2017 Celtics Offseason: News and General Discussion
- Thread starter cardiacs
- Start date
Isn't IT widely seen as the biggest defensive liability in the NBA? I'm assuming that comparatively Kyrie is a far better defensive player. Considering that he is also younger and signed for an extra year I'm guessing most would rate him as having higher value. I know that if I was Ainge I wouldn't exactly be excited to commit max money long-term to IT. If Ainge isn't up for giving IT max money (IT has already said that he said he isn't considering accepting anything less than the max) trading him for Kyrie now is a smart way of getting great value for a player you were likely to lose anyway..
Last edited:
Horford/Nets pick/Lakers pick/Clippers 19 pick for LeBron? Just say he'd sign here, would that be a fair package? Not remotely thinking it would even be thought of from Dan Gilbert's end.
Posted this in the other thread but LBJ has a no-trade clause so even if the Cavs want to move him LeBron has to agree to the destination.
Things seem to be falling apart quickly in Cleveland. If LeBron was traded to a team that could be reasonably seen as a contender for the championship I'd be shocked if he blocked it. Depending on who the Cs had to give up, a LeBron led Celtics team is likely to be at least as good as Cleveland is now, and most importantly, the Cs aren't owned by Dan Gilbert...
And we all know his public comments about how much respect he has for Brad Stevens.
The differences are that Isaiah may be damaged goods, although to be fair Kyrie always seems to be banged up too, but most importantly is that at least Kyrie can compete defensively against opposing 1's while Isaiah puts the entire unit under extreme pressure playing 4 against 5 which the team defensive numbers confirm. There really isn't anything Isaiah does "better" than Kyrie but the defensive end of the floor greatly favors Kyrie in this comparison. Kyrie > Isaiah
This would put an end to our questions about the 4 position. Forget Davis.....what would you give up for LeBron?
The extra year on the contract is also huge. I would be surprised if Danny plans to cough up max money for IT and IT has already said that he won't accept less. While IT is obviously a better value this year, Kyrie is also underpaid (making less money than Ryan Anderson) and is signed through 2018-2019..
Last edited:
Great article on Hayward's likely role in the Celtics' offense.
TLDR: Hayward and Crowder are complementary, not redundant. The offensive things Crowder is good at (cutting and catch-and-shoot) he was actually better than Hayward last year. But Crowder doesn't create and Hayward does. The Celtics can run a lot of the same actions they ran for Bradley for Hayward. But, unlike Bradley, Hayward can shoot or create off those looks instead of just shooting. He'll fit in very well with IT and Horford.
TLDR: Hayward and Crowder are complementary, not redundant. The offensive things Crowder is good at (cutting and catch-and-shoot) he was actually better than Hayward last year. But Crowder doesn't create and Hayward does. The Celtics can run a lot of the same actions they ran for Bradley for Hayward. But, unlike Bradley, Hayward can shoot or create off those looks instead of just shooting. He'll fit in very well with IT and Horford.
Thomas has also embraced his role in Boston whereas Kyrie is demanding a trade from a team that won a championship just last year. I'd trade for Kyrie straight up from an on-court perspective (given the age/injury differences), but there's something to be said about building good relationships with players around the league and not courting guys who are going to shoot their way out the door the very next year.
Is there any guy in the league who wouldn't embrace going from the bench to being given the green light to take as many shots as he wants whenever he wants? Kyrie would embrace the role of taking all the crunch time shots and not having to worry much about defense too. Also, people laugh it off, but Thomas has been extremely vocal about wanting to get the full max, if/when he doesn't, and when he's asked to cede offensive control to Hayward (or someone else)... that's when we'll know if he's willing to "embrace his role"
I don't know if people are going to agree with me but when I watch IT4 on defense,ot's not like he's James Harden. IT4 tries on defense, as hard as most guys who are the focal point on offense. He's just got some, ummm, limitations.
I'd say that IT4 cares about defense.
I don't watch much Cavs during the regular season but the sense I get is that Kyrie doesn't try most of the time until games are important.
If IT is considered the biggest defensive liability in the NBA then Kyrie is right up there with him. Whatever, maybe I am a homer about IT versus Kyrie. But I really strongly dislike Kyrie's style of play, and that trade proposal was insane even if IT is not as good or valuable as Kyrie. I wouldnt trade the Lakers pick for him straight up.
100% agree on all points here and this is the big difference in the players. One has the ability to turn it up when it matters most while the other simply is not physically capable.
Your choice between the two depends on what your find more rewarding......regular season success or playoff success. I can understand the argument for favoring Isaiah in the regular season......you'd have a tough job selling me on Isaiah over Kyrie in the post-season though.
"not care" was perhaps the wrong phrase, maybe I should say "not have anything expected of you on defense", the point was, IT's role here has been to go take as many shots as he wants and Brad will hide him on defense, and his teammates will cover for him. Every guard in the league will embrace that role (well a few guys might be pissed about being hidden if they take pride in their D, but those guys wouldn't be hidden).
IT tries hard, but the entire defense is built on hiding him, and he's still terrible. Kyrie is a bad defender who has the capability to turn it up in spurts and in the playoffs, IT gets even worse in the playoffs because it becomes harder to hide him. Add in that Kyrie has been the better player every year of their careers except last year is 2-3 years younger and has an extra year on his deal, and he's a much more valuable player.
Now.... I probably wouldn't do IT/Crowder/Morris/LAL 1st, but it's probably fair value. Since star trades rarely get fair value.... IT/Crowder/Morris and any 1 or 2 non-BKN, non-LAL picks is something I'd certainly consider.
This is where I am as well. If LeBron was gone I could respect wanting to be in a better situation--but this is the exact opposite, the guy is saying he'd rather be 'the man' than win. I discount the value of a guy who has that view....
I think Kyrie is better than IT4 but it's close. When you factor in age, it's an easy decision. Kyrie is much easier to build around too. I'm also guessing in the fantasy land that Kyrie was traded to Boston, Cleveland would prefer Smart over Morris. Smart would probably start.
Would the C's max Kyrie when he's up for FA if that were to happen though? Can they really afford it luxury tax wise? I think Kyrie stays in Cleveland. There is too much money to be made on the supermax. Does he really value being #1 over millions of dollars?
Would the C's max Kyrie when he's up for FA if that were to happen though? Can they really afford it luxury tax wise? I think Kyrie stays in Cleveland. There is too much money to be made on the supermax. Does he really value being #1 over millions of dollars?
Sure, but what if that guy already knows Lebron is leaving/quitting on his team because they can't beat the warriors?
I think they should embrace a Bron trade and rebuild around Kyrie. Yes, no trade, but he will accept any trade where he becomes the favorite again. I'm telling you, I see zero chance Lebron plays out the string in Cleveland under these circumstances. Zero.
Sure, unless he regressed why not? It's just a standard max, and it starts the year Horford is on his PO, so it at most overlaps 1 year there, then replaces it in your long term planning (plus you won't be paying IT anything). Plus you'll have a nice staggering effect of deals across your major players (Hayward, Kyrie, Brown?, Tatum, 2018 picks etc.). so you could possibly go through at least Hayward's deal, maybe longer without ever hitting the repeater tax.
On Kyrie, the supermax is attractive, but All-NBA is super tight at the guard spot. (Curry, Westbrook, Harden) and being on a team w/ LeBron dominating the ballhandling opportunities makes it hard to be confident that you'll be eligible for the extension. Also being THE GUY probably helps his next shoe deal, so money isn't a huge issue.
I get the criticisms of Kyrie, but also remember, LeBron is a FA next year, most people think he's going to leave, the team just went through the most important part of the offseason without a GM because their owner is an incompetent. CLE is really only an attractive place to be for at most 1 more season. Without knowing for sure what the biggest vs, smaller issues informing Kyrie's trade desire, I'm not going to kill him for wanting to get out before this season, which is sure to be a mess w/ LeBron spending the whole time dangling a move elsewhere.
the other interesting thing about the article is that while it's so hard to disaggregate Lebron's desires, Gilbert's desires, and Griffin's desires the fact is Griffin largely failed to build a good set of secondary players or a sustainable roster. I'm not sure firing him--especially when they did--make sense either but wise to remember he didn't show he was any great shakes either
I have polluted these threads enough with my thoughts on the C's trading for Kyrie but even if you are all for it, its tricky for Ainge. The Cavs will undoubtedly demand one of the C's high picks in addition to players. Does it seem wise to weaken the future for the franchise and strengthen the hand of a direct competitor for a player who doesn't really move the needle?
I think the easy answer to that question is that you only do the trade if high picks aren't involved. For age and contract reasons Irving is an upgrade over IT, but the difference isn't significant enough to include either the Nets or Lakers 2018 picks..
I think Danny has to sit this one out. In addition to IT, I'm pretty sure they'd have to include 2 of Crowder/Smart/Morris/Tatum/Brown just to make the numbers work. Then they'll probably ask for a pick or two, one likely to be the Nets or Lakers pick. A price of IT/Crowder/Smart and the Nets/LAL pick is too much for a marginal upgrade that also helps CLE balance their roster.
If CLE is willing to take another pick besides the Brooklyn pick and take something like Crowder/Morris with IT, I'd do the deal, but I don't think that's enough to get it done.
(kazuneko beat me to it).
I'm with you on this one, I think. The argument that Kyrie is better than IT, therefore the Celtics should trade for him is flawed. This is a player who had trouble integrating his game with Lebron's. No thanks.
I agree with your conclusion, but disagree with how you get there. Kyrie, in my mind, doesn't constitute such a huge upgrade over Thomas that you give up any of the key assets.
That said, I think the epitaph being written about this Cavs team -- whether in relation to Griffin or Kyrie -- is sorta lazy. Where's the evidence Irving had trouble integrating his game with LeBron's? The three straight finals appearances? The championship? In Irving's numbers?
The Cavs built a great team. They ran into a historically great team that added a top 3 player after they'd already been to the finals twice in a row. Irving and LeBron played well enough together to win a championship, and could have had two if not for a crazy number of injuries. Feels revisionist that folks are looking back at Cleveland's last three years as if they represent bad roster management and poor on the floor fit.
I agree.
Kyrie said some stuff along the way that indicated he wasn't thrilled that he never got consulted about anything, and that everyone was expected to do things Lebron's way all the time or else.
The thing is.... he did, Kyrie fit into that team really well, he likely has been sacrificing some personal performance to make it work, and he was the 2nd most important player on their championship run. He and Love both have molded their games and probably sacrificed their numbers to make that trio work.
Nothing in there made me feel sympathy for Kyrie. His first three years in the league, the guy won 21, 24, and 33 games as the undisputed face of the team. A decade before, LeBron won 35 (straight out of high school), 42, and 50 games. He's been to 3 straight NBA Finals and last year he took more shots than LeBron (and more than IT did for the Celtics).
Kyrie is a Robin who wants to be Batman -- whatever team acquires him will have issues.
If this is the end for Cleveland's Big Three (which it seems to be at least in its current state), it is fascinating that they will only achieve one championship ring. It seems like they were poised for more. The Celtics' Big Three had a much smaller window due to all three being on the back nine in terms of their playing careers however in the end they may have the same hardware to show for it. It seemed like the Cavs were destined for more but I suppose you could say that for a lot of teams over the years.
I'd stick to IT4, Crowder and one of Morris/Smart. Preferably Morris as Smart is far less redundant. If the Cavs want to compete for a title, that trade probably improves their team. If they are looking to rebuild, trade him somewhere else. It would make the Celtics worse during the regular season but better in the playoffs when they can field a better 5 man team. I doubt anyone here would be willing to move Nets/Lakers/Kings pick for him. It's the same problem we ran into trading for Paul George.
Nothing keeps Kyrie from playing this year to win and trying to get traded out of town next summer. He is walking away from what is probably the closest he will get to the finals the rest of his career (probability-wise). I understand why he's doing it and don't even really disagree with Woj that this is the LBJ playbook. I'm just saying as someone wondering whether Celts should get in on him he'd have to convince me he wants to win long-term and that's driving this, not his currently-stated description of being 'the man' somewhere.
Outside of their top three, the Cavaliers had a couple of decent role players but were loaded with more or less useless players. Studs and duds works to an extent -- they did win a title -- but you need some depth to win consistently.
Sure, Lebron playbook or not, it's hard not to question the motivations of a player making the choice he is making.
I'm actually not particularly interested in obtaining Kyrie. I do think however, that it kicked open the door for Lebron to leave before the season's start, and I thought it was open a crack already.
At this point in his career, and with his ego, Lebron is playing for a championship or he isn't playing.
Here is a contrarian thought: once you accept Lebron is leaving next season, Kyrie's decision may be the best outcome for himself, Cleveland and Lebron. He gets 'his' team somewhere, Cleveland gets to rebuild with the treasure trove that trading Lebron and Kyrie now can offer, while Lebron gets air cover on his way out of town.
The problem with any proposed trade for Irving is that the Celtics would be making themselves a lot worse next year for a minimal long term benefit. As others have noted, whether Irving is better than Thomas is an open question. Whether he is more valuable than Thomas plus two other quality players isn't even a question. And, that's without accounting for how badly this board consistently underrates Crowder, who might be a better overall player than either Irving or Thomas.
In short, even if the Thomas for Irving trade idea made sense, the contracts don't work and the Cavs don't have anything remotely valuable enough to offer to balance out the quality players the Celtics would have to add to match salaries.
In short, even if the Thomas for Irving trade idea made sense, the contracts don't work and the Cavs don't have anything remotely valuable enough to offer to balance out the quality players the Celtics would have to add to match salaries.
The Cavs probably still make the Finals but this is a shitshow. They fire their GM. They try to trade Love about ten times and everybody knows it, but they fail. Irving demands a trade. The James to LA/SAS/??? stories will be national discussions every single day. The window was supposed to be four years or so and suddenly it's dropping like a guillotine.
Where the C's are right now is fine.
Where the C's are right now is fine.
I'm not 100% sure on that. The Celtics are really deep on the wings, losing Crowder/Morris isn't great, but if you have confidence in Brown/Tatum/Smart and you pick up a few vets along the way either now or come buyout season.... well I don't know how much you really lose short term, maybe a few games in the regular season?
On the other hand, long term it's huge, Kyrie is younger than IT and on an extra year of below market salary next year, and a very good bet to be the much better player as IT4 ages. He's a much more valuable asset, and easily worth the IT4/Crowder/Morris troika, the question would come down to what else is attached.
The other thing is of course.... Kyrie has a strong playoff track record, and IT has been systematically destroyed in his playoff career on the defensive end. I'll grant that IT can MAYBE put up similar or possibly even slightly better offensive numbers to Kyrie in the regular season going forward, but I think Kyrie has the much more sustainable model for playoff success on both ends. This team is built for a longer window than 2017-18 (which is good because IT/Crowder or Kyrie, this team isn't likely to be competitive with GS).
There is no damn way that CLE gets anything approaching IT, 2 of the 5 wings, and a top lottery pick. That is nuts. We have just seen Cousins, Butler, George, Paul, and probably several others all go for far far far far less. Obviously there are different number of years of control with all of them, but I think we have seen what the market is.
Agreed. I'm surprised at some the resistance/objections to obtaining Irving. He's a perfect bridge for this window. In 3 years he'll be 28 in March and the young wings should be up to speed by then - if not sooner. He'd be a playoff hardened vet with some good mileage still on the tires. He's IT with height in his ability to get to the rim.
I love IT, but as noted, he's a huge liability on D and the C's will always be hamstrung in the playoffs. Plus we don't know the damage to his hip. Because of the injury, the C's might have to include a high draft pick and I'd certainly be tempted to part with one. Irving is a young proven star - he's exactly the kind of player for whom you spend a valuable asset.
Interestingly, LeBron has always highly praised IT's game. How much weight that'd carry would presumably influence what kind of package he'd prefer - I'd guess current players would carry more weight than draft picks.
I mean, there is certainly a way but it would involve Ainge dangling IT/Crowder/filler and, say, the Nets 2018 pick. Practically speaking, I certainly agree with you.
I'm sure Cleveland is busy right now shooting for the stars and going after guys like Lillard. Once that inevitably fails, they'll have to settle into their 3 quarters for a dollar reality. Charlotte may be a possibility with Kemba Walker plus another asset going to Cleveland.
I am assuming the "three years" assumes Irving is under control for that period. That isn't a correct reading. Irving has a player option for his third year, meaning that he is effectively under control for one more year than Thomas.
Thanks for that - didn't know about that third year. With that in mind and before committing any major asset, I'd hope Ainge would do some due diligence and get Irving's temperature about the option and any extensions. Any static back and I'd be very hesitant to deal away that asset. 2 years isn't enough of a return.
And I agree, DD, I think it's unlikely that Cleveland and Boston do a major deal. But I don't think that should preclude our exercise.
And I agree, DD, I think it's unlikely that Cleveland and Boston do a major deal. But I don't think that should preclude our exercise.
Last edited:
I see the logic of trading IT for Irving, and would add in Crowder and filler, but the Nets 18? That's a gold plated asset and only someone like AD gets me thinking of trading it.
Not saying I'd do it (I certainly wouldn't) but that's the kind of deal that Cleveland would probably require to trade Kyrie to Boston. The 2018 draft is shaping up to be a good one and we can comfortably project Brooklyn to be really bad. That pick is untouchable unless a true difference maker becomes available. The Lakers/Kings pick is probably available only in a similar trade.
Yeah, nobody's offering anything close to that given the sheer value provided by not worrying that you're devaluing the pick the minute you acquire it (as usually happens with 1st rounders when traded for stars). Maybe Phoenix offers a future first or something in order to maintain their current crop of young players as much as possible, but draft picks are weird in this situation anyway because Cleveland needs to entice Lebron to stay RIGHT NOW. Cleveland and Boston being 1 and 2 is the clear obstacle here, even if they might otherwise be a decent match on paper for a trade.
If Cleveland decides to go the rebuilding route, there will be plenty of good offers for Kyrie. He is still just 25 years old. If Cleveland wants to compete for a championship, it narrows the list. Only a handful of teams that can offer help now and in the future like the Celtics and Nuggets. If the Nuggets really did offer Murray+Harris+Chandler and picks, that deal would have been made yesterday. Harris and Murray would start. Not sure where Chandler would fit but a player of his caliber should be getting 25+ minutes a night as well. The Bucks deal too, I supppose since Middleton and Brogdon are only 25 and 24.
You mentioned the Suns and they probably work too if the Cavs are interested in Bledsoe and picks. I can't see the Suns moving Chriss, Booker or Jackson in any deal. I'm also not sure how much Irving would improve the Suns, especially in the west. That's probably still a top 5 pick. The Suns are bad.
It's all a moot point because as others have pointed out there is no way Cleveland is trading Kyrie to Boston (or any other of the top 5 teams in the East, probably) unless they got blown away with a deal.
But, even if they were willing to trade him to the Celtics, I'm stunned that people think trading IT/Crowder/+ would be a good deal for the Celtics. You are getting a similar player to Thomas with one extra year of team control and fewer injury concerns, but you are giving up a major trade piece in Crowder and weakening your wing/frontcourt depth at a point in the offseason where you really have no viable options to replace Crowder's playing time, so that would certainly hurt the Celtics this season and likely would make them worse next year as well.
But, even if they were willing to trade him to the Celtics, I'm stunned that people think trading IT/Crowder/+ would be a good deal for the Celtics. You are getting a similar player to Thomas with one extra year of team control and fewer injury concerns, but you are giving up a major trade piece in Crowder and weakening your wing/frontcourt depth at a point in the offseason where you really have no viable options to replace Crowder's playing time, so that would certainly hurt the Celtics this season and likely would make them worse next year as well.