June 13, 20179 yr PG obviously has 1 year left on his deal. Let's say the Cavs get a rent a player for a year and trade straight up for PG and give up Love. Would you make the trade?
June 13, 20179 yr PG obviously has 1 year left on his deal. Let's say the Cavs get a rent a player for a year and trade straight up for PG and give up Love. Would you make the trade?Yeeeeesssssssss
June 13, 20179 yr I'm still waiting to wake up from this nightmare and learn the Cavs didn't trade Andrew Wiggins. To the question, yes. I'll always take a shot creator over whatever Love is. Rebounder? Spotter-upper? Especially if you're paying the max either way.
June 13, 20179 yr PG obviously has 1 year left on his deal. Let's say the Cavs get a rent a player for a year and trade straight up for PG and give up Love. Would you make the trade?Sure, but why would Indiana make that trade? I am not as huge of a Paul George fan as many are.
June 13, 20179 yr Sure, but why would Indiana make that trade? I am not as huge of a Paul George fan as many are. The possibility of keeping Love long term?
June 13, 20179 yr The possibility of keeping Love long term? Exactly :lol2: Would you want to build your franchise around that?
June 13, 20179 yr If I were Cleveland, I'd trade whoever thought it would be a good idea to let Igoudola drive the lane and dunk on fools every other possession.
June 13, 20179 yr Author Sure, but why would Indiana make that trade? I am not as huge of a Paul George fan as many are. Im a huge Paul George fan. He's a top 10 player in the league IMO. Indiana would make the trade because he probably won't resign long term with them.
June 13, 20179 yr PG obviously has 1 year left on his deal. Let's say the Cavs get a rent a player for a year and trade straight up for PG and give up Love. Would you make the trade? Yeeeeesssssssss I'm still waiting to wake up from this nightmare and learn the Cavs didn't trade Andrew Wiggins. To the question, yes. I'll always take a shot creator over whatever Love is. Rebounder? Spotter-upper? Especially if you're paying the max either way. I would make the trade but still doubt they beat the Warriors. James is the best player on the planet, and can take mediocre players on deep playoff runs because he is that good and creates open shots for those mediocre players. With that said I think the way James has to play to be at his best of dominating the ball, and keeping the lane clear and mostly isolation basketball. Makes other star players not look as good. I think at most there could only be one other star player with James. The third star on the team will always not look as great, just like Love now. Star players are use to dominating the ball and getting a lot of touches. Which it works for the Warriors because of all the movement in their offense and passing. Everyone stays in the flow of the game and can get in a rhythm. With James it's mostly stand and watch while James does his thing. So other star players would struggle to get in a rhythm like that. Especially when the second star is Irving who also needs a bunch of isolation plays to do his thing. A third star would have a hard time fitting in and not look as great. Just like if they did get George. He is use to dominating the ball, creating his own shot. Would he still look as good not having the ball all the time? Would he get in a rhythm at all like that? James is amazing, but I think role players for better with him than other star players. James is great, but the offense he needs to play to be great doesn't translate to other stars being able to play great with him. Which is why 4 of the 5 finals he lost, came to teams who were more of a team offensively and defensively and didn't rely on isolation basketball. The spurs twice and now Warriors twice have shown that type of isolation offense doesn't do as well against true teams, because it's so much easier to play as a team when everyone is involved and moving imo.
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.