Lakers also got the best player in the trade, the pick and the cap space if needed. Other than that, it was a bad deal.
List all the good parts of the trade, fail to list the bad.
--
IMO, I don't think the Cavs regret trading away IT. IT needed the ball in his hands to produce, and that wasn't happening, as the ball would go through Lebron first.
Also, their current pace is much different with Nance and JC. Their team looks much better without IT. It was really a deal that worked out for both sides.
Agreed, i feel the DLo trade was the same way where both teams got what they wanted.
Impressive by the new FO that they can consistently make moves of this nature.
The one thing I don't understand about the Cavs is - they have to realize that Kyrie was known for killing the Warriors. You trade him for IT, a guy who can possibly similarly attack the Warriors D and at the very least, force Steph to have to play D. Now their plan is to go against Steph with George Hill...they have to be praying the Warriors get taken out early.
You're looking at it too simplistically. First, the Cavs felt they had to trade Irving because he was going to bolt as a free agent. IT looked like a great trade in those circumstances. But he turned out to have a worse injury than anyone thought. The Cavs were floundering, and their defense was terrible.
They got rid of a bunch of old guys (Wade, Rose), and parts that weren't working (Crowder and IT). They switched that up for youth and a lot of peremeter defenders (Hill, Hood, Nance).
I think the changes definitely made them a better team. They're still not better than the Warriors, but IT has always sucked against the Warriors so he wasn't the missng piece.
The one thing I don't understand about the Cavs is - they have to realize that Kyrie was known for killing the Warriors. You trade him for IT, a guy who can possibly similarly attack the Warriors D and at the very least, force Steph to have to play D. Now their plan is to go against Steph with George Hill...they have to be praying the Warriors get taken out early.
They had no choice but to trade Kyrie. And as for IT, like IT said it was a panic move.
They could have traded Lebron instead and had a 25 year old superstar point guard to build around.
We finally have a player when other team is on a run and our offense is struggling that can get us buckets or create ez shots for us. Something we were missing before
The one thing I don't understand about the Cavs is - they have to realize that Kyrie was known for killing the Warriors. You trade him for IT, a guy who can possibly similarly attack the Warriors D and at the very least, force Steph to have to play D. Now their plan is to go against Steph with George Hill...they have to be praying the Warriors get taken out early.
You're looking at it too simplistically. First, the Cavs felt they had to trade Irving because he was going to bolt as a free agent. IT looked like a great trade in those circumstances. But he turned out to have a worse injury than anyone thought. The Cavs were floundering, and their defense was terrible.
They got rid of a bunch of old guys (Wade, Rose), and parts that weren't working (Crowder and IT). They switched that up for youth and a lot of peremeter defenders (Hill, Hood, Nance).
I think the changes definitely made them a better team. They're still not better than the Warriors, but IT has always sucked against the Warriors so he wasn't the missng piece.
And you're displaying a very unflattering habit of being a know it all in this community lately. Can you please tone that down and let people present their opinions without the lead sentence. What make LG great is responsible conversations between community members.
His opinion was just as valid as the one you're presenting and the bolded was definitely not necessary. _________________ "If You're Afraid To Fail...Then You're Probably Going To Fail."
- Kobe
The one thing I don't understand about the Cavs is - they have to realize that Kyrie was known for killing the Warriors. You trade him for IT, a guy who can possibly similarly attack the Warriors D and at the very least, force Steph to have to play D. Now their plan is to go against Steph with George Hill...they have to be praying the Warriors get taken out early.
They had no choice but to trade Kyrie. And as for IT, like IT said it was a panic move.
They could have traded Lebron instead and had a 25 year old superstar point guard to build around.
I think LeBron has a No Trade Clause...but I agree with you 100%. And why trade Kyrie to a team you will likely face in the playoffs...no way that move was going to be good for them. But I suppose they did get a pick out of it... _________________ "If You're Afraid To Fail...Then You're Probably Going To Fail."
- Kobe
The one thing I don't understand about the Cavs is - they have to realize that Kyrie was known for killing the Warriors. You trade him for IT, a guy who can possibly similarly attack the Warriors D and at the very least, force Steph to have to play D. Now their plan is to go against Steph with George Hill...they have to be praying the Warriors get taken out early.
You're looking at it too simplistically. First, the Cavs felt they had to trade Irving because he was going to bolt as a free agent. IT looked like a great trade in those circumstances. But he turned out to have a worse injury than anyone thought. The Cavs were floundering, and their defense was terrible.
They got rid of a bunch of old guys (Wade, Rose), and parts that weren't working (Crowder and IT). They switched that up for youth and a lot of peremeter defenders (Hill, Hood, Nance).
I think the changes definitely made them a better team. They're still not better than the Warriors, but IT has always sucked against the Warriors so he wasn't the missng piece.
And you're displaying a very unflattering habit of being a know it all in this community lately. Can you please tone that down and let people present their opinions without the lead sentence. What make LG great is responsible conversations between community members.
His opinion was just as valid as the one you're presenting and the bolded was definitely not necessary.
I disagree with your opinion and find it unnecessary.
The one thing I don't understand about the Cavs is - they have to realize that Kyrie was known for killing the Warriors. You trade him for IT, a guy who can possibly similarly attack the Warriors D and at the very least, force Steph to have to play D. Now their plan is to go against Steph with George Hill...they have to be praying the Warriors get taken out early.
You're looking at it too simplistically. First, the Cavs felt they had to trade Irving because he was going to bolt as a free agent. IT looked like a great trade in those circumstances. But he turned out to have a worse injury than anyone thought. The Cavs were floundering, and their defense was terrible.
They got rid of a bunch of old guys (Wade, Rose), and parts that weren't working (Crowder and IT). They switched that up for youth and a lot of peremeter defenders (Hill, Hood, Nance).
I think the changes definitely made them a better team. They're still not better than the Warriors, but IT has always sucked against the Warriors so he wasn't the missng piece.
Couple facts you're wrong about...
1) Kyrie was still under contract for another 2 years (I believe)
2) Rose isn't exactly an old guy (29)
But I get what you're saying about them needing change but the problem remains, Steph is still the best PG in the bizz and they traded away the only piece they had that could've atleast countered him.
The one thing I don't understand about the Cavs is - they have to realize that Kyrie was known for killing the Warriors. You trade him for IT, a guy who can possibly similarly attack the Warriors D and at the very least, force Steph to have to play D. Now their plan is to go against Steph with George Hill...they have to be praying the Warriors get taken out early.
You're looking at it too simplistically. First, the Cavs felt they had to trade Irving because he was going to bolt as a free agent. IT looked like a great trade in those circumstances. But he turned out to have a worse injury than anyone thought. The Cavs were floundering, and their defense was terrible.
They got rid of a bunch of old guys (Wade, Rose), and parts that weren't working (Crowder and IT). They switched that up for youth and a lot of peremeter defenders (Hill, Hood, Nance).
I think the changes definitely made them a better team. They're still not better than the Warriors, but IT has always sucked against the Warriors so he wasn't the missng piece.
Couple facts you're wrong about...
1) Kyrie was still under contract for another 2 years (I believe)
2) Rose isn't exactly an old guy (29)
But I get what you're saying about them needing change but the problem remains, Steph is still the best PG in the bizz and they traded away the only piece they had that could've atleast countered him.
Check the IT/Curry duel on YouTube, he did a good job when he played Curry
The one thing I don't understand about the Cavs is - they have to realize that Kyrie was known for killing the Warriors. You trade him for IT, a guy who can possibly similarly attack the Warriors D and at the very least, force Steph to have to play D. Now their plan is to go against Steph with George Hill...they have to be praying the Warriors get taken out early.
You're looking at it too simplistically. First, the Cavs felt they had to trade Irving because he was going to bolt as a free agent. IT looked like a great trade in those circumstances. But he turned out to have a worse injury than anyone thought. The Cavs were floundering, and their defense was terrible.
They got rid of a bunch of old guys (Wade, Rose), and parts that weren't working (Crowder and IT). They switched that up for youth and a lot of peremeter defenders (Hill, Hood, Nance).
I think the changes definitely made them a better team. They're still not better than the Warriors, but IT has always sucked against the Warriors so he wasn't the missng piece.
Couple facts you're wrong about...
1) Kyrie was still under contract for another 2 years (I believe)
2) Rose isn't exactly an old guy (29)
But I get what you're saying about them needing change but the problem remains, Steph is still the best PG in the bizz and they traded away the only piece they had that could've atleast countered him.
True, Kryrie was under contract for two more years, but he made it clear he didn't want to be there, he was going to leave, he didn't want to play with Lebron, and it was a bad situation. On top of that there were reports that he threatened to get elective knee surgery and missed the entire season if you were not traded. Obviously, this is a situation with a million different rumors so it's anyone's guess what the actual story was.
Rose might be chronologically 29, but parts of his body seem 99 years old.
That stuff aside, I don't see that keeping IT helps them against the Warriors more than adding a bunch of defenders and shooters. Over the past few years, while be was an all-star, Thomas only shot about 35% from the field and 27% on threes against the Warriors. They have his number.
Last edited by activeverb on Fri Mar 02, 2018 5:25 pm; edited 1 time in total
Joined: 10 Jul 2009 Posts: 12155 Location: Bay Area
Posted: Fri Mar 02, 2018 3:26 pm Post subject:
lakers4life78 wrote:
Lakers also got the best player in the trade, the pick and the cap space if needed. Other than that, it was a bad deal.
Well, sure, if you take away everything we received in the trade, of course it's a bad deal. In other words, yes, trading JC and Nance for literally nothing is a bad deal - can't believe the NBA allowed it.
Check the IT/Curry duel on YouTube, he did a good job when he played Curry
You have to be careful about relying on one highlight reel from one game (a game by the way in which IT shot 7 for 20). Overall, IT has played poorly against the Warriors.
Joined: 17 Sep 2008 Posts: 21075 Location: In a white room, with black curtains near the station
Posted: Fri Mar 02, 2018 4:37 pm Post subject:
mookielala wrote:
I miss Nance's defense, but it is looking like a good trade. We have a pick now and IT can light it up more than JC.
The Miami game blew me away. I had a lot of reservations about how he'd fit alongside Kuzma and what gaps we'd leave on defense without a floor general like Nance there. If IT can light a team up like that on any given night when we need it, that covers a lot of ground. It's easy for me to forget he averaged 29 points per game night in and night out before he went down with the hip issue. It certainly earns him some patience while we see how this roster fits together over the remaining season.
Joined: 15 Jan 2006 Posts: 2336 Location: Berlin, Germany
Posted: Sat Mar 03, 2018 8:55 am Post subject:
Inspector Gadget wrote:
PHILosophize wrote:
Inspector Gadget wrote:
IIRCC
is that some sort of financial institution?
What does IIRC stand for?
If I Remember Correctly
its the laziness of people that think they have to handwrite everything, except they have a keyboard and could just write this whole damn thing to the end....same with these annoying shortcuts for player names....boogie...LBJ etc
Nance has the 6th best RPM in the league amongst PF's. And his BPM (+4.1) is higher than Draymond Green's.
The trade was still good, but it's amazing how underrated Nance is.
Yeah this still stings for me. I honestly considered Nance an invaluable piece of our core moving forward and he was still inexpensive and seemingly limited enough offensive still that we could have retained him longterm for pretty cheap. His defense is elite and worth a ton and he fits into offense nicely despite his limitations. Having him coming in off the bench as either a 5 or 4 and just wreaking havok on second units is a fantastic scenario for him and I wanted it. He and Zubac were an amazingly entertaining duo and they were on the same team in practice all the time developing chemistry. _________________ You are either in or on your way to the NBA Finals.
All times are GMT - 8 Hours Goto page Previous1, 2, 3Next
Page 2 of 3
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum