...

But is that really fair?

If LBJ is on the bench, that means he is left with scraps and Love. In another context (where LBJ is gone), the scraps would be upgraded due to the increased salary flexibility that would be available.
 
Saint Cy of JFC said:
In the latest Lowe Post pod Windhorst said Utah/Cle have been talking on/off for the past few months about deals. Said Cleveland would be interested in Favors *if* they move Love.
Click to expand...
I would like to get k love.
 
Cleveland's "scraps" are still solid role players an all-star PG should be able to elevate. Irving just can't guard and is a ball dominant iso scorer. No thanks.

Sent from my A0001 using JazzFanz mobile app
 
Irving isn't an ideal player to build a team around due to his lack of defense + his shoot first mentality. But if we acquired him, which we won't, we would be doing so in order to pair him with Gobert.

IMO Irving would be a great fit alongside Rudy, who would help negate some of his defensive lapses, while Irving would bring the ability to take over offensively, which is something this team currently lacks.

The main deterrent to trading for him IMO is the length of his contract & his assumed lack of desire to play in Utah. Maybe his character as well, although I believe those concerns are being somewhat overstated. But as far as basketball ability is concerned, he would bring a lot of qualities that would drastically improve this team (depending on what we would have to give up).

Skill-wise, he's a good fit IMO. But there are legitimate reasons to not give up assets for him.
 
fishonjazz said:
Yep, jazz should only want players with no flaws. Lebron, durant, kahwi..... those should be the only players in the nba that the jazz should be looking to get. Though lebron is getting kinda old so maybe we shouldn't really want him. All three of those players would probably just leave when their contract is up so really we should turn down any opportunity to get any of them tbh.
25 year olds who are 4 time all stars, have been all nba, are nba champions as the 2nd best player, Olympic gold medalist, rookie of the year, coming off a season averaging over 25 ppg on over 47% from the field, over 40% from three, and over 90% from the line on a good contract are pretty much garbage and should be avoided at all costs. I'm in a agreement with you guys now. Kyrie sucks.
Click to expand...
Look, don't manipulate my statement. I think Kyrie in Utah would be fun. He is a great player. However, I dont think he is a winner. He doesnt necessarily make his team better.

But I would take him in a heartbeat if we didn't have to lose too much.

Sent from my VS995 using JazzFanz mobile app
 
LoPo said:
Look, don't manipulate my statement. I think Kyrie in Utah would be fun. He is a great player. However, I dont think he is a winner. He doesnt necessarily make his team better.

But I would take him in a heartbeat if we didn't have to lose too much.

Sent from my VS995 using JazzFanz mobile app
Click to expand...
Why isn't he a "winner" though? iirc he showed up big time in some nba finals games and won a championship.

How do you define a winner? Would you not want cp3 cause he isn't a winner and can't get to the finals? Would you not want Anthony Davis cause he isn't a winner and can't make the playoffs? Paul pierce wasn't a winner until ray Allen and garnett showed up right. Those two (garnett and allen) weren't winners until they joined Paul pierce.
 
fishonjazz said:
Its quite simple really. Kyrie is a 25 year old 4 time all star coming off a year averaging 25 ppg shooting over 47% from the field, over 40% from 3, and over 90% from the line. Those numbers dont suck at all.
averages 6 assists and 2.5 turnover per game. Not bad at all.

Every fan of almost every team should want him on their team.
Click to expand...

You fail to acknowledge the financial implications or his free agency in 2 years.
1. Jazz can't pay everyone. Going into the tax is no longer just a 1-1 penalty. It ramps up and is very steep once a team becomes a repeat offender. Even IF Kyrie stayed, do you think he'd do so for less than the mega max?

2. There is then a cascade effect on other starters and the bench as you factor in $55-60m going to just 2 players. And, yes, this would have happened had Hayward remained. Minor incursion into the tax for a couple of years is possible. I guarantee Jazz won't be repeat offenders.

3. If Utah guts the team to acquire him, there's no way they contend within those 2 years. It would be exactly like the Knicks when they acquired Melo.

4. There's no way you give up Mitchell. Jazz aren't contending this year and by next, Donovan could be a very good starter, with the potential to still develop into much more. And on a rookie deal, with Utah then able to keep him for 7-8 years.
 
Jack Strop said:
You fail to acknowledge the financial implications or his free agency in 2 years.
1. Jazz can't pay everyone. Going into the tax is no longer just a 1-1 penalty. It ramps up and is very steep once a team becomes a repeat offender. Even IF Kyrie stayed, do you think he'd do so for less than the mega max?

2. If Utah guts the team to acquire him, there's no way they contend within those 2 years. It would be exactly like the Knicks when they acquired Melo.

3. There's no way you give up Mitchell. Jazz aren't contending this year and by next, Donovan could be a very good starter, with the potential to still develop into much more. And on a rookie deal, with Utah then able to keep him for 7-8 years.
Click to expand...

If Mitchell develops his offensive game, he'll be a star
 
karl malone said:
The main deterrent to trading for him IMO is the length of his contract & his assumed lack of desire to play in Utah.
Click to expand...

Both of these things were talked about in the that Zach Lowe podcast.

They brought up how stars getting traded with 2 years left is about as good as it gets, and they talked about how his preferred destinations are more of a statement that he wants to go to a good organization with a good head coach and front office (sound familiar?).
 
fishonjazz said:
Why isn't he a "winner" though? iirc he showed up big time in some nba finals games and won a championship.

How do you define a winner? Would you not want cp3 cause he isn't a winner and can't get to the finals? Would you not want Anthony Davis cause he isn't a winner and can't make the playoffs? Paul pierce wasn't a winner until ray Allen and garnett showed up right. Those two (garnett and allen) weren't winners until they joined Paul pierce.
Click to expand...
I consider a franchise player/winner somebody who is the reason his team wins a series. Robert Horry was incredible and incredibly clutch. But Horry wasnt the catalyst for teams winning series. He was a key part but not the franchise player.

Sent from my VS995 using JazzFanz mobile app
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top