The scuttlebutt over the weekend was a series of quasi-nonsense reports about the Dallas Mavericks being open to trading Kyrie Irving. On Sunday, the Mavs Moneyball Slack was on fire at the ridiculousness of such an idea, particularly with the Mavericks sitting pretty at 4-2. Then national media outlets started chiming in on the subject so I asked anyone who really had a take to answer this: what WOULD it take for you to be happy if the Mavericks traded Kyrie Irving?
Tyler: Obviously, the Mavericks
shouldn’t trade Kyrie just for the sake of trading Kyrie, but there are plenty of scenarios where they should listen. The two teams in particular that I’d be interested in dealing with are Houston and Detroit. Houston has a treasure trove of draft assets from Brooklyn and Phoenix, and combined with plenty of young talent on the roster, you could easily put together a deal with a couple of those attractive first-rounders and a young player. Detroit is such a perfect Kyrie team, and they have all of their draft capital plus young guys in Ebuka Okorie, Ron Holland, and others. Again, some firsts, and Okorie and Holland and I’d probably go ahead and do that.
That’s not an indictment of this Mavericks team. They’ve gotten off to a very nice start amid a very tough schedule. However, one of the fatal flaws of the Luka Doncic era was accelerating the timeline with the Porzingis deal. The Mavericks in keeping all of these vets around, with a severe lack of assets to properly build around Cooper when he reaches his prime, is far more of a pressing issue than being the eighth seed this year. This is a five-year plan, not a one-year deal. They need to be prudent about this.
Ben: I’m ready to fully move on into the next era of Mavericks basketball. They shouldn’t trade for the sake of trading, but should also be realistic about the value of a soon-to-be 35 year old small guard coming off knee surgery.
If they get an offer of a first-round pick and an expiring salary, they should take it immediately.
Michael: I fully agree we should not trade Irving. I have never been on board with trading the veterans for a bunch of picks and full-on rebuilding in that manner. There is just far too much unknown in doing so. Getting younger and cheaper could just as easily mean “getting much worse” as it could mean “getting better.” NBA teams need veterans, especially Hall of Famers who are willing to play as the second option to a 19-year-old. The Mavs have that almost-impossible-to-obtain scenario, and I don’t think they should let it go.
But that doesn’t answer the question. The question was, “if we do” trade Irving, what does it take for me. My answer to that question is “a lot.” It would take a younger player that is a direct replacement for Irving in terms of production (or a year removed from all but certainly making that jump), along with at least two FIRST-round picks in consecutive drafts no more than one year removed from this offseason. That is simply something I don’t see happening.
Irving is critically important to this team, and I think he gets underestimated by a big margin when it comes to assessing his value. I understand he is currently 34 years old and coming off a major injury, but we’re not in 1996. In this modern era, we have Steph Curry at almost four years older to the day than Irving. Kevin Durant is three-and-a-half years older with a major injury under his belt. LeBron James is another one… Irving is playing at a high level and clearly helping this team win. Also, Irving has a player option next year, then is likely gettable for a reasonable contract thereafter. I don’t feel as though he is hurting the team or the cap in such a way that can’t be solved via other moves (plus the team will drop Klay Thompson’s $17M cap hit after this season by simply doing nothing).
The only way I personally would be willing to trade him is basically if it was the most obvious no-brainer trade imaginable where Dallas is getting back a young but ready player and draft capital. It can’t be something that ushers in a “hope for the best” youth movement and obviously hurts the team right off the bat with hopes of the team improving over time. If the Mavs make moves, it should be with the goal of improving immediately and going forward.
Bryan: To give up Kyrie, the Mavericks would need to be either flailing around the December 15th mark (when most players in the league become available for trade) or to be bowled over with an offer worth 3 or more first-round picks in value if they are above .500 and in good seeding position. Unless Cooper Flagg’s production slows down tremendously or Kyrie gets hurt, there is no reason to tear any of the core pieces of this team off of it for a paltry trade return when they could simply carry a team performing well into the play-in/offs and allow the young players to gain incredibly valuable postseason experience. Everyone is clamoring for Kyrie Irving to be shipped off to a playoff team that could use him more. After a hot early start, the Dallas Mavericks are pounding on their chests asking, “Why not us?”
Salvator: I think for this year barring an obvious overpay, I think they should keep Kyrie at least until the offseason. There is still value in making the postseason and seeing how our guys play in that environment, kinda similar to the one year CP3 played in OKC.
Kirk: I can’t fathom trading him. Any contender making an offer to Dallas has to come through with picks that are from a team that projects badly, like, I’m not interested in a Detroit 2028 first-round pick (well… I guess I am a little, what a draft class). There has to be something there for me to sink my teeth into as a person looking ahead. Right now, Kyrie is too valuable and too fun to consider otherwise. But if I was forced? Two first-round picks, and ones that look good right now.
