Report: #5, Favors, Burks for Cavs' #1 pick

[ONE LOVE]

Yay or Nay?

Jody Genessy ‏@DJJazzyJody 54m
Jazz are offering up Derrick Favors, Alec Burks and No. 5 pick to Cavs for the No. 1 selection and Jarrett Jack, according to @1280Spence.

 

[Saint Cy of JFC]

Yay, but would be sad to see Favors go. He hasn't progressed as fast as anyone would like, but he has managed to get better every year and I think he will continue to do so.

 

[Ben10]

Nay. I know we have to swing for the fences here but that just seems like to much


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[dipship31]

Sucks that it would have to be Favors AND Burks, but again we need to swing for the fence so I say do it.

 

[ONE LOVE]

I'll also say "Yay".



We can always pick another "Burks" with the #23 pick - this draft is loaded and DEEP.

 

[Doublea]

Replace Burks with picks (either #23, GSW 2017, or future first) and I'd say yay.

 

[spycam1]

Replace Burks with picks (either #23, GSW 2017, or future first) and I'd say yay.

I'd rather do this, too. But I'll say yay either way. We need a true franchise player.

 

[Markusj]

Yep. If you believe Wiggins is going to be a top 10 player in the league (which I do), then you do this trade in a heartbeat.

 

[spycam1]

And to think we could have just intentionally lost a couple more games...

 

[ONE LOVE]

Replace Burks with picks (either #23, GSW 2017, or future first) and I'd say yay.

I'd rather do this, too. But I'll say yay either way. We need a true franchise player.

Cavs don't need more mediocre picks. They need someone who can help them now. Burks can come off the bench and give them 14pts tomorrow if they needed him to.



Besides, I'd rather pick someone fresh with our #23 anyway... I don't like the thought of 'paying' for Burks.

 

[QuinSnydersHair]

Replace Burks with picks (either #23, GSW 2017, or future first) and I'd say yay.

Losing two key players from last year's squad in this trade proposal, I fear we wouldn't want to lose a third and would overpay in a match to keep Hayward.

 

[dipship31]

I don't like the thought of 'paying' for Burks.

That's what I'm starting to lean towards.

 

[spycam1]

Cavs don't need more mediocre picks. They need someone who can help them now. Burks can come off the bench and give them 14pts tomorrow if they needed him to.



Besides, I'd rather pick someone fresh with our #23 anyway... I don't like the thought of 'paying' for Burks.

I feel ya. But I honestly don't know how much we're going to have to pay Burks.

 

[dipship31]

Trading Burks pretty much guarantees we'll match whatever Hayward gets.

 

[QuinSnydersHair]

I'd rather keep Burks at 7M per than Hayward at 11M per.

 

[ONE LOVE]

Trading Burks pretty much guarantees we'll match whatever Hayward gets.

I'm fine with that. With Wiggins - Burks suddenly become redundant.



I like Hayward-Wiggins much better than Burks-Wiggins pairing.

 

[ONE LOVE]

I'd rather keep Burks at 7M per than Hayward at 11M per.

This is true also.


But remember how Wes was paid like $5m per and we let him walk? He's much better/complete than Burks even at that stage.

 

[Avery]

So sick of these 'reports' and 'sources'. I will sig bet anybody that we move up no higher than #5.

 

[dipship31]

I'm fine with that. With Wiggins - Burks suddenly become redundant.



I like Hayward-Wiggins much better than Burks-Wiggins pairing.

Agreed 100% and sounds like the max deal Hayward could get would expire the same time we'd need to extend Wiggins. I'd be all for rolling like this:

Burke
Hayward
Wiggins
Tomic
Kanter/Gobert

 

[Litany]

And to think we could have just intentionally lost a couple more games...

I've thought about this but I just don't think there is any way in hell we would have been worse than Milwaukee or Philly. They were dumpster fires. Only way we could have is if we had just had fake injuries for all of our starters. Not happening.

It would have been harder to be in sixers spot right now after Embiid news.

Cavs got lucky and it sucks ***. They're using that leverage now as we would have In a traded down.