Kyrie Irving

[gourimoko]

Did no one learn anything from Minnesota and Kevin Love? They didn't offer him the five year max because they were saving it for Ricky fucking Rubio, who doesn't look anywhere close to a max player now. They're going to lose Love after three years because of that bungled decision, and you can bet your ass that they wish they could have that one back.

If you have a guy who might be a max player, you don't lowball him in the name of giving it to a player who might be better later.

I just need to hire Jack Brickman to write my posts.. Well said.

 

[gourimoko]

at this juncture, your theory on endorsements has largely fallen flat,

Based on???

so we've circled back to the point that you tried to assert that irving would leave tens of millions on the table because of some sort of grudge.

Because he has the capability. The point is that he's not necessarily leaving millions of dollars on the table which is what many posters here seem to think would be the case.

the notion that you think i "should" have been banned because i made a post questioning the logic behind this flimsy assertion is pretty telling.

I thought you were banned because you don't use capital letters or punctuation and your posts are generally pretty bad.

Maybe I was mistaken though.

 

[gourimoko]

David Falk:

Falk: In 2012, I find that to be incredible that someone would think that. We live in a digital age, and I think people like Dwight Howard, LeBron James, Kobe Bryant, Dwyane Wade, Kevin Durant -- Kevin Durant is incredibly marketable in Oklahoma.

Ahem.. Went over each of those names in detail. Those are (were) the best players in the game and on championship contenders. Remember I said (not a championship team; hence the reference to the Knicks, Rockets, and Clippers).

Falk: He doesn't have to be in New York or L.A. I think he could be the best player in the league in two years, at the most.

You are missing the qualifier here. We're talking about Durant being the best player in the league. How does "best player in the league" represent Kyrie's future situation? That's never going to happen. Again, if we're talking about Blake Griffin on the Clippers, rather than MVP Kevin Durant, Falk's argument doesn't apply.

Falk: And if someone said to you, "If you represented him, would you move him to New York?" I'd say, "No, for what? I think he has a certain homespun credibility being in Oklahoma. It's like Brett Favre being in Green Bay."

Again, Durant is the best player in Falk's mind in 2 years. I'd say the same about LeBron. But the "homespun credibility" is nonsense to me. Championships are more important. It's why people love Kobe and LeBron, they are the best and they've proved it by winning championships.

Falk: And I think these guys are being told by these agents who aren't very sophisticated in marketing that you have to be in New York or L.A. to be marketable. Maybe they've never heard of the Internet.

Or maybe these agents know more than David Falk?

Dwight Howard's endorsement opportunities went down when he went to LA.

Dwight Howard damaged himself in the process. Had he stayed and become the franchise player, his value would have skyrocketed - at least, in my opinion.

Howard said playing in a bigger market, like the Big Apple, won’t help a player’s brand if the team is losing.

I agree. Again, you're ignoring the point that I've made. Market size is a contributing factor, winning is important, but if you win in Cleveland and win in New York those translate to two different amounts of fans/viewership.

First two years in Miami Lebron's endorsement money was almost exactly the same as it was in Cleveland.

How's it now?

 

[Dr. Claw]

Kyrie already has already had the "Uncle Drew" campaign with Pepsi and a pretty big deal with Nike.

He's not going to get bigger deals anywhere else until he starts winning.


Lebron went national in Cleveland, so did Kyrie, Peyton Hillis made the cover of Madden, Johnny Manziel is a cash machine. The world is tiny now. Markets don't matter as much as you apparently think they do.

side note: While Hillis was strangely good (for one year, as Browns players seem to be nowadays) I have a lingering feeling the reason he got that cover was so that they could avoid putting Mike Vick on it

 

[Dr. Claw]

kyrie might not be the saviour of Cleveland but he's still one of the best prospects in the NBA and has plenty of room to grow

bingo. I always found the idea that Kyrie was supposed to be a savior was ridiculous. That he was crazy good, but not franchise-engulfing good was a great first step. I've gone on record regarding the other steps. If anyone on this team is retained IMO, Kyrie should be untouchable. If he's traded I'd want Rondo or better in return AT LEAST. (you can also say Delly earned a "no trade for 2014" slot too, LOL)

 

[marxus]

He will get the max because the market says he should. I personally don't like the term "Max" player because there are only 3-5 guys that deserve that honor. Instead, there are so many small market teams that need to overpay for their stars.

Back when Steph Curry signed his new deal, there was a glimmer of hope that Kyrie (who had the same concerns) would wind up with a similar contract. However, once Wall signed an undeserving max deal, we are now forced to pay Kyrie the same. PGs will get paid what big men used to...10+ mil for potential.

Steph Curry was coming off his worst year as a pro, in which he averaged 15 points and only played in 23 games. He was a couple years older than Kyrie and it was largely viewed as a risky move to even pay him even that much. Curry's concerns were much greater than Kyrie's at their respective times for extensions. He deserves the max based off what he has shown he's capable of and what he has actually done.

 

[tsteele316]

Based on???



Because he has the capability. The point is that he's not necessarily leaving millions of dollars on the table which is what many posters here seem to think would be the case.



I thought you were banned because you don't use capital letters or punctuation and your posts are generally pretty bad.

Maybe I was mistaken though.

because the argument of media markets and such has been beaten to death on these forums, which i'm sure you know.

the entire point is that irving would be leaving millions on the table over hurt feelings. the fact is you have to throw out dozens of caveats, several of which don't hold water, to justify him turning down a max deal from the cavs financially. so yes, it goes back to my original point that it's easy to toss out such statements when you aren't the one walking away from tens of millions.

i use punctuation all the time. i simply don't capitalize. the fact that you keep trying to harp on this is puzzling, and smacks of someone with hurt feelings because his logic was questioned.

 

[mcfly]

Steph Curry was coming off his worst year as a pro, in which he averaged 15 points and only played in 23 games. He was a couple years older than Kyrie and it was largely viewed as a risky move to even pay him even that much. Curry's concerns were much greater than Kyrie's at their respective times for extensions. He deserves the max based off what he has shown he's capable of and what he has actually done.

Plus, maybe a hefty salary will light a fire under his ass? I do not really like the logic, but I would think the last thing a young player like Kyrie would want is to get big contract, and then get the crowd/fans on you when you coast at times or start losing games.

 

[marxus]

Plus, maybe a hefty salary will light a fire under his ass? I do not really like the logic, but I would think the last thing a young player like Kyrie would want is to get big contract, and then get the crowd/fans on you when you coast at times or start losing games.

I agree. Plus, if he signs the extension, all the media going off on him for trying to leave goes away. That seemed to get him a bit upset, which was cool, because it made it seem more genuine when he was calling all the rumors untrue, but also sucked because he certainly wasn't playing up to standard.

 

[gourimoko]

the entire point is that irving would be leaving millions on the table over hurt feelings. the fact is you have to throw out dozens of caveats, several of which don't hold water, to justify him turning down a max deal from the cavs financially.

Wait what?? I'm not justifying Kyrie turning down a max deal! I'm saying the Cavaliers should offer him one, and I think he'll sign it.

My point is that allowing Irving to get 1-year removed from free agency, playing a public game of chicken, is very dangerous. And more to your point, we do not know and cannot know if Irving would indeed be leaving money on the table! It's entirely possible that he would be compensated by going to a larger market. For some reason you think being in Cleveland is just as profitable (considering endorsements) as being in New York, on equal teams; and with that I strongly disagree.

so yes, it goes back to my original point that it's easy to toss out such statements when you aren't the one walking away from tens of millions.

And I go back to my point that you should read my posts, nowhere did I say Irving should leave money on the table. It's pretty obvious what I'm saying. By going to New York or Los Angeles, or to a winning franchise, Kyrie could potentially recoup those losses. Instead of considering that, you'd like to think the Cavaliers have him by the balls... They don't.

i use punctuation all the time. i simply don't capitalize. the fact that you keep trying to harp on this is puzzling, and smacks of someone with hurt feelings because his logic was questioned.

Keep harping on it? I said it once. Project much? As far as my logic being questioned, maybe you haven't realized but I love to debate points. You're talking to the wrong guy if you don't think you'll get an argument from me.

Either way, I think we've reached the point where this discussion has served it's purpose.

 

[Ohio]

Either way, I think we've reached the point where this discussion has served it's purpose.

its*

:gap:

 

[RchfldCavRaised]

Fire Mike Brown, stop playing Tristan 30 mins a game or move him and stop trying to force the Waiters/Irving backcourt and that alone can pretty much put Irving back on the trajectory he was on before drafting Dion Waiters, then firing Byron Scott and forcing Irving to cover up for Mike Brown's inability to coach last season.

The most contentious point of the 3, is the Waiters Irving match... which I still believe is not optimal for either player.

Personality-wise, skill-wise, any-wise... Dion is too alpha and irrationally confident and Kyrie is trying to find that alpha in himself while being supremely more talented than Dion still.

Its a bad match that will be a bad match on the court unless Dion is convinced to play that 6th man role for life. Its not a position thing for me, its a skillset redundancy with a conflict of character in their personalities that wont allow them to mix with where each of them need to develop most and mature most.

Having a new offensive coach and a new defensive anchor COULD help, but Im more inclined to say there are still better matches for running mates for both guys and its still early enough where we dont have to keep playing with fire.

 

[OptimusPrime]

The funny thing is that if they would have forced the Irving/Waiters backcourt last year, Mike Brown probably doesn't get fired because we would have made the playoffs.

 

[I'mWithDan]

The funny thing is that if they would have forced the Irving/Waiters backcourt last year, Mike Brown probably doesn't get fired because we would have made the playoffs.

Well....maybe that's the one thing MB did right then. :chuckles:

I'd rather have Joel Embiid and an unknown coaching candidate than an 8th seed exit and MB around for more than a season.

 

[OptimusPrime]

Well....maybe that's the one thing MB did right then. :chuckles:

I'd rather have Joel Embiid and an unknown coaching candidate than an 8th seed exit and MB around for more than a season.

You're right, and I figured all along that Brown had to be tanking last year.