Let's keep this simple and make it a straight up or down poll. If you were in Ainge's position would you have pulled the trigger on this trade?
Rate the trade: Irving for Thomas/Crowder/Zizic Nets 18' pick
- Thread starter kazuneko
- Start date
I voted no, I think adding the pick was too much but I am not as down on the trade as most, it seems. The amount of uncertainty involved seems very un-Anigelike.
No. A hundred times no. I realize on the main thread everyone is trying to talk themselves into this trade (if they weren't on board originally), but I think it's fine to say Danny screws up sometimes. And he did here. We'll know better after the 2018 draft -- and I predict at that point, after we see a year of Zizic (I know he doesn't fit so well into Brad's everyone-shoots-threes offense, but he's going to be good) and see the Brooklyn pick go top five -- that's highly probable, though of course nothing is certain -- no one will want to touch this trade in hindsight.
Outside of our Celtic fan echo chamber, here's how others have graded this:
Sports Illustrated: Cavs A+, Celts B
RealGM ("While the Celtics have to make this trade to get the best player in the deal who is also several years younger, the cost was massive").: Cavs A-, Celts B+
CBS Sports: Cavs A+, Celts B
Fansided ("Koby Altman, come on down! You’re the winner of the NBA’s Executive of the Year award already. This is a fantastic deal for Cleveland."): Cavs A-, Celts C-
Does any disinterested observer out there think that we won this? Ainge blew it. Here's CBS Sports; I couldn't agree with this more (I know second paragraph is a little overdramatic with "All-NBA point guard," but still):
Outside of our Celtic fan echo chamber, here's how others have graded this:
Sports Illustrated: Cavs A+, Celts B
RealGM ("While the Celtics have to make this trade to get the best player in the deal who is also several years younger, the cost was massive").: Cavs A-, Celts B+
CBS Sports: Cavs A+, Celts B
Fansided ("Koby Altman, come on down! You’re the winner of the NBA’s Executive of the Year award already. This is a fantastic deal for Cleveland."): Cavs A-, Celts C-
Does any disinterested observer out there think that we won this? Ainge blew it. Here's CBS Sports; I couldn't agree with this more (I know second paragraph is a little overdramatic with "All-NBA point guard," but still):
I voted no as well and come somewhere between cadiacs and Imbricus. I believe Kyrie is a monumental talent that could transform this team for the next 5 years, but can't help but feel that this is unjustifiable overpay. Maybe the prevailing opinion that Cleveland had to deal Irving is exaggerated and they really could have walked away and maybe behind the scenes everyone knew that, but based on what we know in the public sector that seems far-fetched and there was no reason to include all 3 significant adds to IT4.
I bet if you had a time machine, and asked the board this same question before the trade -- and set it out as a hypothetical, Irving for Thomas, Crowder, Brooklyn 2018 and Zizic -- it'd be more like 90+% "no." I think a lot of people are trying to talk themselves into it now. Which, as a Celtics fan, I guess you gotta try to do.
CBS Sports still gives the Celtics a B for this move. Of the grades you cite, only one gives it anything less than a B. Isn't that more important than whether the Celtics "win" the trade?
My initial reaction, when learning that the Brooklyn pick was included (unprotected at that), was No F-ing WAY. And I still think it was an enormous price to pay, one that I probably wouldn't have done.
But it's not about "winning a trade". It's about using your assets to make the best team possible. I've been saying all along that their window for winning an NBA championship is post-GS dynasty, which I think will be in 3 years or so. That's why I wanted them to hold onto the picks and take the next great big man in 2018. I thought IT and Hayward would do a great job bridging the gap between this upper-level eastern conference team and the next championship team. But I didn't think it would be possible for IT to be ON the next great Celtics team. Or at least, he wouldn't be leading it.
I think the Celtics are significantly better right now than they were yesterday before the trade. Irving is a dynamic player. He's bigger than Thomas. He is an assassin in the playoffs. Thomas has a significant injury and we do not know how he will bounce back from it. Irving doesn't play great defense during the season but we have all seen that he is CAPABLE of excellent defense in the playoffs. So as someone else said in the other thread, if we're ok with GRONK showing up just in the playoffs, then why would we not be ok with KYRIE not showing up until the playoffs?
Kyrie's age and contact are big benefits here. Just about three years younger. That's a big deal. Moreover, when he can opt out of his deal he'll just be 27, at the beginning of his prime, and I'd be more than happy at that point for the Celtics to give him the max deal. I would NOT be interested in the Celtics giving IT the max deal when HE is up for free agency.
So Kyrie, Brown, Smart, Tatum, 2018 Lakers, Yabu, and an older Hayward is a really, really nice looking team a few years from now, when that window opens.
The price was enormous. But if IT wasn't going to be here long-term, or if he is damaged goods because of the injury (both are quite possible), then Kyrie is a hell of a get for Ainge. Now let's hope that the LA pick works out because they STILL could add that next great big man (one of Porter, Ayton, Bagley, or Bamba).
Yes, Cleveland probably is better right now, if IT is healthy. IT, Rose, LeBron, Thompson, Love - that's a really skilled group headed by the best player in the world, and Crowder is a nice fit off the bench. I think the Celtics lineup of Kyrie, Smart, Hayward, Tatum/Brown, and Horford is pretty close.
Next year should be exciting, if nothing else.
But it's not about "winning a trade". It's about using your assets to make the best team possible. I've been saying all along that their window for winning an NBA championship is post-GS dynasty, which I think will be in 3 years or so. That's why I wanted them to hold onto the picks and take the next great big man in 2018. I thought IT and Hayward would do a great job bridging the gap between this upper-level eastern conference team and the next championship team. But I didn't think it would be possible for IT to be ON the next great Celtics team. Or at least, he wouldn't be leading it.
I think the Celtics are significantly better right now than they were yesterday before the trade. Irving is a dynamic player. He's bigger than Thomas. He is an assassin in the playoffs. Thomas has a significant injury and we do not know how he will bounce back from it. Irving doesn't play great defense during the season but we have all seen that he is CAPABLE of excellent defense in the playoffs. So as someone else said in the other thread, if we're ok with GRONK showing up just in the playoffs, then why would we not be ok with KYRIE not showing up until the playoffs?
Kyrie's age and contact are big benefits here. Just about three years younger. That's a big deal. Moreover, when he can opt out of his deal he'll just be 27, at the beginning of his prime, and I'd be more than happy at that point for the Celtics to give him the max deal. I would NOT be interested in the Celtics giving IT the max deal when HE is up for free agency.
So Kyrie, Brown, Smart, Tatum, 2018 Lakers, Yabu, and an older Hayward is a really, really nice looking team a few years from now, when that window opens.
The price was enormous. But if IT wasn't going to be here long-term, or if he is damaged goods because of the injury (both are quite possible), then Kyrie is a hell of a get for Ainge. Now let's hope that the LA pick works out because they STILL could add that next great big man (one of Porter, Ayton, Bagley, or Bamba).
Yes, Cleveland probably is better right now, if IT is healthy. IT, Rose, LeBron, Thompson, Love - that's a really skilled group headed by the best player in the world, and Crowder is a nice fit off the bench. I think the Celtics lineup of Kyrie, Smart, Hayward, Tatum/Brown, and Horford is pretty close.
Next year should be exciting, if nothing else.
I voted yes. The two biggest reasons are that (1) IT4 is not considered an "all-NBA" talent by the majority of the league it appears and (2) I'm skeptical that the BRK is going to be top 5 in the next draft.
Also, in the other thread, some people are complaining that DA should have used the LAL pick. Rumour has it that he could have chosen Tatum, the BRK pick, or the LAL pick. Assuming that is true, his team obviously values the LAL pick more.
I would like to see someone who votes no make some argument why the BRK is going to be top 5, other than BRK stinks. BRK is significantly better than last year, has an up-and-coming coach, and wants to win. People think they are going to lose more games than CHI?
One other thing. The market was really set by Dunn, Levine, and #7. I think most teams would rather take that package than the Cs because you can't build a championship team around IT.
Also, in the other thread, some people are complaining that DA should have used the LAL pick. Rumour has it that he could have chosen Tatum, the BRK pick, or the LAL pick. Assuming that is true, his team obviously values the LAL pick more.
I would like to see someone who votes no make some argument why the BRK is going to be top 5, other than BRK stinks. BRK is significantly better than last year, has an up-and-coming coach, and wants to win. People think they are going to lose more games than CHI?
One other thing. The market was really set by Dunn, Levine, and #7. I think most teams would rather take that package than the Cs because you can't build a championship team around IT.
I voted yes. I think that the Celtics, who know much more about this than we do, believe that IT's hip isn't getting better it's getting worse. Also I believe they got the best player in the deal in a game where you can only play 5 guys at a time. Finally, and I know that Kyrie is not a good defensive player, you don't have to try to hide him in a playoff series. I love IT this hurts me but I think the Celts made the right move and I think it's telling that the people down on this trade really seem to be down on it because of the pick (me too) and not IT.
A yes vote. Despite the fact that IT is tremendously fun to watch and has been a great Celtic, an injured IT with only 1 year of control is just not very valuable (no thank you to a maxed contract IT with a bad hip). There is no way IT , Crowder, and Zizic alone is ever getting this deal done. So pick your poison: Net pick, LA pick, Tatum or Brown. Sure I would have preferred protection on the Net pick (or the worse of LA/Net pick), and then it is a no brainer for me, but I still pull the trigger without the protection. Sign Kyrie and the Celtics with still one very valuable pick are an elite team and a GS injury away or nice bounce of the lottery balls away from a string of titles.
My initial reaction was quite negative because I got addicted to tankathon. However, after sleeping on it, I like the deal while acknowledging that there is some risk.
For starters, the NBA is about having elite talent. As history has proven, you don't win titles in the NBA with the Joe Flaccos of the world. Offensively, Kyrie Irving is elite. Defensively, he's far from it but he's still an incremental upgrade over what we had with Isaiah. And that was pre-injury Isaiah. Given his contract, injury, and general supply of PGs in the league, I think he clearly had minimal value on the market.
Crowder is a nice piece but you never let a Jae Crowder hold up a deal for a legitimate all-star. He'll be missed but he should also be replaced by Tatum/Brown without missing too much of a beat. Those guys are young so it could take a little while but both offer higher upside.
Zizic looked to be a rotational big. He didn't jump off the screen in the summer league but you saw some skills there. End of the day, similar to Crowder, you're never going to regret a deal for an all-star PG because of Zizic.
And then we get to the Nets pick. This is what stung the most for me since I had basically written them off as a bottom 5 team. They certainly may finish as such but there is clearly some risk there since they've improved and some other teams have entered their suckisphere. If this pick ends up in the 6-10 range, Ainge got a slam dunk. If it's 1-5, it gets murkier but we obviously don't know how good any of these 19 year-olds really are. And we still have a comparable pick left in LA/SAC. If Ainge can land that LA pick this year, he absolutely nailed this trade.
All in all, I think there's more good than bad here and I'm really looking forward to the next few years when you should have 3 elite closers in Irving, Hayward, and Tatum.
For starters, the NBA is about having elite talent. As history has proven, you don't win titles in the NBA with the Joe Flaccos of the world. Offensively, Kyrie Irving is elite. Defensively, he's far from it but he's still an incremental upgrade over what we had with Isaiah. And that was pre-injury Isaiah. Given his contract, injury, and general supply of PGs in the league, I think he clearly had minimal value on the market.
Crowder is a nice piece but you never let a Jae Crowder hold up a deal for a legitimate all-star. He'll be missed but he should also be replaced by Tatum/Brown without missing too much of a beat. Those guys are young so it could take a little while but both offer higher upside.
Zizic looked to be a rotational big. He didn't jump off the screen in the summer league but you saw some skills there. End of the day, similar to Crowder, you're never going to regret a deal for an all-star PG because of Zizic.
And then we get to the Nets pick. This is what stung the most for me since I had basically written them off as a bottom 5 team. They certainly may finish as such but there is clearly some risk there since they've improved and some other teams have entered their suckisphere. If this pick ends up in the 6-10 range, Ainge got a slam dunk. If it's 1-5, it gets murkier but we obviously don't know how good any of these 19 year-olds really are. And we still have a comparable pick left in LA/SAC. If Ainge can land that LA pick this year, he absolutely nailed this trade.
All in all, I think there's more good than bad here and I'm really looking forward to the next few years when you should have 3 elite closers in Irving, Hayward, and Tatum.
C-minus.
More sentimental than anything else. However, the fact that Thomas appears to be seriously injured has me warming up to the deal.
And before you pooh-pooh the idea of sentiment, the entire process of rooting for an arbitrarily regional sports team is irrational in the first place.
More sentimental than anything else. However, the fact that Thomas appears to be seriously injured has me warming up to the deal.
And before you pooh-pooh the idea of sentiment, the entire process of rooting for an arbitrarily regional sports team is irrational in the first place.
I say no. I mean I have to trust Danny and Brad in their evaluation here, but I don't think Irving is worth the price and I don't think he is the elite talent people are talking themselves into believing he is. Hope I'm wrong and (I've beaten this horse) his negatives were a result of situation not ability.
Unlike others, I am much less looking forward to this season. I think the Celtics and an average PG would have been fine, so I'm also not on board with the "the season would have gone to shit if IT were actually hurt." Oh well. Hope to eat my words.
Unlike others, I am much less looking forward to this season. I think the Celtics and an average PG would have been fine, so I'm also not on board with the "the season would have gone to shit if IT were actually hurt." Oh well. Hope to eat my words.
There is no statistical basis for this assertion (and coincidentally I've yet to see any SoSHer make this case). I imagine for most who like this trade is that they actually believe this. I'm also going to guess they think this way because they only watch the playoffs and maybe a handful of high profile Cleveland games during the regular season. Not only is Kyrie not an "elite" NBA player, but he has extreme difficulty fitting into modern NBA systems given his penchant for overdribblling and refusal to share the basketball (he played alongside the best player on the planet soooo not a good sign). An "elite" NBA player should be what??? top-3 at his position? Kyrie plays the least important position on the floor and yet he's not even a top-7... top-8 PG... top-9 PG?
Curry
Westbrook
Wall
Harden
Paul
Lowry
IT
Lillard
And some would argue he's more Bledsoe, Conley territory than elite.
Furthermore, Kyrie actually plays a position and it's really the only one he can play for he seems to need the ball in his hands a lot in order to be an effective offensive player. This runs counter to the direction it seemed the Celtics (and the league itself) were moving in.
I'm ok with moving on from IT but I cannot stand Kyrie's game and the only way this makes the Celtics better than a game or two is if Brad gets Kyrie's buy-in to change his game and play harder on defense. Good luck.
If you think this was a good trade, I'll meet you back here in June of 2018. Wish they had found a way to ship out Yabusele instead of Zizic (by the way, did anyone note yesterday that former Cleveland coach David Blatt was his European coach -- so Cleveland probably knew exactly what they were doing, asking for him.)
I don’t think this trade will age well. But, like smastroyin, I hope I'm wrong.
I don’t think this trade will age well. But, like smastroyin, I hope I'm wrong.
So you think they we're calling the coach they fired to get background on Zizic?
And this trade is going to age better than IT's hip.
I don't think there's anyway that IT is better than Irving. In a playoff setting, his size and lack of defense is a killer. If the opposing team doesn't have a player who is sub 6'6 and a complete 0 offensively then there is nowhere to hide IT and he can be exploited every time down the floor.
I think Kyrie is in the tier below Curry, Westbrook, Harden (Harden is technically not a PG but he is the main ball handler so I think it's fair to put him in here), and Paul. I would put him and Wall in the same tier above Lowry, IT, Conley, Bledsoe.
It's important to note that Kyrie is the youngest out of all of the players named. (Wall is the only one that's not 2 years older or more)
I voted no, I would not have done this trade. But, I also am not complaining because when it comes to the trade market I'm in full "in Ainge I trust" mode. I think Ainge has earned the benefit of the doubt with the way he has gone outside the box in the past and basically won nearly every trade, sometimes quite handily.
That being said, while I think Kyrie is very good, my personal preference would've been Butler. I think he's been the best player to change hands by trade in recent years (not including the head case Cousins). I would've rather used this package of assets on him.
That being said, while I think Kyrie is very good, my personal preference would've been Butler. I think he's been the best player to change hands by trade in recent years (not including the head case Cousins). I would've rather used this package of assets on him.
I voted "no" but I am definitely coming around.
Reading the quotes from Ainge's Press Conference it's clear that the motivating factor in this is IT's hip. Unfortunately, I still think that the Brooklyn pick will be top 5 but there is a lot of credence to the idea that they won't be motivated to tank (while NYK, CHI, ORL, ATL, and PHX will be)
My complaints with the deal are:
- My main complains is that they couldn't get some sort of protection on the Brooklyn pick. I think top 5 is too far for the Cavs but I think top 2 or 3 protection would have been very reasonable. It's very rare that a pick this valuable gets traded with absolutely no protections and it's not like this trade was completely one sided before the inclusion of the pick.
- A much more minor complaint but I agree with Imbricus, it hurts to include Zizic over Yabusele just because Zizic fills a need on this team while Yabu feels redundant with the rest of the roster.
When I saw this trade go through I would have given it a D but after marinating on it and reading through this thread and some of what Ainge has said I move it up to a C+. The bottom line for me is that Ainge and his staff have earned the benefit of the doubt. They are all very smart, competent people who have forgot more about basketball than any of us know. If they believe, after working through all the scenarios and the calculus, that this is a good trade for the Celtics then I agree.....although I still cant believe they couldnt get top 2 protection on that pick
Reading the quotes from Ainge's Press Conference it's clear that the motivating factor in this is IT's hip. Unfortunately, I still think that the Brooklyn pick will be top 5 but there is a lot of credence to the idea that they won't be motivated to tank (while NYK, CHI, ORL, ATL, and PHX will be)
My complaints with the deal are:
- My main complains is that they couldn't get some sort of protection on the Brooklyn pick. I think top 5 is too far for the Cavs but I think top 2 or 3 protection would have been very reasonable. It's very rare that a pick this valuable gets traded with absolutely no protections and it's not like this trade was completely one sided before the inclusion of the pick.
- A much more minor complaint but I agree with Imbricus, it hurts to include Zizic over Yabusele just because Zizic fills a need on this team while Yabu feels redundant with the rest of the roster.
When I saw this trade go through I would have given it a D but after marinating on it and reading through this thread and some of what Ainge has said I move it up to a C+. The bottom line for me is that Ainge and his staff have earned the benefit of the doubt. They are all very smart, competent people who have forgot more about basketball than any of us know. If they believe, after working through all the scenarios and the calculus, that this is a good trade for the Celtics then I agree.....although I still cant believe they couldnt get top 2 protection on that pick
The Bulls wouldn't wait. We wanted to go after Hayward. Couldn't trade for Butler and then pursue Hayward and pay the max.
I say no. This is like a reverse McAdoo trade. I was ok with the Fultz trade but not this one. Irving is not the player you blow your lode on.
Also, as a fan I vote F-.
I really don't like Irving as a player on my own team (fun enough to watch), on top of him being so fucking overrated.
Trust in Stevens, and Ainge, but my interest in this season just went down 60% at least. Going to have to see what happens in the early weeks.
I really don't like Irving as a player on my own team (fun enough to watch), on top of him being so fucking overrated.
Trust in Stevens, and Ainge, but my interest in this season just went down 60% at least. Going to have to see what happens in the early weeks.
When you are trying to catch the team that you made the trade with shouldn't you narrow the gap? Note: I'm only answering that question, not commenting on the trade it self.
The grades don't speak strictly to wins and losses.
The Cavs HAD to get something. They got a pretty decent haul. That grades out well.
IT is an expiring contract and is injured.....the trade wasn't about him. The trade was about the Nets pick and we added a role player and another young prospect.
Ainge won this big time.
I voted no, but mainly because I'm not sure Kyrie is the guy I'd want the Celtics to roll with long term. If he ends up walking, and the C's traded the Brooklyn pick for a 2 year rental, I don't think that is a good deal unless you win a title one of those years.
Now, if you can convince Kyrie to stay, as many people of noted they have a great young core to build around going forward after 2018, and it's a much better deal. Same thing if IT4's hip is really banged up.
For those suggesting the pick should have protections, what kind of protections would have been reasonable-I'm genuinely curious, I'm not being snarky. Because that pick is so unique, I'm not sure you could offer up an alternative pick that would be anything close in value that would make Cleveland do the deal. I guess maybe the Lakers pick this year but if that doesnt convey, I dont see cleveland having much interest in a 2019 pick that is #1 protected and could be very middling.
Now, if you can convince Kyrie to stay, as many people of noted they have a great young core to build around going forward after 2018, and it's a much better deal. Same thing if IT4's hip is really banged up.
For those suggesting the pick should have protections, what kind of protections would have been reasonable-I'm genuinely curious, I'm not being snarky. Because that pick is so unique, I'm not sure you could offer up an alternative pick that would be anything close in value that would make Cleveland do the deal. I guess maybe the Lakers pick this year but if that doesnt convey, I dont see cleveland having much interest in a 2019 pick that is #1 protected and could be very middling.
I'm having a tough time with all of the hate for this deal.
Kyrie is a much more valuable asset than IT and a better bet to be the better player as they age. Under contract for an extra year and indications are that the C's are confident they can resign him. There's no guarantee IT stays healthy all year or if it's realistic to sign him long-term as he heads into his 30's.
Crowder was a nice piece, but one they could afford to give up. They signed Hayward, they drafted Tatum and have seen Jaylen grow. They have plenty of 3's. And Crowder was ill suited to play the 4 in a small ball lineup.
Zizic? Maybe he'll be a rotation piece. Maybe. Leaves the C's even further depleted up front, but he was already a question mark.
Brooklyn pick. I think this is where a lot of the hate lies and people need to remember that even if they finish with the worst record in the league, there's no guarantee at the #1 pick. If this lands outside of the top 5, I'm fine with it being included. Now, if this turns into #1, sure. Go ahead and complain. But as we saw this past season when Danny was making trade offers for guys like Butler, teams didn't value the BKL picks like we did. They don't like the uncertainty of the ping pong balls and don't want to make a deal unless they know where that pick is going to land.
My biggest issue with the trade is that it gives CLE exactly what they needed. They weren't in a strong bargaining position with regards to trading Kyrie but still got a big haul for him. IT can replace most (if not all) of Kyrie's offense if he stays healthy, Crowder gives them a far better wing than they've had in the past to help LeBron, Zizic gives them a possibly serviceable big and the Brooklyn pick helps the rebuild if IT and LeBron are gone next year or gives them a cheap, young player to add to that mix. If the goal is to win a championship, I'm not sure it got easier next year by making this deal.
Kyrie is a much more valuable asset than IT and a better bet to be the better player as they age. Under contract for an extra year and indications are that the C's are confident they can resign him. There's no guarantee IT stays healthy all year or if it's realistic to sign him long-term as he heads into his 30's.
Crowder was a nice piece, but one they could afford to give up. They signed Hayward, they drafted Tatum and have seen Jaylen grow. They have plenty of 3's. And Crowder was ill suited to play the 4 in a small ball lineup.
Zizic? Maybe he'll be a rotation piece. Maybe. Leaves the C's even further depleted up front, but he was already a question mark.
Brooklyn pick. I think this is where a lot of the hate lies and people need to remember that even if they finish with the worst record in the league, there's no guarantee at the #1 pick. If this lands outside of the top 5, I'm fine with it being included. Now, if this turns into #1, sure. Go ahead and complain. But as we saw this past season when Danny was making trade offers for guys like Butler, teams didn't value the BKL picks like we did. They don't like the uncertainty of the ping pong balls and don't want to make a deal unless they know where that pick is going to land.
My biggest issue with the trade is that it gives CLE exactly what they needed. They weren't in a strong bargaining position with regards to trading Kyrie but still got a big haul for him. IT can replace most (if not all) of Kyrie's offense if he stays healthy, Crowder gives them a far better wing than they've had in the past to help LeBron, Zizic gives them a possibly serviceable big and the Brooklyn pick helps the rebuild if IT and LeBron are gone next year or gives them a cheap, young player to add to that mix. If the goal is to win a championship, I'm not sure it got easier next year by making this deal.
Not to mention the fact that this pick has a LOT of downside risk for Cleveland. There's a very good chance Brooklyn finishes outside the top 5. Jae Crowder, Ante Zizic, an injured IT, and the #9 pick would end up as a pretty shitty haul for Kyrie Irving.
This trade is just fairly unique overall: teams usually aren't willing to take the amount of pick variability risk that Cleveland is taking on here.
The Celtics probably think IT is cooked, so this trade is really going to come down to who is right on how bad Brooklyn is.
This is fucking ridiculous. When the possibility of this trade was debated on this exact forum, nobody, and I mean nobody, was willing to consider it if the Cavs were asking for the Lakers pick. Now the nets pick and Zizic have been sent and a majority support it. There is some, as of yet unnamed psychological phenomenon, at play here that I don't understand but I'm guessing we might have gotten similar results if Ainge had also included Tatum and Brown. At the very least all those that voted in favor of this trade can shut the fuck up when Curley ends up drafted by the Cavs and dominates the league for the next 15 years. While I will regret the fact that the Cs have cashed in all their chips for four fifty win seasons (until the eventual rebuild) I will at least be able to say I never supported Ainge's early stage dementia trade of all his assets for an injury prone, defensively insufficient moron of a point guard.
I think George is a better player than Butler, and doesn't have a bad knee as an added plus. I also think that it's pretty clear that plan A was to sign Hayward and then trade for either George or Butler, but neither Chicago nor Indiana was willing to wait. So Boston moved on to plan B.
I don't think the Bulls have any regrets because what they got for Butler was more than they had asked for him (on draft night in '16 they were willing to trade Butler to the T'wolves for LaVine and Dunn, which Minnesota rejected, a year later they were able to add a lottery pick to that package). But Pritchard has to be pissed that he could have fulfilled ownership's mandate to win now while still adding a top ten pick to build around. Had he been willing to wait another two weeks he could have dusted off the whole "Pritchslap" routine while patting himself on the back.
fyi, ESPN gives the Celtics a C (and the Cavs an A).
I get the notion it's good for both teams -- the Celtics had the depth to trade for the best player in the deal, and that's what's key to winning championships. But, while I really enjoy watching Irving play and do think the "he ups his game in the playoffs" notion is correct (and important), I still don't think he's a top dog player who can take a team to the promised land -- like GH, he's in that B+ notch of players. I think this leave the Celtics in the "really good but not a championship contender" slot for the upcoming future.
I'm finding critical articles like this:
Danny Ainge Goes All in on Baffling Kyrie Irving Trade
Celtics saved Cavs, sank themselves with terrible trade for Kyrie Irving
Anyone have a link to an article by a decent independent sportswriter (not a shamrock-glasses-wearing Celtics fan) calling this a great move by the Celtics? Looking for a glass of water in the desert ...
Danny Ainge Goes All in on Baffling Kyrie Irving Trade
Celtics saved Cavs, sank themselves with terrible trade for Kyrie Irving
Anyone have a link to an article by a decent independent sportswriter (not a shamrock-glasses-wearing Celtics fan) calling this a great move by the Celtics? Looking for a glass of water in the desert ...
The original KG trade is the only Ainge move that hasn't been roasted by mass media. They hate him because he doesn't operate the way he is 'supposed to.'
I've almost talked myself into this. I rate the trade as a win from the Cavs perspective because they were dysfunctional as is, and checks all their boxes in what they want from a trade. For the Celtics, I'd assign an incomplete - if Kyrie can grow under a real coach, get into the conversation for top 3 in his position, then it's fine. I originally thought that that had to happen in addition to the the BKN pick not being that good and IT being a shell of his former self, but now I think it's just a bet on Stevens ability to get the most out of Kyrie. Imagine trading for Westbrook at 25 or Harden at 24, that's how you look at it.
Agreed. To me this comes down to Stevens getting more out of Irving and/or Irving realizing he has to walk the walk and be less hero ball-er more all-around player. I believe that's possible -- the physical skills are extraordinary -- but experience also shows that guys are who they are and it can be fools gold thinking they'll be transformed. But...that's why sports are fun -- going to be great seeing how he develops (and how IT meshes with Lebron if his hip is healthy).
I'm still thinking he's confused in that it was us who traded away the injured and defensively insufficient PG.
This is also easily the best offensive player Stevens has gotten to work with, in terms of where that player was upon arrival in Boston. The closest comp is probably Isaiah himself, who went from a $6M/year player who was traded for a late 20s pick, to one of the top 5-10 offensive players in the league.
I think that the "can Kyrie change who he is" angle is overplayed. For a lot of these guys, it's more about being better utilized in the gameplan than it is about completely overhauling their approach to the game.
I think the Celts are better team today than they were yesterday and the trade is a pretty good long-term solution to a problem.
This trade gave Ainge an expensive (but not crazy expensive) solution to the IT conundrum.
What to do with a popular and very good 5'9" guard with a bad hip, the inability to get taller, with no easy place to hide on D, and who has a hankering for a Brinks truck full of dough.
So he got a 6' 3" PG who can score, is younger, under contract and hopefully will take to Coach Brad's coaching.
IMO the real question is the value of the Nets #1.
This trade gave Ainge an expensive (but not crazy expensive) solution to the IT conundrum.
What to do with a popular and very good 5'9" guard with a bad hip, the inability to get taller, with no easy place to hide on D, and who has a hankering for a Brinks truck full of dough.
So he got a 6' 3" PG who can score, is younger, under contract and hopefully will take to Coach Brad's coaching.
IMO the real question is the value of the Nets #1.
I don't think anyone can accuse me of having green colored glasses, I hated the drafting of Brown at #3 and said so at the time (and ate crow later because I was dead wrong about him) and have always been critical of Boston where I have felt they went wrong. (Like the 2011 draft, I wonder if there are any of those threads left archived? I may have set a world record for expletives that night, and on that occasion I was 100% right about the uselessness of JuJuan Johnson, although wrong about Moore (I thought he would be in Europe by the start of the '13 season), but right nonetheless because they should have fucking drafted Lil' Zeke.)I'm finding critical articles like this:
Danny Ainge Goes All in on Baffling Kyrie Irving Trade
Celtics saved Cavs, sank themselves with terrible trade for Kyrie Irving
Anyone have a link to an article by a decent independent sportswriter (not a shamrock-glasses-wearing Celtics fan) calling this a great move by the Celtics? Looking for a glass of water in the desert ...
I think the Cavs got the better end of the trade in the short term, insofar as it marginally increases their odds of winning a title in 2018. But long term the Cavs are going into rebuilding mode next summer and Boston wants to focus on the next 6-8 years that they have with Hayward and their kiddie corps.
Thomas just didn't fit that timeline, the other two available stars that did were traded before Boston could get to them. The Unibrower isn't going to be available for at least another five years. So Boston pushed their chips onto the table and gambled that Brown, Tatum, and the LA pick are going to develop better playing on an actual tier 1 title contender. So Cleveland "won" the trade, but the Cavs have already lost the war, so it's a moot point.
Most of the things to say about this trade have already been said, I'll try not to repeat them. I don't think people are looking at this from an on court perspective enough. Winning the PR battle is not particularly important.
In particular, I think far too many people are glossing over Washington and the battle we had with them. Just assuming the Celtics are #2 in the conf is a really big mistake, I think, as Beal and Wall gave us fits in that series and it easily could have gone the other way but for a random Kelly Olynyk explosion. Having traded Bradley, I was already worried about our ability to match up with Washington in a 7 game series. Washington showed one of the biggest weaknesses of building your team around Thomas, as he couldn't guard either of those guys effectively simply due to size and had Brad scurrying and shifting lineups trying to hide him defensively. Irving may not be able to shut those guys down, either, but won't be a mandatory switch onto someone else simply due to size. In particular, the Celtics seem to prefer to switch all pick and rolls religiously, which meant any team that wanted to get Thomas on a bigger guard could more or less pick that match up via P+R any time down the floor. I imagine the coach was pulling his hair out trying to deal with this even if everyone loved IT4 as a player. They'll need more commitment from Irving to be in any way better defensively with him but I think they'll be more versatile with someone of more normal size out there.
Overall, the transformation of this team is dramatic and we were in desperate need of a pu pu platter trade. We were essentially a 1 man + random performer offense for the last season and a half. And that 5'9" man was exceptional at dragging us over the line. But when he was out in the playoffs or even playing healthy, it was much tougher for him to do his thing and for the Celtics to consistently generate points. We've seen several times when Crowder, Smart, Bradley, et al weren't making 3s the Celtics could look really, really ugly. Right now we'll have Irving and Hayward essentially scoring 40+ points a night and both are more than capable of scoring in isolation or against a defense designed to stop them. This should raise our performance floor a bit as we can weather an off night from a key player. In these 7 game series, we just couldn't afford for Isaiah to not have his finishing skills or shot for even 1 night as it almost guaranteed a loss.
You have to think the team is really high on Brown or Tatum (or both). They're going to get minutes and a chance to contribute. I think it remains to be seen how well this new lineup will be able to defend -- circling back to Washington, I don't know if Irving + Smart will do anything better than Thomas + Bradley did against those two, but I suppose at least if those two go off the Celtics will have a pretty good offensive team to respond in kind. In the end, I think the Celtics are getting closer and closer to building a team more like the Warriors in the East. Depending on how the lineup shakes out, they should be playing 4-5 men at all times who can space and really shoot the ball. It would help if Jalen can extend his range out there or if by some miracle Smart discovers a shot that plays in games.
Finally, I think it is obvious that IT was not getting re-signed and I think the myth of Crowder's skillset far exceeds the reality. There's a lot of talk on the past pages about stats and I just don't think they're accurate enough to definitively declare much. The Crowder we got in trade was an active, strong two way player who showed a surprising ability to hit the 3. But by last season I felt he lingered outside the 3 point line too much and no longer seemed quick enough to guard elite 3s and 4s. Doesn't make him a bad player, but I think his game had already peaked and probably will continue to trend downhill. Maybe he is reinvigorated playing with Lebron, but a 3 and D who isn't exceptional at the D part doesn't do as much for me.
In particular, I think far too many people are glossing over Washington and the battle we had with them. Just assuming the Celtics are #2 in the conf is a really big mistake, I think, as Beal and Wall gave us fits in that series and it easily could have gone the other way but for a random Kelly Olynyk explosion. Having traded Bradley, I was already worried about our ability to match up with Washington in a 7 game series. Washington showed one of the biggest weaknesses of building your team around Thomas, as he couldn't guard either of those guys effectively simply due to size and had Brad scurrying and shifting lineups trying to hide him defensively. Irving may not be able to shut those guys down, either, but won't be a mandatory switch onto someone else simply due to size. In particular, the Celtics seem to prefer to switch all pick and rolls religiously, which meant any team that wanted to get Thomas on a bigger guard could more or less pick that match up via P+R any time down the floor. I imagine the coach was pulling his hair out trying to deal with this even if everyone loved IT4 as a player. They'll need more commitment from Irving to be in any way better defensively with him but I think they'll be more versatile with someone of more normal size out there.
Overall, the transformation of this team is dramatic and we were in desperate need of a pu pu platter trade. We were essentially a 1 man + random performer offense for the last season and a half. And that 5'9" man was exceptional at dragging us over the line. But when he was out in the playoffs or even playing healthy, it was much tougher for him to do his thing and for the Celtics to consistently generate points. We've seen several times when Crowder, Smart, Bradley, et al weren't making 3s the Celtics could look really, really ugly. Right now we'll have Irving and Hayward essentially scoring 40+ points a night and both are more than capable of scoring in isolation or against a defense designed to stop them. This should raise our performance floor a bit as we can weather an off night from a key player. In these 7 game series, we just couldn't afford for Isaiah to not have his finishing skills or shot for even 1 night as it almost guaranteed a loss.
You have to think the team is really high on Brown or Tatum (or both). They're going to get minutes and a chance to contribute. I think it remains to be seen how well this new lineup will be able to defend -- circling back to Washington, I don't know if Irving + Smart will do anything better than Thomas + Bradley did against those two, but I suppose at least if those two go off the Celtics will have a pretty good offensive team to respond in kind. In the end, I think the Celtics are getting closer and closer to building a team more like the Warriors in the East. Depending on how the lineup shakes out, they should be playing 4-5 men at all times who can space and really shoot the ball. It would help if Jalen can extend his range out there or if by some miracle Smart discovers a shot that plays in games.
Finally, I think it is obvious that IT was not getting re-signed and I think the myth of Crowder's skillset far exceeds the reality. There's a lot of talk on the past pages about stats and I just don't think they're accurate enough to definitively declare much. The Crowder we got in trade was an active, strong two way player who showed a surprising ability to hit the 3. But by last season I felt he lingered outside the 3 point line too much and no longer seemed quick enough to guard elite 3s and 4s. Doesn't make him a bad player, but I think his game had already peaked and probably will continue to trend downhill. Maybe he is reinvigorated playing with Lebron, but a 3 and D who isn't exceptional at the D part doesn't do as much for me.
That's a great post, teddy.
One thing I'll add about the Washington series is that the Game 7 win saved IT from being the butt of a really tough lasting memory of him throwing the ball away with Game 6 in hand because he couldn't handle a double team.
One thing I'll add about the Washington series is that the Game 7 win saved IT from being the butt of a really tough lasting memory of him throwing the ball away with Game 6 in hand because he couldn't handle a double team.
I don't like it. Kyrie is a very good even star player.But they gave up too much. I suppose the pick could turn out to be a MArcus Smart leel player, rather than an all star,but I ee little improvement on the team in the short term. Bradely and Crowder were part of the great d, rebounding is still a problem. IT was incredible, but flawed
I guess it comes down to the fact I am unconvinced Kyrie is the guy, but I may be wrong. He believes he is, and Ainge must too.
I guess it comes down to the fact I am unconvinced Kyrie is the guy, but I may be wrong. He believes he is, and Ainge must too.
I can certainly understand the viewpoint of those that consider this to be a better trade for Cleveland versus Boston. I don't get the "This is a total disaster!" declaration from some before this has even played out into next season.
Declaring the next decade lost due to this trade is the hottest of the flaming hot takes. I am not sure if people actually believe that or are just trying to one-up others on the manufactured outrage meter.
Declaring the next decade lost due to this trade is the hottest of the flaming hot takes. I am not sure if people actually believe that or are just trying to one-up others on the manufactured outrage meter.
Kyrie Irving will, barring injury or unforeseeable trainwreck shit, be a top-level player in 3-4 years, when Tatum, Brown, and the Lakers pick are hitting their stride. Isaiah will be over 30 in three years and will still be too short to deal with being keyed on in a defense. Math checks out, here.
This is a good trade. It's not a great trade, it was probably a little bit of an overpay, but it's the kind of overpay Ainge has been building assets to make. We can argue over how good a trade it is, but claims that this is "disastrous" are fuckin' dumb.
This is a good trade. It's not a great trade, it was probably a little bit of an overpay, but it's the kind of overpay Ainge has been building assets to make. We can argue over how good a trade it is, but claims that this is "disastrous" are fuckin' dumb.
I think it's entirely reasonable to say Kyrie's an elite scorer.
Players since 2011 who have averaged ≥ 25 points per 36 on ≥ .580 true shooting
Steph Curry (x3)
Kevin Durant (x5)
James Harden (x3)
LeBron James (x4)
Kyrie Irving
Kawhi Leonard
Damian Lillard
Kevin Love
Isaiah Thomas (!)
That's the complete list. Players who did it before age 25:
Kevin Durant
Kyrie Irving
Players since 2011 who have averaged ≥ 25 points per 36 on ≥ .580 true shooting
Steph Curry (x3)
Kevin Durant (x5)
James Harden (x3)
LeBron James (x4)
Kyrie Irving
Kawhi Leonard
Damian Lillard
Kevin Love
Isaiah Thomas (!)
That's the complete list. Players who did it before age 25:
Kevin Durant
Kyrie Irving
I wouldn't have done it. I agree with those who characterize it as an overpay but not a disastrous deal. I just wouldn't have given them the Nets pick unprotected. I'd have stopped at something like a top 3 protected Nets pick, converting to a top 3 (really 2 or 3) protected LAL pick, converting to an unprotected SAC pick, converting to a Memphis and change pick. Complicated, yes, but Ainge gave up too much future value in this deal, imo, for a guy who is not a top 5-10 overall player and isn't known for being particularly team-oriented and unselfish.
A real key here for me is that there was zero chance they were signing IT to a max deal after his contract expired, but Kyrie will be 27 when he opts out (assuming he does). That's right in the beginning of his prime and is exactly the kind of guy you give the max (supermax?) deal to. So Irving is not only a huge part of this team's present, but he is also a huge part of this team's future when the GS dynasty ends.
Completely different situation than if they had IT.
You're exactly right - this is about the Brooklyn pick.
Honestly, the more I think about it, the more I think both teams did well here. Which is, I guess, how a good trade should go.