NBA 2017: Fleecing the East

[DanteGabriel]

4 minutes ago, briantw said:

If I'm the Cavs, I'd demand at least one good draft pick to go with that package.  They still have a Brooklyn pick or swap, right?

Maybe the Lakers pick. I would prefer to keep the Brooklyn pick.

[Calibandar]

That might be asking too much of the Celtics, to give up that possible no.1 pick next year in addition to Thomas and Crowder.

Thomas does help the team win now, and Cavs are still the best team in the East with that trade. Doesn't help you beat GSW, but what trade would.

For the Phoenix scenario, Bledsoe might be a good replacement to help in the "win now" department but what other pieces come with that? I'd want Booker as I have no idea about how good Josh Jackson will prove to be. His poor shooting is a worry.

The Denver scenarios are intriguing as well, and they can really do with a guy like Irving. But I wonder if they have something that the Cavs really want, suggestions for the guard position are Murray and Harris, I wouldn't be crazy about that if I'm the Cavs. Much rather have Bledsoe or Thomas.

As for Miami, they're saying Dragic, Winslow and a pick. I don't rate Winslow at all so that's nothing for me, and Dragic, yes, he helps fill the Kyrie void but you're not getting enough back if you're the Cavs. Also because Miami's pick is going to be a bad one. They were already playoff material this year and with Irving instead of Dragic that pick is a very late first rounder.

Maybe the Lakers , you don't hear much rumours about them but they should be very interested. But again there's no guard there for them to trade to Cavs.

All in all you can understand why the Cavs might still hope for mended fences.

[DanteGabriel]

1 hour ago, Calibandar said:

That might be asking too much of the Celtics, to give up that possible no.1 pick next year in addition to Thomas and Crowder.

Thomas does help the team win now, and Cavs are still the best team in the East with that trade. Doesn't help you beat GSW, but what trade would.

The Brooklyn pick seems more likely to be the first overall. The LA pick is highly conditional. Basically the Celtics only get that pick if it's 2-6. If it is not in that range it gets into some kind of 2019 formula that I don't have the patience to memorize.

It certainly doesn't make the Celtics better than the Warriors and probably not the Cavs (though I could see them getting the #1 East seed in a less flukey fashion) but Kyrie is a younger, better, less injured Isaiah, with more time left on his deal, so it's still an improvement for Boston. I don't want the Celtics to give Thomas a max contract, but would be fine with that for Irving. I think a team with Irving and Hayward as its best players, with whatever talent Ainge can rustle up in the next couple of years, could be a serious contender. Depends on how the young talent in the pipeline like Brown, Tatum and Zizic work out.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

14 hours ago, briantw said:

Wiggins was rated as one of the worst defenders in the entire league last year.  538 named him the Least Defensive Player of the Year, and when they ran the math they found out that being guarded by Wiggins is only slightly more difficult than being wide open.

Here's the quote:

• Possession by possession, there are a few defenders who are as bad as Wiggins. When Wiggins contests a shot, opponents have a 56.1 effective field goal percentage; when they are unguarded, they have a 56.4 eFG percentage. Fundamentally, getting a shot up against Andrew Wiggins is the same as getting an open shot.

Wiggins was ranked 290 in DRPM, 305 in defensive points saved, 234 in FG differential, 288 in on/off differential.  He truly is one of the most atrocious defenders in the entire NBA.  Keep in mind, these numbers were all under Coach Thibs, generally regarded as one of the best defensive coaches in the league.

Yeah, I said he doesn't do well when graded on advanced analytics. But even the article you're quoting admits that he's not that bad and is getting graded on a curve because they expected him to be a lot better. 

Also, that quote is highly misleading. He's getting dinged a lot for closing out on the guy that LaVine was suppose to be guarding. If you actually watched Wolves games you'd know this, which again, is why I said he passes the eye test if not the analytics test.

 

 

14 hours ago, briantw said:

He's also not one of the best young players in the league.  There are probably thirty guys 25 or under who are better than him, or at least have better long-term outlooks.  

This is meant to be satire right? Just Google "Top 25 under 25." He's on every list, and typically in the 10-12 range. And there are very few younger guys ahead of him on those lists. 

14 hours ago, briantw said:

All Wiggins is, at his core, is a guy who gets you 20+ relatively inefficient PPG.  He also doesn't rebound well for his size or position and he's not a good passer.

 

10 hours ago, sperry said:

What brian is saying about Wiggins right now is accurate. I do have higher hopes for his long term future. I think there's a chance he can figure it out, and Butler and Thibs should help. But right now Kyrie is miles ahead of him. Also, Wiggins positional value is only a thing if he starts playing some defense. There are plenty of wings who can score inefficiently and can't defend.

Funny, he's got a better FG% and eFG% than Kyrie did in year 3, and averaged more points in year three than Kyrie did in his first 5 seasons. I'm not sure why you guys keep saying he's inefficient when his numbers are better than most year three players. 

Also, Kyrie has never played a full season, he's super injury prone, and his style of play will only lead to more injuries in the future.

At this point Brian, I have to conclude that your hate of Wiggins has more to do with defending the trade than Wiggins' actual play.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

1 hour ago, Calibandar said:

All in all you can understand why the Cavs might still hope for mended fences.

I don't. It's hard to see how they're going to get more than 25 cents on the dollar. 

[Calibandar]

Which is precisely why they're hoping for mended fences between Irving and the Cavs.

Best scenario is still that it becomes resolved somehow, and the team stays together.

That may be impossible, yes, but it's the best scenario for this win-now team. When this trade first became known people were speculating that this was actually an opportunity for the Cavs, that they could trade Irving and refit the roster to beat the Warriors. That seemed unlikely to me, this is bad news for the franchise and bad news for the immediate title chances.

In any case if I'm the Cavs, I'm holding him until I get a trade that I really like, and if I don't get it in the next few weeks, I'm holding onto him. They *should* get a good haul for this guy.

As for Minnesota, as you may know I'm much more positive on Wiggins than some here, but I don't see how a trade works. They don't have a guard the Cavs want, and I don't think they even want Wiggins. And the fit with LeBron is also questionable.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

I don't think the fences can be mended though. The bad blood is too public, and Kyrie is reportedly not returning the Cavs phone calls. Honestly the Cavs best move is to dump him for young players and picks, because I think there's less than a 1% chance that LeBron is resigning with them. All signs indicate he's leaving. 

Also, nobody is a bad fit with Lebron. 

 

ETA:

I wonder for how long has LeBron known that Kyrie wanted to leave. Maybe that's the main reason Butler was told not to go to the Cavs.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

 I hear that the crux of the whole Irving/LeBron thing is the extreme favorable treatment LeBron receives. One of the things that keeps getting mentioned is that LeBron is the only player whose entourage is allowed on the team plane. I can see how that sort of thing might become a bit grating.

[briantw]

4 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

At this point Brian, I have to conclude that your hate of Wiggins has more to do with defending the trade than Wiggins' actual play.

I don't hate Wiggins.  I just don't think he's that good, and he's about to be hilariously overpaid.  He's a massive, massive downgrade from Kyrie Irving.  Irving is literally better than him at everything, including defense.  Irving has the best handles in the game, is one of the best shooters in the league, is capable of absolutely taking over big games down the stretch, finishes well under the basket, and is a capable playmaker.

Wiggins...scores a little over twenty a game inefficiently.

Pass.

Wiggins for Kyrie would be taking ten cents on the dollar.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

1 hour ago, briantw said:

I don't hate Wiggins.  I just don't think he's that good, and he's about to be hilariously overpaid.  He's a massive, massive downgrade from Kyrie Irving.  Irving is literally better than him at everything, including defense.  Irving has the best handles in the game, is one of the best shooters in the league, is capable of absolutely taking over big games down the stretch, finishes well under the basket, and is a capable playmaker.

I'd hope that a guy in his sixth year would be better than a guy in his third year. And Wiggins can absolutely take over late in games and is one of the best finishers at the rim too. 

1 hour ago, briantw said:

Wiggins...scores a little over twenty a game inefficiently.

He averaged 24 points and 4 rebounds last year. That's pretty good for someone who turned 22 midway through the season. And why do you keep calling him inefficient? Funnily enough, his stats during year 3 are nearly identical to Kyrie's in year 3. The only difference was Kyrie was a better FT shooter, but Wiggins shot so many more that he actually made more per game.

http://www.foxsports.com/nba/kyrie-irving-player-stats

http://www.foxsports.com/nba/andrew-wiggins-player-stats 

[sperry]

1 hour ago, Tywin et al. said:

I'd hope that a guy in his sixth year would be better than a guy in his third year. And Wiggins can absolutely take over late in games and is one of the best finishers at the rim too. 

He averaged 24 points and 4 rebounds last year. That's pretty good for someone who turned 22 midway through the season. And why do you keep calling him inefficient? Funnily enough, his stats during year 3 are nearly identical to Kyrie's in year 3. The only difference was Kyrie was a better FT shooter, but Wiggins shot so many more that he actually made more per game.

http://www.foxsports.com/nba/kyrie-irving-player-stats

http://www.foxsports.com/nba/andrew-wiggins-player-stats 

You're kind of cherrypicking, since year 3 was Kyrie's worst shooting year. As someone who is often an outrageous homer, I feel qualified to say you are being an outrageous homer here.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

39 minutes ago, sperry said:

You're kind of cherrypicking, since year 3 was Kyrie's worst shooting year. You are being an outrageous homer on this one.

I don't think I'm cherry-picking here. It's not like I went looking for the data set that best proved my argument. I simply compared their third seasons and pointed out that from a scoring perspective, they're basically the same. I also don't think I'm being a homer. It's not like I've been making over the top arguments to irrationally defend my player/team. All I've done is point out the numerous reasons why it would be a bad move to trade Wiggins for Irving. I've always conceded that Irving is much better right now than Wiggins, but have also argued that Wiggins is the better fit for both now and the next 5 years. And if we could get Irving without giving up one our core three pieces, I'd do it in a heartbeat. 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

Also, I'd suggest everyone take the time to read this article. It really humanizes Lamar Odom and chronicles his fall from grace:

https://www.theplayerstribune.com/lamar-odom-done-in-the-dark/

[briantw]

2 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

He averaged 24 points and 4 rebounds last year. That's pretty good for someone who turned 22 midway through the season. And why do you keep calling him inefficient? Funnily enough, his stats during year 3 are nearly identical to Kyrie's in year 3. The only difference was Kyrie was a better FT shooter, but Wiggins shot so many more that he actually made more per game.

The difference is that Kyrie can do a lot of other things too.  He can break down his man in isolation.  He's an elite three point shooter.  He's an elite free throw shooter.  He is capable of distributing the ball when he wants to.  In that regard, I'd compare him to Kobe.  Both guys have great vision but often choose to look for their own shot first.  He's not a terrible rebounder for his size either like Wiggins is.

And saying their stats were almost identical completely ignores advanced stats.  I don't really care about box score stats, as they are often (like in the case of Wiggins) very deceiving.  

Looking strictly at their third years, Kyrie is better in the following categories:

• VORP: 3.3 to -0.6.  Yes, Wiggins was worse last year than a replacement level player.
• BPM: 3.2 to -2.7
• OBPM: 4.1 to .2
• DBPM: -.9 to -2.9
• Win Shares: 6.7 to 4.2
• WS/48: .128 to .066
• PER: 20.1 to 16.5

They had an almost identical TS% in their respective third years, but Kyrie was significantly better by basically every other metric, and that's not even getting into the areas I listed above where Kyrie was already light years ahead of where Wiggins will ever be (handles, shooting, passing ability).  Kyrie was putting up the kinds of advanced stats and year to year improvement that hint at stardom.  Wiggins is putting up the kind of advanced stats and year to year stagnation (he was actually worse in year three compared to year two in many areas, and you can't blame it on coaching changes or dysfunction because Kyrie had to deal with all of that too but much worse) that hints at being a role-player.

Again, I don't hate Wiggins, but if you're trading Kyrie, you need to bring someone back who can do more than just score.  

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

13 minutes ago, briantw said:

Again, I don't hate Wiggins, but if you're trading Kyrie, you need to bring someone back who can do more than just score.  

 I agree that Irving is worth more than Wiggins, but just score pretty much covers like 90% of Irving's skillset, doesn't it? He's not a good defender. Kind of a mediocre passer. What does he do besides score?

[briantw]

29 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

 I agree that Irving is worth more than Wiggins, but just score pretty much covers like 90% of Irving's skillset, doesn't it? He's not a good defender. Kind of a mediocre passer. What does he do besides score?

Irving is much less one-dimensional as a scorer.  As I've mentioned before, he's an elite shooter and also has elite handles, so he's able to break down his man and score in a variety of different ways that Wiggins cannot.  You can't guard him close because he'll burn you, but you can't sag off him or he'll drill a three in your face.  

I also think that, while Irving isn't a top-tier distributor, he's miles beyond where Wiggins is as a playmaker and I think he is a lot better than anyone gives him credit for because he's rarely asked to play the distribution role.  That's LeBron's role.  During the Raptors series, LeBron basically let Irving play the point and he averaged 8.5 assists per game.  As I've mentioned, I think Irving is comparable to Kobe Bryant in that regard.  Both guys had great vision and were capable playmakers, but both guys typically looked for their own shot first.  Kobe was always underrated as a passer.  He was a great passer.  He just chose not to pass.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

24 minutes ago, briantw said:

Irving is much less one-dimensional as a scorer.  As I've mentioned before, he's an elite shooter and also has elite handles, so he's able to break down his man and score in a variety of different ways that Wiggins cannot.  You can't guard him close because he'll burn you, but you can't sag off him or he'll drill a three in your face.  

I also think that, while Irving isn't a top-tier distributor, he's miles beyond where Wiggins is as a playmaker and I think he is a lot better than anyone gives him credit for because he's rarely asked to play the distribution role.  That's LeBron's role.  During the Raptors series, LeBron basically let Irving play the point and he averaged 8.5 assists per game.  As I've mentioned, I think Irving is comparable to Kobe Bryant in that regard.  Both guys had great vision and were capable playmakers, but both guys typically looked for their own shot first.  Kobe was always underrated as a passer.  He was a great passer.  He just chose not to pass.

Fair enough. Yeah, I'm not suggesting Wiggins is a comparable scorer. I agree that Kyrie is one of the best scorers in the league at this point. His finishes off the drive inside are insane. That said, I'm not sure that he's all that as a distributor. A great passer who chooses not to pass is neglecting an important part of his game. You can't be a great passer and not pass.

[briantw]

14 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

Fair enough. Yeah, I'm not suggesting Wiggins is a comparable scorer. I agree that Kyrie is one of the best scorers in the league at this point. His finishes of the drive inside are insane. That said, I'm not sure that he's all that as a distributor. A great passer who chooses not to pass is neglecting an important part of his game. You can't be a great passer and not pass.

Look, I'll agree that Kyrie isn't an elite-tier distributor, but he's still miles ahead of Wiggins as a passer and playmaker.  But it is certainly worth noting that Kyrie is not being asked to be a point guard.  He's being asked to play the role of a two-guard and LeBron plays the point.  I think he certainly has the ability to be top ten or so in that regard if he were to focus solely on playing point.

[Slurktan]

3 hours ago, briantw said:

Irving is much less one-dimensional as a scorer.  As I've mentioned before, he's an elite shooter and also has elite handles, so he's able to break down his man and score in a variety of different ways that Wiggins cannot.  You can't guard him close because he'll burn you, but you can't sag off him or he'll drill a three in your face.  

 

What is your definition of an elite shooter? Cause to me not being in the top 20 in either 2 pt % or 3 pt percentage% would say that is not elite.  And Irving is neither of those.  I'm not saying I would compare him to Wiggins, he is much better than Wiggins.  A straight up trade wouldn't be a good deal.

EDIT:  I'm not saying Kyrie isn't a great shooter, he is.  But elite to me is on a different level.  When he gets to 50-40-90 I'll call him an elite shooter.

Also not sure why you are bringing up elite handles.  Know who else had/has elite handles?  Bassy Telfair.  Elite handles means jack shit.

[briantw]

4 hours ago, Slurktan said:

What is your definition of an elite shooter? Cause to me not being in the top 20 in either 2 pt % or 3 pt percentage% would say that is not elite.  And Irving is neither of those.  I'm not saying I would compare him to Wiggins, he is much better than Wiggins.  A straight up trade wouldn't be a good deal.

EDIT:  I'm not saying Kyrie isn't a great shooter, he is.  But elite to me is on a different level.  When he gets to 50-40-90 I'll call him an elite shooter.

Also not sure why you are bringing up elite handles.  Know who else had/has elite handles?  Bassy Telfair.  Elite handles means jack shit.

I generally consider an elite shooter to be anyone who shoots over 40% from three.  

And handles absolutely matter.  They just don't matter if the rest of your game is terrible.  But I don't know how anyone can watch Kyrie play and say that his handles are not an enormous part of why he's as good as he is.