2019 Off season -- Add a superstar, or subtract one?

DeJesus Built My Hotrod

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 24, 2002
28,405
The Celtics had a #3 and #1 pick already during this cycle, and they ended up with Brown and Tatum. You're suggesting that they give up on those two guys after 3 years and 2 years, respectively, and try to...what, get another couple of top five picks down the road (if they're lucky) and hope to do better?

The odds of rebuilding are a lot better if you start with those two.
I am not suggesting that.
 

lovegtm

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 30, 2013
4,441
Kiev, Ukraine
I guess I'm missing what you're saying, then.

If Kyrie walks, what do you want them to do?
He’s saying that they should both be on the table if there’s some kind of godfather offer of picks for them (I think). That would also allow you to tank without wasting the players’ good years, and do a Boston Process.

I don’t disagree in principle, but I’m skeptical you’d get that huge offer.
 

DeJesus Built My Hotrod

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 24, 2002
28,405
I guess I'm missing what you're saying, then.

If Kyrie walks, what do you want them to do?
Its upthread but forgive me if I was unclear.

In short, if Irving leaves & there is no Davis deal, this team is likely looking at a mid 40 win total and maybe a lower seed for the next few seasons. While I think Tatum and Brown will each continue to improve, I don't see either/both of them making such a leap that this team truly contends over the next few years. I wouldn't actively try to trade either but I would listen hard on them or anyone else on the roster.

Without Irving and another elite player, this team is likely looking at three to five years of being stuck in the middle. If you can amass more assets to make a run at another elite player if/when one becomes available- and yes, I am essentially saying I don't see either Tatum or Brown being truly elite - you have to consider it, especially if the East continues to improve around Boston.
 

Jed Zeppelin

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 23, 2008
34,990
Its upthread but forgive me if I was unclear.

In short, if Irving leaves & there is no Davis deal, this team is likely looking at a mid 40 win total and maybe a lower seed for the next few seasons. While I think Tatum and Brown will each continue to improve, I don't see either/both of them making such a leap that this team truly contends over the next few years. I wouldn't actively try to trade either but I would listen hard on them or anyone else on the roster.

Without Irving and another elite player, this team is likely looking at three to five years of being stuck in the middle. If you can amass more assets to make a run at another elite player if/when one becomes available- and yes, I am essentially saying I don't see either Tatum or Brown being truly elite - you have to consider it, especially if the East continues to improve around Boston.
I think what is just about spot on here is that there's no scenario where it makes sense to just keep Kyrie and run it back without another major shoe or two dropping. They were already a hair away from mid-40s wins with him and a mostly healthy roster as is.
 

Big John

lurker
Dec 9, 2016
1,672
If Kyrie leaves the "X" factor is Hayward. If GH returns to all star form they are in decent shape. It's the 2017-18 team with GH instead of IT. Alternatively, if Hayward's deal can be moved for an expiring contract, they will have some financial flexibility in 2020 especially if Horford takes a team-friendly extension (which he is rumored to be willing to do). If GH continues to be a $30M+ role player, they will tread water for two more years unless Ainge drafts extremely well.

In my view, Rozier and Morris need to go. There will be major roster turnover everywhere this Summer, and better players will be available for the MLE or even less.
 

DeJesus Built My Hotrod

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 24, 2002
28,405
If Kyrie leaves the "X" factor is Hayward. If GH returns to all star form they are in decent shape. It's the 2017-18 team with GH instead of IT. Alternatively, if Hayward's deal can be moved for an expiring contract, they will have some financial flexibility in 2020 especially if Horford takes a team-friendly extension (which he is rumored to be willing to do). If GH continues to be a $30M+ role player, they will tread water for two more years unless Ainge drafts extremely well.

In my view, Rozier and Morris need to go. There will be major roster turnover everywhere this Summer, and better players will be available for the MLE or even less.
What is decent shape? Will you really be happy about a Celtics team that probably has no more upside than a six to eight seed? Because if you get your wish, that is what they are looking at, even if Hayward reverts to the same level of production he had in his last season in Utah.

I mean, we can hope the young guys all make a leap or that a great deal falls in Boston's lap. But hope is not a strategy.
 

benhogan

Baynes Hogan (pending trade)
SoSH Member
Nov 2, 2007
6,548
Santa Monica
The experts (Vegas) have a tough enough time predicting which teams will compete for a championship less than a year out. I'm not buying 3-5 year crystal balls around here.

For example, last Summer Vegas gave the Bucks the 15th highest odds to win a championship, smack dab in the middle of all NBA teams. Did they panic? No, they added a good coach and some cheap veteran size by signing Lopez ($3.4M), Ilyasova ($7M), Connaughton ($1.6M).

The Celtics have one of the best front offices in the game, more young assets/draft picks than any other NBA team and a good Coach. Kyrie leaving sucks, but it's not the be all, end all for the Celtics next half-decade.
 
Last edited:

Light-Tower-Power

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 14, 2013
8,084
What is decent shape? Will you really be happy about a Celtics team that probably has no more upside than a six to eight seed? Because if you get your wish, that is what they are looking at, even if Hayward reverts to the same level of production he had in his last season in Utah.

I mean, we can hope the young guys all make a leap or that a great deal falls in Boston's lap. But hope is not a strategy.
Yep. It's AD or bust as far as legitimately competing for a championship next season. We can hope the Jays make huge leaps and Hayward regains all his explosiveness in the offseason but I'm betting against all three happening.
 

Big John

lurker
Dec 9, 2016
1,672
What is decent shape? Will you really be happy about a Celtics team that probably has no more upside than a six to eight seed? Because if you get your wish, that is what they are looking at, even if Hayward reverts to the same level of production he had in his last season in Utah.

I mean, we can hope the young guys all make a leap or that a great deal falls in Boston's lap. But hope is not a strategy.
I think you are way too pessimistic. The fact is that they were only a 4 seed with Kyrie, largely because they played bad basketball when he was on the floor. The other guys are better when he isn't, especially if they listen to Stevens (which Kyrie didn't very often).

The idea that the Celtics will win a championship with Kyrie is bogus. And if they resign him they'll be paying luxury tax (and probably the repeater tax) for an unwatchable team with no chance to get better. They will lose their exceptions, lose their ability to make trades (it's harder for teams to make trades when they are above the apron) and allow Brown and Tatum to stagnate as they stand around and watch Kyrie dribble.

We saw a real superstar yesterday playing for Toronto. Kyrie isn't one.
 

Captaincoop

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
8,787
Santa Monica, CA
The experts (Vegas) have a tough enough time predicting which teams will compete for a championship less than a year out. I'm not buying 3-5 year crystal balls around here.

For example, last Summer Vegas gave the Bucks the 15th highest odds to win a championship, smack dab in the middle of all NBA teams. Did they panic? No, they added a good coach and some cheap veteran size by signing Lopez ($3.4M), Ilyasova ($7M), Connaughton ($1.6M).

The Celtics have one of the best front offices in the game, more young assets/draft picks than any other NBA team and a good Coach. Kyrie leaving sucks, but it's not the be all, end all for the Celtics next half-decade.
Yes, that's where I'm at as well.

I don't think anyone is in love with Brown and Tatum to the point that they're completely untouchable, but it doesn't seem plausible to me that some team is coughing up a superstar or multiple lottery picks for a pair of guys that are on middle-of-the-road trajectories for having been picked in the top 5.

Danny is going to do everything he can to salvage the Kyrie/AD plan, whether we agree or not. But when that doesn't work, I don't have a huge concern about trying to build around what's left. It will be a fun team to root for and you still have some FA possibilities and multiple swings at finding a draft home run.
 

southshoresoxfan

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
5,249
Canton MA
I think you are way too pessimistic. The fact is that they were only a 4 seed with Kyrie, largely because they played bad basketball when he was on the floor. The other guys are better when he isn't, especially if they listen to Stevens (which Kyrie didn't very often).

The idea that the Celtics will win a championship with Kyrie is bogus. And if they resign him they'll be paying luxury tax (and probably the repeater tax) for an unwatchable team with no chance to get better. They will lose their exceptions, lose their ability to make trades (it's harder for teams to make trades when they are above the apron) and allow Brown and Tatum to stagnate as they stand around and watch Kyrie dribble.

We saw a real superstar yesterday playing for Toronto. Kyrie isn't one.
Dude. Did Kyrie murder a family member?

You’re spewing a beautiful combination of lies and half truths to squeeze your square point into a round hole.

1) the Celtics were +6.6 with Kyrie Irving on the floor this season.

2) were you in the huddle? You know for certain the Celtics players including Irving tuned out Stevens?

3) So let me get this straight. If they package say Tatum, Smart and a couple picks for AD and re sign Kyrie they won’t contend for a title? Are the 96 Bulls walking through that door?

We get it. You don’t like Kyrie. But try and mix a fact or two in with all the hyperbole and false statements. It’ll go a long way.
 

DeJesus Built My Hotrod

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 24, 2002
28,405
The experts (Vegas) have a tough enough time predicting which teams will compete for a championship less than a year out. I'm not buying 3-5 year crystal balls around here.

For example, last Summer Vegas gave the Bucks the 15th highest odds to win a championship, smack dab in the middle of all NBA teams. Did they panic? No, they added a good coach and some cheap veteran size by signing Lopez ($3.4M), Ilyasova ($7M), Connaughton ($1.6M).

The Celtics have one of the best front offices in the game, more young assets/draft picks than any other NBA team and a good Coach. Kyrie leaving sucks, but it's not the be all, end all for the Celtics next half-decade.
The Bucks had a known quantity in Giannis so regardless of what Vegas was looking at, they at least had the potential to be very good if he continued to improve and the team made the right moves.

The Celtics have some good young pieces and as I said, Tatum and Brown should both improve going forward.

That said, they are nowhere near being elite on either side of the ball and Ainge/Stevens can only do so much without a true top tier player. You and others may be right that things can change but now we are discussing scenarios that involve more hope than anything else.

Some may be fine with it given that they no longer have to watch Irving etc play for the team but I find the prospect of being a middling team to be frustrating given the trajectory the team was on over the past few years.
 

Big John

lurker
Dec 9, 2016
1,672
The only reason to resign Kyrie is if you can get AD. I said that earlier. But if that combination doesn't win a title and AD leaves after a year, you have thrown 3-4 rebuilding years out the window.

Yes, I hope Kyrie leaves. I don't like his playground game, never mind his disappearance in the playoffs.
 

DeJesus Built My Hotrod

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 24, 2002
28,405
The only reason to resign Kyrie is if you can get AD. I said that earlier. But if that combination doesn't win a title and AD leaves after a year, you have thrown 3-4 rebuilding years out the window.

Yes, I hope Kyrie leaves. I don't like his playground game, never mind his disappearance in the playoffs.
Are you willing to consider that Irving's struggles during the playoffs might be a direct result of the Celtics lacking another consistent scoring threat and opponents taking advantage of that? And is the lack of another scorer Kyrie's fault too?

I don't think that you are a troll but you seem to be willfully ignoring data as well as the chance your perspective is clouded by extreme bias.
 

southshoresoxfan

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
5,249
Canton MA
The only reason to resign Kyrie is if you can get AD. I said that earlier. But if that combination doesn't win a title and AD leaves after a year, you have thrown 3-4 rebuilding years out the window.

Yes, I hope Kyrie leaves. I don't like his playground game, never mind his disappearance in the playoffs.
He hit the biggest shot arguably in NBA history on the road against one of the best teams of all time.
 

Captaincoop

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
8,787
Santa Monica, CA
The Bucks had a known quantity in Giannis so regardless of what Vegas was looking at, they at least had the potential to be very good if he continued to improve and the team made the right moves.

The Celtics have some good young pieces and as I said, Tatum and Brown should both improve going forward.

That said, they are nowhere near being elite on either side of the ball and Ainge/Stevens can only do so much without a true top tier player. You and others may be right that things can change but now we are discussing scenarios that involve more hope than anything else.

Some may be fine with it given that they no longer have to watch Irving etc play for the team but I find the prospect of being a middling team to be frustrating given the trajectory the team was on over the past few years.
Everybody is frustrated, because the team has already ceased to be on that positive trajectory. The job now is to figure out how to get going in a positive direction again.
 

Big John

lurker
Dec 9, 2016
1,672
He hit the biggest shot arguably in NBA history on the road against one of the best teams of all time.
Yes, four years ago. If you have prime LeBron with Kyrie playing off the ball, he's a valuable adjunct. But that was then, and this is a different situation altogether.
 

Sam Ray Not

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
5,440
NYC
Yes, four years ago.
Three.

I point it out partly as a response to Barkley's recent bloviation that the Warriors had "no chance" without KD since the pre-KD team was "FIVE YEARS AGO, NOT A COUPLE YEARS AGO, ERNUH!!!" It was just three (a bit less), and none of the key players in question, including Kyrie, have significantly declined since then except Livingston (and LeBron, lol).

On topic: I'm pretty sure everyone has generally understood that Kyrie is a #11-20 type player, not quite LeBron-Kawhi-Giannis-KD-Curry level. I'd give him a few bonus points for seeming to embrace big moments better than a some of the guys in his tier, but that only counts for so much when you're little and going up against Top 5 players and teams that are big and physical. One hoops truism these playoffs have again shown clearly is that it's really hard to dominate consistently in the NBA playoffs — with its increased physicality and defensive intensity, and looser whistles — when you're little. We've seen that this year not just with Kyrie but with all the elite small guys: Curry, Lillard, Westbrook, CP3, Lowry, e.g.
 
Last edited:

Big John

lurker
Dec 9, 2016
1,672
Curry had 33 points in the second half to close out Houston.

I'll tell you what was historic: Kyrie's total fail in the Milwaukee series: missed shots, turnovers, defensive lapses, all of it. He was outplayed by George Hill. I can't remember a player touted as top 11-20 being so bad for four straight games when it mattered.
 

ConigliarosPotential

Well-Known Member
Silver Supporter
SoSH Member
One hoops truism these playoffs have again shown clearly is that it's really hard to dominate consistently in the NBA playoffs — with its increased physicality and defensive intensity, and looser whistles — when you're little. We've seen that this year not just with Kyrie but with all the elite small guys: Curry, Lillard, Westbrook, CP3, Lowry, e.g.
Thanks for peeing in my Trae-flavored Cheerios!
 

DeJesus Built My Hotrod

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 24, 2002
28,405
Curry had 33 points in the second half to close out Houston.

I'll tell you what was historic: Kyrie's total fail in the Milwaukee series: missed shots, turnovers, defensive lapses, all of it. He was outplayed by George Hill. I can't remember a player touted as top 11-20 being so bad for four straight games when it mattered.
So you are trolling. Or are you ignoring the fact that Curry had another elite shooter on the floor with him while Kyrie did not? Hill "outplayed" Irving because the Bucks correctly surmised that the best way to beat Boston was to take Kyrie away. Meanwhile, Boston (imho also correctly) decided they could live with Hill working with space. You are willfully ignoring context to make your radio call-in point.

If you look at each of the remaining teams, is there one that has just a single consistent scorer like Boston? I will hang up and let you hot take...er answer.
 

Big John

lurker
Dec 9, 2016
1,672
Boston didn't have any consistent scorers, so it's a loaded question. But yes, Toronto has only one real scorer.

All of the remaining teams have at least one star, and maybe two or three, who are better than Kyrie: Lillard, McCollum, Kawhi, Curry, Thompson, Durant, Giannis.

There are something like 30-35 players in the NBA that I'd trade straight up for Kyrie if I could. He's all flash, no cash, and he's completely replaceable.
 

southshoresoxfan

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
5,249
Canton MA
Curry had 33 points in the second half to close out Houston.

I'll tell you what was historic: Kyrie's total fail in the Milwaukee series: missed shots, turnovers, defensive lapses, all of it. He was outplayed by George Hill. I can't remember a player touted as top 11-20 being so bad for four straight games when it mattered.
LeBron James in 2010 vs Boston comes to mind. Without even 1 second of effort.

Be better.
 

DeJesus Built My Hotrod

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 24, 2002
28,405
Boston didn't have any consistent scorers, so it's a loaded question. But yes, Toronto has only one real scorer.

All of the remaining teams have at least one star, and maybe two or three, who are better than Kyrie: Lillard, McCollum, Kawhi, Curry, Thompson, Durant, Giannis.

There are something like 30-35 players in the NBA that I'd trade straight up for Kyrie if I could. He's all flash, no cash, and he's completely replaceable.
You are ignoring the question.

Toronto has Leonard and Siakam plus Green, Lowry and VanVleet. This season, Siakam and Green were considerably better than the guys Boston had around Irving. I could go on with each of the remaining teams but I know it doesn't matter.

You don't look at stats. You ignore anything that doesn't suit your narrative. I am open to the idea that Irving is a negative for the Celtics but you have been given multiple opportunities to make that case using data but you simply choose to talk about what you see. As such, we should move on.
 

Captaincoop

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
8,787
Santa Monica, CA
LeBron James in 2010 vs Boston comes to mind. Without even 1 second of effort.

Be better.
What? Lebron had a triple double in the last game - 27, 10, 19. He basically had one "bad" game - game 5, when he scored 15 on 3 of 14 shooting. He had 38 points in game 3.

It wasn't his best series ever, but it was nothing like what we just saw with Kyrie. If you're going to be so dismissive and rude to another poster, at least be correct.
 

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
21,026
Hingham, MA
What? Lebron had a triple double in the last game - 27, 10, 19. He basically had one "bad" game - game 5, when he scored 15 on 3 of 14 shooting. He had 38 points in game 3.

It wasn't his best series ever, but it was nothing like what we just saw with Kyrie. If you're going to be so dismissive and rude to another poster, at least be correct.
Last 3 games he averaged 6-17.7 (34.0% from the field), shot 15.4% from 3, 6.3 turnovers per game including 9 in the game 6 finale. He did get to the line for 26 makes on 35 attempts but he sucked.
 

lexrageorge

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2007
7,417
If Kyrie leaves (not my preference, but seems more and more likely every day), Ainge's best option probably is to hope for organic improvement from Brown, Tatum, and Hayward; draft well; and fill out the roster the best he can. It's likely that leads to a couple of seasons of bubbling just above 0.500. However, while I don't think either Brown or Tatum will ever be a Top-10 generation player, it's not completely out of the question that one or both of them could eventually hit the Top-25/30 level of player. Such a player is still supremely valuable, and would give Ainge a lot more options post-Hayward. The error bars on projecting young players such as Brown and Tatum a couple of years out are still very large; look at this year's Sacramento team for a prime example.

The strategy has downsides: Tatum and Brown may never take the next leap and become Jae Crowders; or one of them gets hurt; or Ainge strikes out on the remaining draft picks altogether. But it's still a less risky strategy than giving up on Brown and Tatum altogether in an attempt to race for the bottom and relying on the ping-pong balls.
 

Big John

lurker
Dec 9, 2016
1,672
Toronto has Leonard and Siakam plus Green, Lowry and VanVleet. This season, Siakam and Green were considerably better than the guys Boston had around Irving.
Excuse me? Siakam better than Horford? Danny Green better than Brown or Tatum? The problem is that Kyrie takes the air out of his teammates. Kawhi doesn't.

As Twain said, there are liars, damned liars and statistics. But wins and losses don't lie. With today's Kyrie they weren't good enough to get out of the second round. Why do you think it will be different tomorrow (assuming no AD)? And if I were the team's owner, why would I be willing to pay a massive amount of luxury tax for that?
 

DeJesus Built My Hotrod

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 24, 2002
28,405
Excuse me? Siakam better than Horford? Danny Green better than Brown or Tatum? The problem is that Kyrie takes the air out of his teammates. Kawhi doesn't.

As Twain said, there are liars, damned liars and statistics. But wins and losses don't lie. With today's Kyrie they weren't good enough to get out of the second round. Why do you think it will be different tomorrow (assuming no AD)? And if I were the team's owner, why would I be willing to pay a massive amount of luxury tax for that?
We are talking about scoring. And yes Siakam and Green were better scorers this season than anyone else on Boston.

There are no stats to capture what you refer to as "taking the air out of..."

And when Twain (or Benjamin Disraeli) authored that phrase, the means/methods of data collection were far less robust, people had less information at their disposal and Twain wasn't referring to the use of stats in sports.
 

DeJesus Built My Hotrod

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 24, 2002
28,405
Siakam I agree, but I think it is a stretch to say that Green, Lowry, Vanvleet are any better than some combo of Horford, Tatum, Morris, Brown
To clarify/reiterate, I am referring to scoring and my point is that each of the remaining teams has at least one more dependable scoring option than Boston had. It gives context for those who think Irving was a no-show in the Milwaukee series.
 

lovegtm

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 30, 2013
4,441
Kiev, Ukraine
To clarify/reiterate, I am referring to scoring and my point is that each of the remaining teams has at least one more dependable scoring option than Boston had. It gives context for those who think Irving was a no-show in the Milwaukee series.
BigJohn is hot-taking slightly, but Toronto’s other guys were pretty bad during the Philly series. The contrast between Kyrie and Kawhi as their teams’ lone iso options was quite stark. Philly was super-loading up to stop Kawhi, and he just kept finding a way.

I’m fine attributing some of that to variance, but at some point I think there has to be some accounting for the fact that Kyrie had a historically bad series for an offensive star, and there are plenty of examples of stars who had equivalent or worse surrounding talent. Kyrie’s low FT rate also takes away the usual recourse stars have when shots aren’t dropping, and that’s bad.

I was 100% Team Kyrie before the playoffs, but you have to weight playoff games way higher than regular season games in NBA evaluation. He did poorly by that test relative to the league’s offensive stars.

In addition, while his net rating was good, the team from February on was abysmal whenever Horford sat, regardless of Kyrie’s presence.

He’s a supremely talented player, but the red flags are real. Can they be overcome with a different surrounding cast? That’s Danny’s call, and also Kyrie’s in FA.
 

Captaincoop

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
8,787
Santa Monica, CA
Last 3 games he averaged 6-17.7 (34.0% from the field), shot 15.4% from 3, 6.3 turnovers per game including 9 in the game 6 finale. He did get to the line for 26 makes on 35 attempts but he sucked.
Someone can suck for 27 points and 19 boards anytime for my team. Certainly in comparison to what Kyrie did last week.
 

TroyOLeary

lurker
Jul 22, 2005
162
Curry had 33 points in the second half to close out Houston.

I'll tell you what was historic: Kyrie's total fail in the Milwaukee series: missed shots, turnovers, defensive lapses, all of it. He was outplayed by George Hill. I can't remember a player touted as top 11-20 being so bad for four straight games when it mattered.
Damian Lillard last year against the Pelicans.
 

chilidawg

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 22, 2015
1,452
If Kyrie leaves (not my preference, but seems more and more likely every day), Ainge's best option probably is to hope for organic improvement from Brown, Tatum, and Hayward; draft well; and fill out the roster the best he can. It's likely that leads to a couple of seasons of bubbling just above 0.500. However, while I don't think either Brown or Tatum will ever be a Top-10 generation player, it's not completely out of the question that one or both of them could eventually hit the Top-25/30 level of player. Such a player is still supremely valuable, and would give Ainge a lot more options post-Hayward. The error bars on projecting young players such as Brown and Tatum a couple of years out are still very large; look at this year's Sacramento team for a prime example.

The strategy has downsides: Tatum and Brown may never take the next leap and become Jae Crowders; or one of them gets hurt; or Ainge strikes out on the remaining draft picks altogether. But it's still a less risky strategy than giving up on Brown and Tatum altogether in an attempt to race for the bottom and relying on the ping-pong balls.
What about still trading for AD even if Irving leaves? You're essentially in the same boat as Toronto, with a one year audition to prove your case that it's a good fit and a championship contender. AD comes with more off court baggage, but Kawhi had big physical red flags based on his previous season. If you trade one of Brown/Tatum and Smart/Rozier, you're left with AD, Al, Hayward, Brown/Tatum and Smart/Rozier. Fill in around that core and I'd like our chances. AD is a big step up from Irving in my eyes.
 

lovegtm

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 30, 2013
4,441
Kiev, Ukraine
What about still trading for AD even if Irving leaves? You're essentially in the same boat as Toronto, with a one year audition to prove your case that it's a good fit and a championship contender. AD comes with more off court baggage, but Kawhi had big physical red flags based on his previous season. If you trade one of Brown/Tatum and Smart/Rozier, you're left with AD, Al, Hayward, Brown/Tatum and Smart/Rozier. Fill in around that core and I'd like our chances. AD is a big step up from Irving in my eyes.
I don’t think that’s an insane approach. Trade Tatum or Brown, but not picks, for AD, and hope for health from Hayward. Tank if AD leaves. The league is going to be WIDE open if/when Durant leaves SF, so that team has a realistic title chance, and a title or Finals appearance probably gets AD re-signed.

Obviously you’d prefer to keep Kyrie in that scenario, but it’s workable without him.
 

DeJesus Built My Hotrod

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 24, 2002
28,405
BigJohn is hot-taking slightly, but Toronto’s other guys were pretty bad during the Philly series. The contrast between Kyrie and Kawhi as their teams’ lone iso options was quite stark. Philly was super-loading up to stop Kawhi, and he just kept finding a way.

I’m fine attributing some of that to variance, but at some point I think there has to be some accounting for the fact that Kyrie had a historically bad series for an offensive star, and there are plenty of examples of stars who had equivalent or worse surrounding talent. Kyrie’s low FT rate also takes away the usual recourse stars have when shots aren’t dropping, and that’s bad.

I was 100% Team Kyrie before the playoffs, but you have to weight playoff games way higher than regular season games in NBA evaluation. He did poorly by that test relative to the league’s offensive stars.

In addition, while his net rating was good, the team from February on was abysmal whenever Horford sat, regardless of Kyrie’s presence.

He’s a supremely talented player, but the red flags are real. Can they be overcome with a different surrounding cast? That’s Danny’s call, and also Kyrie’s in FA.
Bad is relative. Were they worse than the Celtics supporting cast? Using one series of seven games vs a season of data isn't really a good way to do analysis imho.

Put differently, if the Cs had someone else who made the Bucks focus on them, do the Cs do Kyrie and the Cs win more games. I strongly believe they do. Scorer gravity is amazing in terms of keeping defenses honest.
 

Captaincoop

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
8,787
Santa Monica, CA
What about still trading for AD even if Irving leaves? You're essentially in the same boat as Toronto, with a one year audition to prove your case that it's a good fit and a championship contender. AD comes with more off court baggage, but Kawhi had big physical red flags based on his previous season. If you trade one of Brown/Tatum and Smart/Rozier, you're left with AD, Al, Hayward, Brown/Tatum and Smart/Rozier. Fill in around that core and I'd like our chances. AD is a big step up from Irving in my eyes.
Tatum (or Brown) plus Smart, plus the Memphis pick, the Sac pick, and whatever else...for one year of AD with a questionable Hayward and the remaining J around him. Barring a huge leap from Jaylen and a full recovery from Hayward, you're not competing for a title and you've got almost nothing to retool with when AD most likely walks away after the season.

SO risky.

It will be interesting to see what Danny is/isn't willing to include in a trade in that scenario. If LA and whoever else is in the mix knows they can get AD re-signed, and Boston doesn't, I wonder how much that changes the calculus on the return.
 

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
21,026
Hingham, MA
Someone can suck for 27 points and 19 boards anytime for my team. Certainly in comparison to what Kyrie did last week.
Kyrie went for 29 points and 6 assists in game 4, then 23 points and 10 assists (along with 6 boards) in game 5. This is recency bias at work.
 

lovegtm

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 30, 2013
4,441
Kiev, Ukraine
Tatum (or Brown) plus Smart, plus the Memphis pick, the Sac pick, and whatever else...for one year of AD with a questionable Hayward and the remaining J around him. Barring a huge leap from Jaylen and a full recovery from Hayward, you're not competing for a title and you've got almost nothing to retool with when AD most likely walks away after the season.

SO risky.

It will be interesting to see what Danny is/isn't willing to include in a trade in that scenario. If LA and whoever else is in the mix knows they can get AD re-signed, and Boston doesn't, I wonder how much that changes the calculus on the return.
LA doesn't have anything that can touch just Tatum, forget about picks.
 

lovegtm

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 30, 2013
4,441
Kiev, Ukraine
Bad is relative. Were they worse than the Celtics supporting cast? Using one series of seven games vs a season of data isn't really a good way to do analysis imho.

Put differently, if the Cs had someone else who made the Bucks focus on them, do the Cs do Kyrie and the Cs win more games. I strongly believe they do. Scorer gravity is amazing in terms of keeping defenses honest.
The Toronto supporting cast was about even or worse than the Celtics, especially with Siakam hobbled. Leonard had to go supernova for them to beat Philly.

As for the seven games vs a full season--dude, give me some credit/charitable reading here. I'm not saying that we should disregard everything Kyrie has done to this point. All I'm saying is that the NBA playoffs should be significantly weighted more heavily than the regular season (for the reasons that we all know).
 

Big John

lurker
Dec 9, 2016
1,672
I'm fine with AD sans Kyrie or no AD sans Kyrie. Horford, Smart, Brown and Tatum gets you 4/5ths of the way towards a decent, watchable team. If Hayward comes around they get closer.
 

Captaincoop

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
8,787
Santa Monica, CA
Kyrie went for 29 points and 6 assists in game 4, then 23 points and 10 assists (along with 6 boards) in game 5. This is recency bias at work.
I'm really surprised people are defending Kyrie and trying to blame his supporting cast for this series. He didn't just get shut down on offense, he was an abomination on defense - and that had nothing to do with who he was playing with or what Milwaukee was doing. He did not make an effort to play within the defensive scheme, nor to dig in at all on defense. He was a complete joke.

He has been better than that in the past, and could be better than that again next year, but he should own the disaster of the performance he just gave.

And trust me, I think there's plenty of blame to go around for that debacle, it's not all on Kyrie. But for his part, he was garbage on both ends of the floor.
 

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
21,026
Hingham, MA
I'm really surprised people are defending Kyrie and trying to blame his supporting cast for this series. He didn't just get shut down on offense, he was an abomination on defense - and that had nothing to do with who he was playing with or what Milwaukee was doing. He did not make an effort to play within the defensive scheme, nor to dig in at all on defense. He was a complete joke.

He has been better than that in the past, and could be better than that again next year, but he should own the disaster of the performance he just gave.

And trust me, I think there's plenty of blame to go around for that debacle, it's not all on Kyrie. But for his part, he was garbage on both ends of the floor.
Just to be clear, I'm not trying to defend Kyrie; I'm trying to point out that LeBron was ROASTED back in 2010 for a somewhat similar effort / situation. They lost game 5 at home by 32!
 

Captaincoop

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
8,787
Santa Monica, CA
LA doesn't have anything that can touch just Tatum, forget about picks.
LA is one ping pong bounce from having the best single asset available in this sweepstakes.

And man, this board is something else. Jayson Tatum is either worse than Danny Green, or worth AD in a trade.

edit: Holy shit, I didn't realize LA ended up at 11 in the lottery...oops and haha.
 

southshoresoxfan

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
5,249
Canton MA
Just to be clear, I'm not trying to defend Kyrie; I'm trying to point out that LeBron was ROASTED back in 2010 for a somewhat similar effort / situation. They lost game 5 at home by 32!
Yes. That series was generally regarded as atrocious by people that watched. He may have put up counting stats but he generally sucked.
 

lovegtm

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 30, 2013
4,441
Kiev, Ukraine
LA is one ping pong bounce from having the best single asset available in this sweepstakes.

And man, this board is something else. Jayson Tatum is either worse than Danny Green, or worth AD in a trade.

edit: Holy shit, I didn't realize LA ended up at 11 in the lottery...oops and haha.
I went through in excruciating detail in the AD thread as to how Tatum alone would be the biggest haul in a star trade in the past 20+ years. He’s not worth AD in an on-court sense, but in a trade sense he absolutely is. Agree if the Lakers get Zion they can top Tatum easily.

Post link:
http://sonsofsamhorn.net/index.php?threads/anthony-davis-no-loyalty.25061/page-35#post-3366267

Just to be clear, I'm not trying to defend Kyrie; I'm trying to point out that LeBron was ROASTED back in 2010 for a somewhat similar effort / situation. They lost game 5 at home by 32!
Worth noting that LeBron had probably mentally checked out of Cleveland at that point, and chose Miami soon after.