Farewell Kyle Korver

[dark2332]

Give it 4 more weeks. This guy is a perfect fit--no one panic.

 

[TyGuy]

Give it 4 more weeks. This guy is a perfect fit--no one panic.

It never hurts to add shooting, but we already had that in spades with much greater needs to fill. It's hard to envision us adding yet another wing, but this team desperately needs another guy other than LeBron that can guard bigger wings. Jefferson isn't counting at the moment.

 

[dark2332]

It never hurts to add shooting, but we already had that in spades with much greater needs to fill. It's hard to envision us adding yet another wing, but this team desperately needs another guy other than LeBron that can guard bigger wings. Jefferson isn't counting at the moment.

We did have shooting, yes, but we added one of the three best shooters in the NBA. There is a difference.

Your point regarding a guy who can guard 2-4 (especially 3 and 4) is very valid. However, I don't look at this as an either/or scenario. We truly didn't give up too much to acquire Kyle, and we don't know what the Hawks intentions were/are with Thabo.

 

[TyGuy]

We did have shooting, yes, but we added one of the three best shooters in the NBA. There is a difference.

Your point regarding a guy who can guard 2-4 (especially 3 and 4) is very valid. However, I don't look at this as an either/or scenario. We truly didn't give up too much to acquire Kyle, and we don't know what the Hawks intentions were/are with Thabo.

We did give up a first rounder which removes us from being able to use another pick in any deal.

 

[JMoneyYourHoney]

We did give up a first rounder which removes us from being able to use another pick in any deal.

People act like that pick is a throwaway and the defensive wings we could potential acquire with it (Tucker, Dudley, Thabo) aren't worth it.

But when you're considering the fact that literally our only other option to guard the Kawhis and Durants of the world is Richard Jefferson you start to rationalize that it very much is...

 

[dark2332]

People act like that pick is a throwaway and the defensive wings we could potential acquire with it (Tucker, Dudley, Thabo) aren't worth it.

But when you're considering the fact that literally our only other option to guard the Kawhis and Durants of the world is Richard Jefferson you start to rationalize that it very much is...

I don't think anyone is saying it's a throwaway. Perhaps you should not put words in someone's mouth.

We were able to rid ourselves of Dunleavy and the contract of Mo Williams in the process to free a roster spot. We were always going to have to incentivize someone to absorb these players. Yet, we acquired Korver in the process.

We cannot say for certain the price for Thabo, but the price for Korver was cheap considering how else we benefitted ourselves in the deal.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[TyGuy]

I don't think anyone is saying it's a throwaway. Perhaps you should not put words in someone's mouth.

We were able to rid ourselves of Dunleavy and the contract of Mo Williams in the process to free a roster spot. We were always going to have to incentivize someone to absorb these players. Yet, we acquired Korver in the process.

We cannot say for certain the price for Thabo, but the price for Korver was cheap considering how else we benefitted ourselves in the deal.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Dunleavy wasn't an anchor we were carrying. He's only making 5 million and has a team option at the end of the year. His play had improved and we did have some successful bench lineups with him. Mo Williams on the other hand obviously was because he doesn't play. Was it worth giving up an asset to remove him in a possible lateral move? My answer is no if we can't obtain a wing defender with the absence of a pick we gave up.

 

[JMoneyYourHoney]

I don't think anyone is saying it's a throwaway. Perhaps you should not put words in someone's mouth.

You can get offended over semantics all you like. Saying that we got Korver "practically for free" is akin to calling the pick a throwaway.

I'm aware of the totality of what Griffin accomplished with the trade, which is why he earned positive marks from me.

 

[dark2332]

We did give up a first rounder which removes us from being able to use another pick in any deal.

I do believe we can trade our 2021 first rounder, technically, although with LeBron aging that is a risk.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[letgocavs]

Same issues with Dunleavy. I would like to just pass him the ball to get a feel of it. It's like LeBron and Kyrie can only assist you and no one else can touch the ball unless to shoot or finish. Just want to see him catch it not off a screen and maybe use a pick and shoot a jumper. I know that's not his game, but just let guys get shots off because we don't set good enough screens at the moment.

 

[dark2332]

You can get offended over semantics all you like. Saying that we got Korver "practically for free" is akin to calling the pick a throwaway.

I'm aware of the totality of what Griffin accomplished with the trade, which is why he earned positive marks from me.

There is nothing to be offended over. I am just trying to make sure we are clear.

My direct quote was "We truly did not give up too much to acquire Kyle." Not "practically for free." Very different things, not just "semantics."

If you are putting quotation marks, take the time to get it correct.

I then summarized the rest of the trade, and explained why I thought it was a positive trade for us.

If you are aware of the totality of the trade, as I know you are, and you also gave it a positive grade, than what exactly are we debating? It seems we agree.

After all, I never claimed that adding another versatile defender was a mistake. I agree this is on the list.

My whole point was that we should have patience with Korver, and he will serve to be a good fit in time.

Frankly, I don't even know how that's a debatable stance.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[dark2332]

Dunleavy wasn't an anchor we were carrying. He's only making 5 million and has a team option at the end of the year. His play had improved and we did have some successful bench lineups with him. Mo Williams on the other hand obviously was because he doesn't play. Was it worth giving up an asset to remove him in a possible lateral move? My answer is no if we can't obtain a wing defender with the absence of a pick we gave up.

I'm not trying to argue, we both want this team to be better.

Let's just think about this. If teams were lining up to take Dunleavy from us, the Hawks wouldn't have struggled for days to find a taker for him and fail.

Also, if Griffin had confidence that he could serve the role we desired, he wouldn't have had to go fishing for Korver.

I agree he was coming around, but clearly not enough to suit the front office. With lack of interest from the league, it was clear he was also a dead roster spot.

Therefore, the dump of Dunleavy and Williams in this deal, as well as the creation of the TPE's must be factored into any grading of the trade.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[roozy]

If hes not gonna get shots he is pretty much useless.

 

[Just Checkin]

If hes not gonna get shots he is pretty much useless.

Ehh, I can understand asking LeBron and Kyrie to be great ball handlers for a 7 game series. But for 82 games? We're gonna need another ball handler on this team since gravity can only do so much with people just switching knowing they just have to guard LeBron.

 

[buzzdog]

Have they had any practices yet? Judging only from what they did against New Orleans, I would say the answer is no. If they did practice then WTF do they have to show for it? They did next to Jack Squat with Korver, still acting clueless on ways to use him.