The Kyrie Irving free agency thread(to sign 4yr/$141M w/Nets page 105)

[droopdog7]

Has anyone corrected the OPs original premise?  A sign and trade is neither to clear more space for team that trades for him nor to sign him for less than the max (assuming k read that correctly).  Indeed, neither of those make any sense at all.

[zeitgeist49]

I don't believe Irving was missing shots intentionally. However, the fact that we even have a thread about Kyrie missing shots intentionally speaks volumes about the melodrama Kyrie has created this year. Would this forum ever have a thread about Bird or even Pierce missing shots intentionally ? H%#L  NO. 

[jambr380]

Yeah, you think KD's reputation took a hit going to play in GS? Imagine if Kyrie went crawling back to Lebron - that would be career suicide. The only way he could ever play with Lebron again is if he was traded to Lebron's team - there is no way any human being with the ability to think would ever think this is a good idea.  Maybe Kyrie will sign in NYK and the Knicks will trade for Lebron.

[RazzelnoDazzel]

Has anyone corrected the OPs original premise?  A sign and trade is neither to clear more space for team that trades for him nor to sign him for less than the max (assuming k read that correctly).  Indeed, neither of those make any sense at all.

Then what exactly would be the benefits of a player wanting to do a sign and trade then? Is it only if a player want to go to a team that has a capped salary?

[Triplenickle]

My heart says -- No, please let the Kyrie experience be over.

My head says -- you don't let a major asset leave for nothing if the guy is willing to re-sign.

Then I think about it some more and I wonder .... how big is a full max deal in this situation?  What is the likelihood that Kyrie's deal ends up being as onerous as Russell Westbrook?  What's the likelihood it turns into a disaster akin to the John Wall deal?

It would pan out to about $188 for 5 years.

Well considering Kyrie doesn't rely on athleticism, and can actually shoot/dribble, (two key traits that can lead to long-lasting future in the NBA, I would say probably not,) and John Wall was the same example as Westbrook. A gifted athlete with a need for speed, great passing, and awesome defensive instincts. The problem is he also cannot lead like Irving, and that led to a lot of animosity within the locker room.

He also butted heads with Beal, hated his teammates, and pretty much got lazy by not playing any defense.

My heart says -- No, please let the Kyrie experience be over.

My head says -- you don't let a major asset leave for nothing if the guy is willing to re-sign.

Then I think about it some more and I wonder .... how big is a full max deal in this situation?  What is the likelihood that Kyrie's deal ends up being as onerous as Russell Westbrook?  What's the likelihood it turns into a disaster akin to the John Wall deal?


If Kyrie wants a one or two year deal, I say absolutely not.  We're not going to give him that kind of power over the franchise (again).

If he wants a full four year max with all the bells and whistles ... well ... I'm not sure how I feel about that one.  Is Kyrie really going to be worth $40-45 million a year three years from now?  The key question is whether the deal he wants would be a trade asset or a cap albatross.


Unless the team can sign him to a deal that seems like it won't prevent the team trading him if they want to do so, I say let him walk.

Well then I guess you like rebuilding, because I can pretty much assure you the moment Kyrie Irving leaves, Horford probably won't re-sign and opt out.

You think Al is emotionally linked to Kyrie? Whatever would give you that idea?  When Al looks bouncy, aggressive and happy on the court, I never see Kyrie around.

And in that presser together, I didn't see any kind of connection except trying to answer proffessionally. Al taking the blame for that missed pass...I think he woulda took ANY teammate off the hook.

But watching yall is like watching someone in an abusive relationship say..."but I still love him".

It's really sad reading this board seeing people acting like he played here 10 years with a couple rings.

[Tr1boy]

I seem to remember that the NBA changed its rules to make sign and trades more difficult to pull off...

Can you expand?

[bellerephon]

I seem to remember that the NBA changed its rules to make sign and trades more difficult to pull off...

Can you expand?

If you resign and stay with a team, you can get bigger year to year raises and an extra year on the contract than moving to a new team, but if it's a sign and trade, the raises are smaller and there is no extra year. Essentially there is no benefit to the player to agree to a sign and trade, they can make pretty much the same money by simply signing with a new team, and the new team doesn't have to give up assets.

[Bobshot]

AD and KI are almost joined at the hip. If Ainge wants AD, KI is the big incentive. There wouldn't be much left in Boston after the trade except Irving and maybe Horford.

I doubt AD will have much desire to come here without Irving here. Indeed, if Irving signs with the Knicks, they will suddenly be the favorites to get Davis for the top pick (if they get it). And then they might even get Durant to boot, which would send the TV networks into ecstacy. The NBA is a league of stars, and stars drive the TV ratings.

So Ainge is in a tough position. He has to re-sign Irving if he wants Davis.

[bellerephon]

The NBA has some really strange rules that can cripple franchises and give players fewer options:

1) The sign and trade rule where a player can't make additional salary and the team can't receive compensation for their 'lost' player. This would seem to benefit both the team and the player.

2) Players not being allowed to sign full 5-year (max otherwise) contracts the off-season before their FA. You then run into the circus that we had with Kyrie with fans turning on him. A team would know for certain if a player wants to leave and they would be able to receive compensation.

3) The Rose Rule. I honestly have no idea why the created this arbitrary stipulation where you can't trade for a player signed to a max contract coming off their rookie contract if you already have one on your roster. It is asinine. The Pelicans, the Celtics, and Lakers were all greatly affected by this rule this year.

These are all things that should be looked at much more closely and they should determine why these rules are in place at all.

I'm not sure about the Rose rule, but the sign and trade rules do make sense. The point behind allowing teams to go over the cap and to offer more money and years to resign a player was to help teams hold onto their star players, not to facilitate trading those players away or helping teams that are over the cap to bring in star players.

[Tr1boy]

I seem to remember that the NBA changed its rules to make sign and trades more difficult to pull off...

Can you expand?

If you resign and stay with a team, you can get bigger year to year raises and an extra year on the contract than moving to a new team, but if it's a sign and trade, the raises are smaller and there is no extra year. Essentially there is no benefit to the player to agree to a sign and trade, they can make pretty much the same money by simply signing with a new team, and the new team doesn't have to give up assets.

So basically no reason for a player to do this

[RazzelnoDazzel]

Has anyone corrected the OPs original premise?  A sign and trade is neither to clear more space for team that trades for him nor to sign him for less than the max (assuming k read that correctly).  Indeed, neither of those make any sense at all.

Idk man I think Kyrie can do the same thing Cp3 did and opt in for 1 year and maintain his bird rights on his new team.

[RazzelnoDazzel]

I suppose a sign and trade is different than an opt-in and trade? Yeah I think cp3 was eligible for a 5 year max because he opted in. The Rockets just wanted to give him a 4yr max... I think I’m right on this one.

[jambr380]

The NBA has some really strange rules that can cripple franchises and give players fewer options:

1) The sign and trade rule where a player can't make additional salary and the team can't receive compensation for their 'lost' player. This would seem to benefit both the team and the player.

2) Players not being allowed to sign full 5-year (max otherwise) contracts the off-season before their FA. You then run into the circus that we had with Kyrie with fans turning on him. A team would know for certain if a player wants to leave and they would be able to receive compensation.

3) The Rose Rule. I honestly have no idea why the created this arbitrary stipulation where you can't trade for a player signed to a max contract coming off their rookie contract if you already have one on your roster. It is asinine. The Pelicans, the Celtics, and Lakers were all greatly affected by this rule this year.

These are all things that should be looked at much more closely and they should determine why these rules are in place at all.

I'm not sure about the Rose rule, but the sign and trade rules do make sense. The point behind allowing teams to go over the cap and to offer more money and years to resign a player was to help teams hold onto their star players, not to facilitate trading those players away or helping teams that are over the cap to bring in star players.

There is some logic in it, but a player still has to be willing to do a S&T; if a team wants to re-sign a player and the player doesn't want to stay, he can still leave the team high and dry. It just seems to me like this would benefit both the player and team and give some incentive for the player not to screw over the team.

On a related note, teams receive a TPE if they trade a player and receive less than that player's salary in return. Perhaps teams should receive a similar exception if their star players just walk in FA (if the team is already over the cap). There just doesn't seem to be anything in place in the NBA to protect teams once they lose their star players to FA - no compensatory picks, no exceptions, nothing.

[bopna]

I think essentially, the SnT rule helps only the team that will lose the star player, basically allowing them to receive something than losing the player entirely for nothing... Problem is its become one sided that the leaving player leaves so much money off the table in yrs and raises that in essence, no one has been doing it since you tend to lose out...

[nickagneta]

Teams that have cap space that can sign Kyrie(NYK, Nets, LAC, LAL) have no incentive to sign and trade for Kyrie. Simply put, as someone said, there is no reason for them to do it. Just sign the guy.

Teams that might do a sign and trade are teams that Kyrie would want to sign with that do not have cap space to sign him outright. That is the reason teams do sign and trades. Especially if they are not going to be at or over the apron after the trade.

As an example, perhaps say Houston was interested in Kyrie and Kyrie wanted to play with Harden or maybe Kyrie would like to play with Jokic in Denver. Then a sign and trade might make sense as those teams couldn't afford him outright but would be willing to part with a player(s) for signing Kyrie.

Problem is, the teams that Kyrie has been rumored to be interested in all have cap space. So really, there is no way a sign and trade would go down with them.