Andrew wrote:If anything, I'd say that the Heat losing the Finals would have been a bigger factor in his decision, rather than the actions of a contingent of their fans. It's an interesting question: if the Heat had won the Finals, or at least not been beaten as convincingly as they were, would it have made a difference?
Looking back on some of the comments that LeBron's made since leaving the Cavaliers, returning to Cleveland would appear to be something he was always interested in doing at some point, so it's fair to say that it's not a recent thought he's had or just something that he's saying to appease Cavs fans who might still feel bitter. It seems feasible that the nature of the Heat's loss set him thinking that the timing was right though; who's to say that the reunion would be happening this soon if the Heat had won their third straight title?
Andrew wrote:But why give up Wiggins when you don't have to? Why not go for broke and try to pry Love away while keeping Wiggins? With LeBron, Kyrie, and a handful of capable role players...well, you've got a hell of a team, at least on paper.
There's no need to jump the gun and include Wiggins in the deal. The Cavs just got LeBron James back, there's no need for desperation moves. The Timberwolves, on the other hand, have the ticking clock of Love's expiring contract, combined with his complete lack of interest in re-signing. As benji said, the offers likely aren't going to get much better from here on out.
That's not to say it would be unfathomable to trade Wiggins for Love, but with the Timberwolves rapidly losing leverage - and time - there's no need for the Cavs to put him on the table straight away.
_Steve_ wrote:To answer your first question, I think LeBron wouldn't have left after a three-peat. Even if they'd lost a close 7 game series, I think he would've sticked with the Heat, when he'd seen any chances of getting back stronger and competing for a title next year.
I think I've already gave an answer to question No. 2. If the Heat were still a cow he could realistically milk for another ring, he would have delayed his departure for Cleveland for certain.
NovU wrote:2 years is little time. You want to show LBJ that the Cavs are not incapable anymore. Varejao was the second best guy last time LBJ was there. That remains unchanged.
Vegas has them on top as next season's champion by large margin.
Nick wrote:As for the K-Love talk, i would easily trade Wiggins for K-Love. Why wouldn't you?
benji wrote:NovU wrote:2 years is little time. You want to show LBJ that the Cavs are not incapable anymore. Varejao was the second best guy last time LBJ was there. That remains unchanged.
Irving?
benji wrote:Vegas has them on top as next season's champion by large margin.
1. They're tied with the Spurs and barely above the Thunder and Bulls.
2. "Vegas" jacked up the odds because a ton of morons would be placing bets immediately. You don't leave a team seeing that much action at 60-1 LeBron or no LeBron.
ESPN's Chris Broussard is reporting that the Timberwolves will not include Kevin Love in a two-way trade to the Cavaliers if Andrew Wiggins is not included in the deal.
The Cavs, on the other hand, say they have no intentions of moving Wiggins in order to get Love, although that could possibly change if push comes to shove. In any case, there's no doubt the Cavs want Love, and whether they can get a third team involved, or persuade the Wolves to deal without getting Wiggins, remains to be seen. Stay tuned. Jul 14 - 12:08 AM
NovU wrote:Right. Expectation is quite high. Just look at Sauru and Mandick saying Irving, Varejao + scrubs/unknown are far better for LBJ than Wade, Bosh + cap space, instantly.
Sauru wrote:if they can get love then its not even a question of what team is better for james.
NovU wrote:Because Wade in his much less played minutes last season produced nearly just as many wins as Irving with stunted growth problem. And Wade was allegedly willing to come much cheaper than Irving, possibly difference of 6-8 millions per season.Sauru wrote:if they can get love then its not even a question of what team is better for james.
The Heat were 54 wins team last season and 66 wins in previous one. If Bosh and Wade took less money and LBJ stayed around, I'm sure they could have improved from 54 wins. This would have put them in a position where they could contend instantly for another good stretch.
The Cavaliers are rebuilding and trying to win at the same time now, that's with Love or not. As benji said, the Cavs still would have hole in their game even after the possible Love trade. In theory, LBJ ditched a 60 wins caliber team for a team that'd be lucky to win 50 or 55-60 with Love in their perfect scenario.
My opinion is that the Heat only needed to make adjustment whereas the Cavaliers need to make changes, taking longer to get to where the Heat could have gotten instantly, possibly years (or never). You think Melo doesn't want to win? I'd say the similar for LBJ the cop out quitter.
thompson,tristan 34.0
irving,kyrie 34.0
jack,jarrett 29.2
waiters,dion 34.0
varejao,anderson 34.0
deng,luol 34.0
dellavedova,matt 14.6
zeller,tyler 14.6
gee,alonzo 14.6
I only hate James going to Cleveland for one reason: It fools people into think Irving is this great guard who just needed help. He sucks but could get better. I don't know about a star but at least slightly above average. If i'm Cleveland, I trade Irving,Waiters, Bennett, and picks for Love, Dieng, and Rubio. Hell I would throw in Wiggins too. Wiggins is a SF anyway. Man, they fucked up not getting Noel last year.
NovU wrote:Give last season Wade same minutes allocated throughout 82 games at same performance level per minute base (replacing Irving), there shouldn't be any stats with reduced number in the win column. Wade was far more effective than Irving as long as he was able to stay on the floor.
minutes played, all 82 games
benji wrote:Wade's not going to maintain that efficiency when like Irving he's the only effective offensive option on the floor.
benji wrote:It's Waiters or Jack you want to most replace in that rotation, not Irving.
NovU wrote:Well, being hypothetical just one more time, at least I believe we both could come to an agreement that it would have been not too much worse, for the Cavs if Irving's usage% would have evenly distributed among players like Jack, Deng, and Waiters who probably would have played more to their strength as they like to have ball in their hands or somewhere.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 15 guests