2019-2020 Official Regular Season Thread

[tlance]

I was not here when deal was made but after the Cavs sure have been ripped for it. Not exactly sure how the Cs won the deal, though, as they have nothing to show for it and have been better without Kyrie. There is more through various deals, but at the very least the Cavs have Sexton.

Bledsoe has never had close to the type of season IT had and that 4 pick was nice that year, but there was no one of significance anyone would have coveted with that pick. Kyrie for the Suns would be a win for them. I think only ones who'd lose was Indiana.....and agree likely they would not do it.

IT was damaged goods and the Celtics didn’t want to pay him because of it.

Not really comparable.

 

[dtgold88]

IT was damaged goods and the Celtics didn’t want to pay him because of it.

Not really comparable.

OK...but the Cs have air from the deal. I know the Cavs have Sexton. Others, as well, but not sure who is left from the other deals with the players involved.

Key to the deal for the Cavs was the Brooklyn pick.

 

[shopson67]

It helped some and hurt others.

LeBron and the Lakers were playing at an even higher level immediately before the shut down, so I am don’t know that it helped them.

I do think it hurt teams like the Bucks and Clippers. So if by extension that helps the Lakers, then sure.

Doesn't really help the Lakers other than indirectly. Neither could take care of their own business enough to face the Lakers.

 

[trojanfan12]

LeBron and the Lakers were playing at an even higher level immediately before the shut down, so I am don’t know that it helped them.

Depends on what one means by "help".

As far as how the Lakers were playing, they definitely had hit a higher level of play and looked like they were looking to peak right about when the playoffs started.

On the other hand, one of the things that was supposed to hurt them was the age of some of their players. So, if part of the goal is to get to the playoffs rested and healthy, they definitely were able to do that.

 

[tlance]

OK...but the Cs have air from the deal. I know the Cavs have Sexton. Others, as well, but not sure who is left from the other deals with the players involved.

Key to the deal for the Cavs was the Brooklyn pick.

Now, sure.

But I am going to go out on a limb and predict that Sexton isn’t going to get you very far any time soon.

Trading Kyrie effectively ended the contention window for Cleveland with LeBron.

It could have been great if IT had been healthy and they made a trade or 2.

But they didn’t, the ship was slowly sinking and LeBron left.

LeBron wanted Cavs management to make the necessary moves to get better before he resigned, and Cavs management wanted LeBron to resign before they made the moves.

This was a game of chicken Cleveland was always going to lose. And the assets they refused to deal away aren’t even that valuable today anyhow.

The “air” Boston got from Kyrie allowed them cap space to sign Kemba. So they still probably did better than Cleveland all things considered.

 

[dtgold88]

Now, sure.

But I am going to go out on a limb and predict that Sexton isn’t going to get you very far any time soon.

Trading Kyrie effectively ended the contention window for Cleveland with LeBron.

It could have been great if IT had been healthy and they made a trade or 2.

But they didn’t, the ship was slowly sinking and LeBron left.

LeBron wanted Cavs management to make the necessary moves to get better before he resigned, and Cavs management wanted LeBron to resign before they made the moves.

This was a game of chicken Cleveland was always going to lose. And the assets they refused to deal away aren’t even that valuable today anyhow.

The “air” Boston got from Kyrie allowed them cap space to sign Kemba. So they still probably did better than Cleveland all things considered.

You claimed the Cs "won the deal". Not even possible since they have air left from it. Unlikely Sexton can be a #1 or even #2 guy and "get us far" but the Cs have been better without Kyrie. Seems you point that out a lot when it suits you, but not here? as for Kemba, they could have signed him AND retained the Brooklyn pick by not dealing for Kyrie. Not really debatable it's absurd to think they won the deal.

The idea you think Kyrie staying had any chance to keep Lebron here (or a better deal for Kyrie) is comical at best. Griff actually claims he could have made the deal for Bledsoe and PG or a different one for PG but would not because Lebron would not commit. There was no chicken...Lebron was leaving, and that is his right.

 

[tlance]

You claimed the Cs "won the deal". Not even possible since they have air left from it. Unlikely Sexton can be a #1 or even #2 guy and "get us far" but the Cs have been better without Kyrie. Seems you point that out a lot when it suits you, but not here? as for Kemba, they could have signed him AND retained the Brooklyn pick by not dealing for Kyrie. Not really debatable it's absurd to think they won the deal.

The idea you think Kyrie staying had any chance to keep Lebron here (or a better deal for Kyrie) is comical at best. Griff actually claims he could have made the deal for Bledsoe and PG or a different one for PG but would not because Lebron would not commit. There was no chicken...Lebron was leaving, and that is his right.

OK fine.

Both teams lost.

You happy now?

The Cavs definitely didn’t win it.

They got a lot worse. At least Boston is about where they were if not a little better.

 

[dtgold88]

OK fine.

Both teams lost.

You happy now?

The Cavs definitely didn’t win it.

They got a lot worse. At least Boston is about where they were if not a little better.

I mean if it's Cavs vs. Boston the cavs won as they still have sexton and other assets. Cs have nothing.

Cavs got worse because, if you haven't heard, that Lebron fellow chose to play in LA. Boston would be better off if they never made the deal as they could have everyone they have AND used the Brooklyn pick.

 

[tlance]

I mean if it's Cavs vs. Boston the cavs won as they still have sexton and other assets. Cs have nothing.

Cavs got worse because, if you haven't heard, that Lebron fellow chose to play in LA. Boston would be better off if they never made the deal as they could have everyone they have AND used the Brooklyn pick.

No, they got a lot worse when they traded Kyrie Irving for Jae Crowder and a 5’6” who lost his explosiveness due to injury.

Then they lost LeBron because the team was way worse and unable to seriously contend.

Meanwhile, the Celtics just made it to the conference finals.

So if you want to call that a “win” for Cleveland because they still have 1 mediocre prospect from the deal, then go right ahead.

Most reasonable people would consider that deal a failure though. Sorry. Sexton just isn’t good enough to claim a win here.

 

[bksballer89]

@dtgold88 @Shanemansj13

 

[Shanemansj13]

@dtgold88 @Shanemansj13

 

[dtgold88]

Gonna feel like been forever since they played when they finally do....probably because it will be 9-10 months at that point.

 

[dtgold88]

No, they got a lot worse when they traded Kyrie Irving for Jae Crowder and a 5’6” who lost his explosiveness due to injury.

Then they lost LeBron because the team was way worse and unable to seriously contend.

Meanwhile, the Celtics just made it to the conference finals.

So if you want to call that a “win” for Cleveland because they still have 1 mediocre prospect from the deal, then go right ahead.

Most reasonable people would consider that deal a failure though. Sorry. Sexton just isn’t good enough to claim a win here.

Got a lot worse? Hmmmm. went almost exactly as far as they did the previous season, and that was before using the Brooklyn pick, the centerpiece of the deal for them.

The Cs made it to the ECF without Kyrie. I know you know this as you this in other discussions when your agenda is to rip Kyrie.

Most reasonable people don't call 20-year-olds who keep getting better and have a tremendous work ethic average, especially when they go for nearly 21 ppg on 47% shooting and 38% from 3 (when 3s were thought to be a weakness as a teenager)....... Most reasonable people do not trash a player then try to credit the team for acquiring that player, then going further without that player. Most reasonable people do not believe a team who gets to the Finals was a lot worse than a team who got to the Finals, and ignore they had not yet received the centerpiece of the deal.

Did I miss any of your unreasonableness?

 

[tlance]

Got a lot worse? Hmmmm. went almost exactly as far as they did the previous season, and that was before using the Brooklyn pick, the centerpiece of the deal for them.

The Cs made it to the ECF without Kyrie. I know you know this as you this in other discussions when your agenda is to rip Kyrie.

Most reasonable people don't call 20-year-olds who keep getting better and have a tremendous work ethic average, especially when they go for nearly 21 ppg on 47% shooting and 38% from 3 (when 3s were thought to be a weakness as a teenager)....... Most reasonable people do not trash a player then try to credit the team for acquiring that player, then going further without that player. Most reasonable people do not believe a team who gets to the Finals was a lot worse than a team who got to the Finals, and ignore they had not yet received the centerpiece of the deal.

Did I miss any of your unreasonableness?

My unreasonableness?

Do you honestly believe that the 2018 Cavs were close to as good as the 2017 version?

Cmon man.

Yes. They were a lot worse. That is just facts.

 

[dtgold88]

My unreasonableness?

Do you honestly believe that the 2018 Cavs were close to as good as the 2017 version?

Cmon man.

Yes. They were a lot worse. That is just facts.

Both went to Finals and had little chance against GS (and lost). Then there's the pesky fact the Cavs had not yet received the centerpiece of the deal. Hint - it was not Crowder, nor IT.

Still find it comical in one conversation you can rip Kyrie (deservedly) because Cs were better without him....then try to claim a win for the Cs for acquiring him?

Yep....ya gotta love this forum.

 

[Stakesarehigh]

If you step away from the outcome of the trade itself and ask yourself what should have the Cavs received for Kyrie the Cavs definitely didn't win. That's not to say the Celtics did either. But in the end it wasn't a positive trade for the Cavs.

 

[Shanemansj13]

You have to look at what the situation was before. Kyrie was forcing his way out...they weren't going to get a whole lot. Were the Cavs better after the trade? Of course not. But if you actually breakdown the trade. The Cavs won the trade as of right now.
If you look at each team now, Boston is much better obviously and they are better suited without Kyrie...but that hasn't nothing to do with the actual trade.

Who do the Cavs have currently through that deal?

- Larry Nance (part of the IT deal)
- Collin Sexton (part of the original deal)
- Dante Exum (part of the Clarkson deal)
-2022 Bucks 1st round pick (George Hill and Crowder deal)
- Four future 2nd round picks

Who do the Celtics have current through the deal?

Nobody. They were able to sign Kemba once Kyrie left...but if CLE was in the same situation they couldn't attract FA's so that point is moot.

It's less about where the Cavs are and what they actually have now for assets. Once Lebron left it didn't matter they were going to tank regardless. They can't attract FA's like Boston so they had to at least get a 1st rounder from Boston. They ended up getting 2 1st's and 4 2nd's through all the trades and players in multiple deals.

 

[dtgold88]

If you step away from the outcome of the trade itself and ask yourself what should have the Cavs received for Kyrie the Cavs definitely didn't win. That's not to say the Celtics did either. But in the end it wasn't a positive trade for the Cavs.

with hindsight? Maybe, except for a few things....First, we do not know that they were offered anything better. Second, many believed that Brooklyn pick would be much higher in a loaded draft. Third, when we ask if the cavs won the deal we are only doing so based on what they received and what the Cs received. Whether the cavs could have done better in a different deal has nothing to do with who won between the teams who actually made the deal.

 

[dtgold88]

You have to look at what the situation was before. Kyrie was forcing his way out...they weren't going to get a whole lot. Were the Cavs better after the trade? Of course not. But if you actually breakdown the trade. The Cavs won the trade as of right now.
If you look at each team now, Boston is much better obviously and they are better suited without Kyrie...but that hasn't nothing to do with the actual trade.

Who do the Cavs have currently through that deal?

- Larry Nance (part of the IT deal)
- Collin Sexton (part of the original deal)
- Dante Exum (part of the Clarkson deal)
-2022 Bucks 1st round pick (George Hill and Crowder deal)
- Four future 2nd round picks

Who do the Celtics have current through the deal?

Nobody. They were able to sign Kemba once Kyrie left...but if CLE was in the same situation they couldn't attract FA's so that point is moot.

It's less about where the Cavs are and what they actually have now for assets. Once Lebron left it didn't matter they were going to tank regardless. They can't attract FA's like Boston so they had to at least get a 1st rounder from Boston. They ended up getting 2 1st's and 4 2nd's through all the trades and players in multiple deals.

Not to mention the Cs could have still signed Walker AND used the Brooklyn pick if they wanted. Pretty sure some of those 2nd rounders were used to acquire the pick used on Porter, as well.

And, while I agree, the team was less talented after the deal they went almost exactly as far the year without him as the previous season with him.....and that was without the centerpiece being used - Brooklyn pick.

what I do wish could have happened? Lebron not a D, Kyrie doesn't go off the rails and we see what they could have done with them in 2018....or Brooklyn suck as bad as we thought they might and we get a top 3-5 pick in that draft.

 

[tlance]

Both went to Finals and had little chance against GS (and lost). Then there's the pesky fact the Cavs had not yet received the centerpiece of the deal. Hint - it was not Crowder, nor IT.

Still find it comical in one conversation you can rip Kyrie (deservedly) because Cs were better without him....then try to claim a win for the Cs for acquiring him?

Yep....ya gotta love this forum.

You completely ignore the short term of the deal.

The Cavs got worse and the Celtics were about the same despite their best player (who they dealt to Cleveland) suffering a debilitating injury.

So maybe the Celtics didn’t win the short term because Kyrie is overrated. But the Cavs definitively lost it.

That isn’t even debatable.