2019-2020 Official Regular Season Thread

[tlance]

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.

The beginning of the end for LeBron in Cleveland was this trade.

If you aren’t favoring that in, you are being disingenuous.

 

[dtgold88]

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.

You can keep saying this over and over and it will never be anything other than absurd. The cavs went just as far without Kyrie (remember, you like to point out this is usually the case with teams my unreasonable friend) AND they did so without adding the centerpiece of the deal at that point.

 

[Shanemansj13]

The beginning of the end for LeBron in Cleveland was this trade.

If you aren’t favoring that in, you are being disingenuous.

That had everything to do with Kyrie's ego. He gradually changed over time and now we know...that's on him and nobody else. They didn't trade Lebron...were they planning for Lebron to leave...of course bc they knew they didn't have enough without Kyrie. If Kyrie's ego doesn't get in the way, we can legimately talking about that duo for awhile.

 

[tlance]

That had everything to do with Kyrie's ego. He gradually changed over time and now we know...that's on him and nobody else. They didn't trade Lebron...were they planning for Lebron to leave...of course bc they knew they didn't have enough without Kyrie. If Kyrie's ego doesn't get in the way, we can legimately talking about that duo for awhile.

And if they had gotten a more competitive return for Kyrie and shown they could contend?

I think decent chance LeBron doesn’t leave

Instead they got very little in the way of win now assets.

In other words, they chose the future over trying to retain LeBron. And I think that was a bad move. They shouldn’t have really started thinking about the future until he was actually gone.

 

[dtgold88]

That had everything to do with Kyrie's ego. He gradually changed over time and now we know...that's on him and nobody else. They didn't trade Lebron...were they planning for Lebron to leave...of course bc they knew they didn't have enough without Kyrie. If Kyrie's ego doesn't get in the way, we can legimately talking about that duo for awhile.

somewhat agree....but I'm pretty sure Lebron was leaving no matter what.

 

[dtgold88]

And if they had gotten a more competitive return for Kyrie and shown they could contend?

I think decent chance LeBron doesn’t leave

Instead they got very little in the way of win now assets.

In other words, they chose the future over trying to retain LeBron. And I think that was a bad move. They shouldn’t have really started thinking about the future until he was actually gone.

Would it be OK if you could set the rules and stick to them without moving the goal posts on me?

Beginning of the end for Lebron here was winning the title. That big exhale of his was because he knew he fulfilled his promise and could go to LA with far less backlash. Never mind none of this will make your absurd comments less absurd.

*Cs won the deal - huh? They have nothing to show for it and per you when you are in "be critical of Kyrie mode" you correctly point out they are better without him than with. and Cs have nothing from the deal, while cavs have Sexton, Nance, a 1st rounder and Porter through other deals from guys in that deal. So to sum up, they are worse with Kyrie and have nothing to show for a deal they won?
*Lebron cared so much about retaining Kyrie he could not be bothered to call the kid and try to smooth things over...since, ya know, he was the guy Kyrie did not want to play with.
*Cavs got worse - Cavs went almost exactly as far without Kyrie as the previous season with him and that was without even having the key asset in the deal for them....never mind when it suits you you like to point out every team gets better without Kyrie.

 

[dtgold88]

The beginning of the end for LeBron in Cleveland was this trade.

If you aren’t favoring that in, you are being disingenuous.

I don't factor it in because it isn't true. so there's that.

 

[tlance]

I don't factor it in because it isn't true. so there's that.

Whatever you say.

 

[dtgold88]

Whatever you say.

Thanks. Just one question......if holding onto Kyrie was so important to him and he was the reason Kyrie wanted to go, why could Lebron not be bothered to call the guy and maybe try and straighten things out?

OK, 2....after that, can you explain why in one discussion you will go on and on how all teams get better when they lose Kyrie, but somehow the Cavs were "far worse" (just ignore the part where they go just as far without him as with)?

Oh alright, make it 3....how does a team win a deal for a player when they were better without that player and lost him for nothing?

I'll hang up and listen.

 

[trojanfan12]

Beginning of the end for Lebron here was winning the title. That big exhale of his was because he knew he fulfilled his promise and could go to LA with far less backlash.

I think it depends on which "camp" your in on this.

If you believe that Lebron had planned to go to the Lakers all along, no matter what...then that title was the beginning of the end.

If you believe that Lebron wanted to see if the Cavs would continue to get the pieces necessary to win, saw they didn't and decided to leave, then the trade was the beginning of the end.

The former makes sense since there really was no good basketball reason for him to go to the Lakers other than maybe having faith that they could/would make the necessary moves to win a title.

The latter makes sense when you consider the timing of the trade and what they accepted back.

We're likely never really going to know since it ultimately came down to...Lebron wasn't committing to stay without knowing the Cavs were going to spend the money/assets and make the moves to stay contenders and the Cavs weren't going to spend the money/assets unless Lebron committed to stay.

 

[tlance]

Thanks. Just one question......if holding onto Kyrie was so important to him and he was the reason Kyrie wanted to go, why could Lebron not be bothered to call the guy and maybe try and straighten things out?

OK, 2....after that, can you explain why in one discussion you will go on and on how all teams get better when they lose Kyrie, but somehow the Cavs were "far worse" (just ignore the part where they go just as far without him as with)?

Oh alright, make it 3....how does a team win a deal for a player when they were better without that player and lost him for nothing?

I'll hang up and listen.

I never said they had to hold him. Not once.

What I said was that they chose to accumulate forward looking assets instead of win now assets. That decision made it certainty LeBron would leave.

Even if there was only a 5% chance Cleveland could have kept him, they should of gone for that. Because that provided a better, more realistic chance of contention than semi-tank Cleveland is doing now.

My position on this has nothing to do with Kyrie. It has everything to do with LeBron and the fact that Cleveland failed to put a quality roster around him in his final year.

 

[tlance]

I think it depends on which "camp" your in on this.

If you believe that Lebron had planned to go to the Lakers all along, no matter what...then that title was the beginning of the end.

If you believe that Lebron wanted to see if the Cavs would continue to get the pieces necessary to win, saw they didn't and decided to leave, then the trade was the beginning of the end.

The former makes sense since there really was no good basketball reason for him to go to the Lakers other than maybe having faith that they could/would make the necessary moves to win a title.

The latter makes sense when you consider the timing of the trade and what they accepted back.

We're likely never really going to know since it ultimately came down to...Lebron wasn't committing to stay without knowing the Cavs were going to spend the money/assets and make the moves to stay contenders and the Cavs weren't going to spend the money/assets unless Lebron committed to stay.

Kind of blows my mind people are claiming that Cleveland “won the trade”.

Congrats. Your prize is a string of 25-38 win seasons.

The simple fact that Boston did not sign IT to a massive contract by itself is a huge win for them. And there would have been pressure for them to do so had they not traded him.

 

[Shanemansj13]

Kind of blows my mind people are claiming that Cleveland “won the trade”.

Congrats. Your prize is a string of 25-38 win seasons.

The simple fact that Boston did not sign IT to a massive contract by itself is a huge win for them. And there would have been pressure for them to do so had they not traded him.

You can't factor if they won the trade on rumors--we don't know exactly what happened with Kyrie but we know he forced his way out, plain and simple. Therefore, Lebron isn't part of the trade. It's pretty simple.

So Boston gets Kyrie and loses him and they lose future assets...bc they are better now bc they sign Kemba with money, they win the trade? I'm not sure that makes sense. We all knew if Lebron left it doesn't matter who the Cavs had at the time...even if they still had Kyrie, they would tank. So I'm not sure why were are talking about their record after Lebron leaves. The assets they got from Boston are pieces on the team right now and future picks...you can't really evaluate those pieces for until they pan out. We can already evaluate what Boston got...he is on Brooklyn now and didn't help them in any way.

And pointing out IT didn't sign a massive contract...ok? Again, what does that have to do with anything...once the injury hit that wasn't in question. CLE dumped him for players and picks. I would say Nance and Clarkson is pretty good value for a guy that had declined. Then they dumped those players for future picks (kept Nance). They made like 3-4 trades to get future assets. You have to start over at some point...but you are just looking at this the wrong way. Don't make it more complicated than it is. Boston being able to contend faster has nothing to do with the trade, if they STILL had Kyrie than we aren't having this conversation right now.

 

[tlance]

You can't factor if they won the trade on rumors--we don't know exactly what happened with Kyrie but we know he forced his way out, plain and simple. Therefore, Lebron isn't part of the trade. It's pretty simple.

So Boston gets Kyrie and loses him and they lose future assets...bc they are better now bc they sign Kemba with money, they win the trade? I'm not sure that makes sense. We all knew if Lebron left it doesn't matter who the Cavs had at the time...even if they still had Kyrie, they would tank. So I'm not sure why were are talking about their record after Lebron leaves. The assets they got from Boston are pieces on the team right now and future picks...you can't really evaluate those pieces for until they pan out. We can already evaluate what Boston got...he is on Brooklyn now and didn't help them in any way.

And pointing out IT didn't sign a massive contract...ok? Again, what does that have to do with anything...once the injury hit that wasn't in question. CLE dumped him for players and picks. I would say Nance and Clarkson is pretty good value for a guy that had declined. Then they dumped those players for future picks (kept Nance). They made like 3-4 trades to get future assets. You have to start over at some point...but you are just looking at this the wrong way. Don't make it more complicated than it is. Boston being able to contend faster has nothing to do with the trade, if they STILL had Kyrie than we aren't having this conversation right now.

Fine.

Boston didn’t win.

Neither did Cleveland. Cleveland lost because they got significantly worse in the short term and therefor had no chance to resign LeBron.

There isn’t always a winner in trades. This may be one where both teams lost

 

[dtgold88]

I think it depends on which "camp" your in on this.

If you believe that Lebron had planned to go to the Lakers all along, no matter what...then that title was the beginning of the end.

If you believe that Lebron wanted to see if the Cavs would continue to get the pieces necessary to win, saw they didn't and decided to leave, then the trade was the beginning of the end.

The former makes sense since there really was no good basketball reason for him to go to the Lakers other than maybe having faith that they could/would make the necessary moves to win a title.

The latter makes sense when you consider the timing of the trade and what they accepted back.

We're likely never really going to know since it ultimately came down to...Lebron wasn't committing to stay without knowing the Cavs were going to spend the money/assets and make the moves to stay contenders and the Cavs weren't going to spend the money/assets unless Lebron committed to stay.

Not saying no way latter is true, but if it is why would Lebron not at least reach out to Kyrie to see if things could be straightened out?

Cavs had a way to get PG who Lebron allegedly wanted and he still would not commit to stay. Hard not to strongly lean to first option. Idea Lebron did not know if they'd spend money is absurd. They set payroll records for the sport. Spent as much in tax in 3 years as rest of league combined. Want to say he wasn't sure they'd make the right moves and that's why he left? I don't believe that, but it's possible. Harder to believe when the team he went to did nothing for 6 seasons in a FA destination city.

 

[dtgold88]

I never said they had to hold him. Not once.

What I said was that they chose to accumulate forward looking assets instead of win now assets. That decision made it certainty LeBron would leave.

Even if there was only a 5% chance Cleveland could have kept him, they should of gone for that. Because that provided a better, more realistic chance of contention than semi-tank Cleveland is doing now.

My position on this has nothing to do with Kyrie. It has everything to do with LeBron and the fact that Cleveland failed to put a quality roster around him in his final year.

Ok, new question then.....how do you know there was a better offer for Kyrie?

#2....IF keeping him so important why could Lebron not be bothered to call the young lad and try and straighten things out and find out if Kyrie could forgive him for being a D?

Last comment why you are who you are, and I realize you cannot change. They went to the Finals again, just like they did with Kyrie, only losing to a team no one lost to at full strength. So there's that.

Seems you are having a tough time with these Qs, as well....

can you explain why in one discussion you will go on and on how all teams get better when they lose Kyrie, but somehow the Cavs were "far worse" (just ignore the part where they go just as far without him as with)?

how does a team win a deal for a player when they were better without that player and lost him for nothing?

 

[dtgold88]

Kind of blows my mind people are claiming that Cleveland “won the trade”.

Congrats. Your prize is a string of 25-38 win seasons.

The simple fact that Boston did not sign IT to a massive contract by itself is a huge win for them. And there would have been pressure for them to do so had they not traded him.

what is really mindblowing is someone could say a team is better without the centerpiece (ok, the only piece) of a deal. They actually are better without him. They have nothing from the deal. And claim that team won the deal....and you actually did this.

Cavs have something left from the deal and went as far without Kyrie than with (without yet having their centerpiece of the deal - the Brooklyn pick).

 

[dtgold88]

You can't factor if they won the trade on rumors--we don't know exactly what happened with Kyrie but we know he forced his way out, plain and simple. Therefore, Lebron isn't part of the trade. It's pretty simple.

So Boston gets Kyrie and loses him and they lose future assets...bc they are better now bc they sign Kemba with money, they win the trade? I'm not sure that makes sense. We all knew if Lebron left it doesn't matter who the Cavs had at the time...even if they still had Kyrie, they would tank. So I'm not sure why were are talking about their record after Lebron leaves. The assets they got from Boston are pieces on the team right now and future picks...you can't really evaluate those pieces for until they pan out. We can already evaluate what Boston got...he is on Brooklyn now and didn't help them in any way.

And pointing out IT didn't sign a massive contract...ok? Again, what does that have to do with anything...once the injury hit that wasn't in question. CLE dumped him for players and picks. I would say Nance and Clarkson is pretty good value for a guy that had declined. Then they dumped those players for future picks (kept Nance). They made like 3-4 trades to get future assets. You have to start over at some point...but you are just looking at this the wrong way. Don't make it more complicated than it is. Boston being able to contend faster has nothing to do with the trade, if they STILL had Kyrie than we aren't having this conversation right now.

Nothing he has said makes any sense. Much of it is beyond absurd. Here is what we know and/or what tlance has said himself
*Cavs went almost exactly as far without Kyrie as with (losing 4-0 in Finals as opposed to 4-1)
*tlance has said in other discussions every team gets better WITHOUT Kyrie (but Cs won a deal in which they traded FOR Kyrie then lost him and got better).
*Cavs still have Sexton, Nance, a Milwaukee #1 pick and pretty sure they used assets from that deal to acquire Porter
*Cs have nothing
*tlance actually said Boston won just by not resigning IT but we also did not sign IT, traded him, and still have assets from the deal

None of this is debatable.

 

[dtgold88]

Fine.

Boston didn’t win.

Neither did Cleveland. Cleveland lost because they got significantly worse in the short term and therefor had no chance to resign LeBron.

There isn’t always a winner in trades. This may be one where both teams lost

Might be. But Cleveland lost because Kyrie is a nut and Lebron is unlikeable to that nut.....then Lebron chose to go play where it's very likely he wanted to go as soon as he kept his promise here. Not necessarily because of anything ownership/FO did.

 

[tlance]

Might be. But Cleveland lost because Kyrie is a nut and Lebron is unlikeable to that nut.....then Lebron chose to go play where it's very likely he wanted to go as soon as he kept his promise here. Not necessarily because of anything ownership/FO did.

If LeBron was ready to leave after he fulfilled his promise, he would not have signed a 2 year deal after winning the championship.