Is Irving a possiblity?
- Thread starter margodydek
- Start date
That happened with Koufos. I couldn't comment on Brewer, but he was a good pick, his shortcomings notwithstanding. Hell, I still think Koufos might be a decent player. If he can get a shrink.
margodydek
Well-Known Member
Hotttnickkk, you were all concerned about Kanter's knees and now you're all concerned over Irving's toe. Both checked out perfectly fine and neither are a concern. The Jazz would be idiotic to pass on him just because they did not work him out. By that logic if Cleveland passes on him, then he'll end up going undrafted.
Last edited:
Stifle Tower
Punch Bowl Re-Filler
Everyone was concerned about Borchardt pre-draft; there is little concern over Irving. Big men with feet problems are a lot different than a guy who hurt his toe once.
LOL.. just being cautious, it's the 3rd pick we're talking about after all..
When buying a car do you not wanna test drive it first?
If it's a brand new BMW that got a dent on the lot and they're selling it for cents on the dollar and you CAN'T test drive it, then yes.
Darkwing Duck
Well-Known Member
Unless Irving falls to three, which is a minute possibility, the Jazz will not draft Kyrie Irving.
Apologies for putting this in a second thread, but didn't see that this one existed earlier:
Two thoughts, one short & one long, on situations in which Irving might be available:
If the Jazz think there’s any chance of Irving falling to them, shouldn’t they be signaling that they’re interested in Williams and Kanter at #3 over Knight? That way Cavs feel it’s safer to have a Knight still left at #4.
From Cavs’ perspective, this may be like the Prisoner’s Dilemma used in social science and business. Let’s say Cavs have assigned the following values (out of 100) for their team situation:
Irving = 85
Williams = 83
Kanter = 82 (if they don’t also take Williams)
Knight = 80 (if they don’t also take Irving)
Valenciunus (or any other draft choice) = 72 or less
Drafting the second of Irving/Knight in the same draft or the second of Williams/Kanter in the same draft (including what they think they could get in a trade) = 73 or less
The best scenario for Cleveland is obviously Irving at 1 and Kanter or Williams at 4 (168 or 167 total value). But if Wolves and Jazz take Williams & Kanter, then the best possible value for Cavs is 158.
One possible option (from Cavs’ perspective) is to take Williams (or Kanter) at #1, and then assume that Wolves will not Irving and then be comfortable that a PG will be available at #4. Then they likely end up with 163 total value. The risk is that the Wolves trade their pick to a team that wants Irving and the Jazz take Knight. Then Cavs’ best possible value is 156.
As with the Prisoner’s Dilemma, the best solutions (for Cavs) are cooperation. In the past (I believe), teams have made deals to draft for one another. If the Cavs did this, they could do one of the following:
Solution 1: Cavs and Wolves (#1 & 2) agree to choose for one another. Wolves then get first choice (likely Williams or Kanter), then (to eliminate risk) Cavs take the other of Williams or Kanter. Then the likely value Cavs get is 163 or 162.
Solution 2: Cavs and Jazz (#1 & 3) agree to choose for each other. Jazz choose Irving. Then Cavs get 163 or 162 value.
Solution 3: Jazz and Cavs (#3 & 4) agree to choose for each other. Cavs assured of 167 or 168 value if they pick their needs.
Solution 3 is best on the face of it, but Cavs would likely have to give up value in order to persuade Jazz to go along – probably more value than it’s worth. Thus solution 1 & (especially) 2 might be the best to best balance risk and value: Wolves or Jazz might give up value to get top pick, and rookie salary of #2 and especially #3 will be lower than #1.
Again, if the Cavs valuing isn’t similar to what I’ve assumed here, this is all moot, but if the valuing is similar, there are some interesting possibilities.
Two thoughts, one short & one long, on situations in which Irving might be available:
If the Jazz think there’s any chance of Irving falling to them, shouldn’t they be signaling that they’re interested in Williams and Kanter at #3 over Knight? That way Cavs feel it’s safer to have a Knight still left at #4.
From Cavs’ perspective, this may be like the Prisoner’s Dilemma used in social science and business. Let’s say Cavs have assigned the following values (out of 100) for their team situation:
Irving = 85
Williams = 83
Kanter = 82 (if they don’t also take Williams)
Knight = 80 (if they don’t also take Irving)
Valenciunus (or any other draft choice) = 72 or less
Drafting the second of Irving/Knight in the same draft or the second of Williams/Kanter in the same draft (including what they think they could get in a trade) = 73 or less
The best scenario for Cleveland is obviously Irving at 1 and Kanter or Williams at 4 (168 or 167 total value). But if Wolves and Jazz take Williams & Kanter, then the best possible value for Cavs is 158.
One possible option (from Cavs’ perspective) is to take Williams (or Kanter) at #1, and then assume that Wolves will not Irving and then be comfortable that a PG will be available at #4. Then they likely end up with 163 total value. The risk is that the Wolves trade their pick to a team that wants Irving and the Jazz take Knight. Then Cavs’ best possible value is 156.
As with the Prisoner’s Dilemma, the best solutions (for Cavs) are cooperation. In the past (I believe), teams have made deals to draft for one another. If the Cavs did this, they could do one of the following:
Solution 1: Cavs and Wolves (#1 & 2) agree to choose for one another. Wolves then get first choice (likely Williams or Kanter), then (to eliminate risk) Cavs take the other of Williams or Kanter. Then the likely value Cavs get is 163 or 162.
Solution 2: Cavs and Jazz (#1 & 3) agree to choose for each other. Jazz choose Irving. Then Cavs get 163 or 162 value.
Solution 3: Jazz and Cavs (#3 & 4) agree to choose for each other. Cavs assured of 167 or 168 value if they pick their needs.
Solution 3 is best on the face of it, but Cavs would likely have to give up value in order to persuade Jazz to go along – probably more value than it’s worth. Thus solution 1 & (especially) 2 might be the best to best balance risk and value: Wolves or Jazz might give up value to get top pick, and rookie salary of #2 and especially #3 will be lower than #1.
Again, if the Cavs valuing isn’t similar to what I’ve assumed here, this is all moot, but if the valuing is similar, there are some interesting possibilities.
Id just take Knight at 3 then give up an additional asset. 3 and 12 (Kanter,Jimmer or Knight,Singleton) > Irving