I think the house is Irving, but to continue the metaphor it's really all the big moves the Celtics made this offseason. Like taking your family to a different city and getting a job. Irving is the house, the job is Hayward, etc. You can't ignore the specific context of the trade and where the Celtics are.
As has been noted a couple times now, what chemistry? There's now 4 players left from last year's team.
What basis is there for questioning his status as a superstar? The guy has put up massive numbers and has been a killer in key playoff and finals games. I'm not sure what else there is to being a superstar.
Superstar is a stretch.
I'm admittedly not too savvy on the advanced stats in basketball, but I think that in today's NBA an elite scorer and shooter who is a stone cold assassin in the playoff meets the definition of superstar.
And if you're going to rely heavily on RPM/advanced stats, you have to also note that in the current 3-4 team version of the East, the playoffs are all that really matters. It's pretty disingenuous to throw out the fact that Kyrie has graded significantly better on defense in the playoffs.
I'm mostly on your side here but having a bunch of guys that never played together brings chemistry challenges so we should stop with the "chemistry isn't an issue these guys are all new."
OK, but it worked pretty well for the Cavs when LeBron came back; or when he went to Miami. Worked pretty well for the Celtics when they got KG/Allen. I think it's overblown even in that regard. They have 82 games to develop chemistry. It's not like they're going to miss the playoffs because they gutted the roster. It may mean a slower start, but I find it hard to believe they don't still end up top 3 in the conference when playoff seeds come out. So maybe it costs them home court in the second round.
The point being made is there is no existing team chemistry that Kyrie has to fit into since this is essentially a new team.
I'm 100% aware of that.
But that's making an argument in a vacuum. Yes, losing Crowder hurts ... but it would hurt more if they hadn't picked up Hayward, Morris and Tatum ... and the potential benefit of a second-year Brown.
Your math is off.
He's correct that folks are talking themselves into this, just like the Fultz deal.
Basketball isn't baseball and can't be statistically modeled the same way. Thomas due to age, health, and size was a massive uncertainty going forward. Regardless of whether you love Irving or not, he represents a long term certainty at the position.
I don't know of anyone but Boston media sources that talked down Fultz. After the deal a lot of people hated it and had to really talk themselves into it, and those people have mostly said "If Tatum was their preference then it's good that they got an extra pick out of it."
I'd say the free agency rewards were pretty big, they still likely have a top five pick coming, and the front office has done some pretty good work. By every report their in house stats department is top of the line and they have found an awful lot of bargains along the way. They have pretty much earned the benefit of the doubt in terms of talent evaluation at the NBA level. Because they've been pretty good at picking up diamonds in the rough from other NBA rosters. And I'm not going to ding Irving for wanting to escape Cleveland before rebuilding. Just as I never dinged Doc for wanting to bail on the rebuilding situation here in Boston.
I think this trade was possibly a minor step back for the Celtics for this season, but a likely huge step forward for Boston in '18-'19 and beyond. With a young nucleus now in place, it's fair to say that just about every part of that group, Horford aside, will continue to improve. Perhaps significantly.
I think that most people that dislike it think that the Brooklyn pick is going to be a top five one and that Boston would have added two more tier 1 talents next year. And people are trying to talk themselves past that. Some of us shrug and say "What you're hoping for is to find someone as good as Irving, so why not just take the certainty?"
IF IT is healthy he'll be fine in Cleveland. Will he put up the numbers he did in Boston this past year, of course not, but he is playing with far more skilled offensive players, which will open up the court even more for him.
I think the point is that we crossed the Rubicon on chemistry when we parted ways with KO, AB, and several lesser lights to make room for Hayward. Of course, trading away two key players from last year, including the team's best player, heightens the risk of chemistry problems, even if you think Kyrie will fit in just fine.
Yeah, sorry I missed that nuance until DD pointed it out. I still don't see it as an issue. They have plenty of time to establish chemistry over the course of the season. And on top of that, we're talking about the difference of 6 remaining players vs 4 remaining players. I'm not seeing the added worry as being all that much.
Fair enough. I will note, however, that this superstar has ranked inside the top ten in various scoring categories (aside from FT% and offensive BPM) only one year during his entire career. And that was 2014-15 when he was ninth in overall points, eighth in 3P%, ninth in PPG and fifth in offensive win shares.
Eh, I dont totally agree with the bolded. The Lakers pick still has value and Tatum and Brown both have star equity. They probably still have enough assets to get a "star" depending on the situation.
The problem with this is that Irving is not what many of us are hoping for. What we are hoping for is a chance of getting a truly elite player. Think Durant, LeBron, Leonard, or Davis. Obviously, that's never likely, but the 2018 draft class has a few guys with the potential to be generational talents. Like, if we were talking about the 2017 pick a year ago, I'd buy this argument. This was a really strong draft class, but it lacked truly elite talent and that was pretty obvious a year out. I wouldn't trade Tatum for the 2018 pick (because, risk), but I would trade him for the #3 in 2018 in a heartbeat. If Ainge has read next season right, and the Nets pick is 6-10, this trade looks fine. But, if the Nets pick is in the top 5, this could look really bad, because any top 5 pick next year is probably pretty close in value to a #1 in an average draft year.
I don't think that's been established. He played on a shitty Cav team where it really wasn't his fault--he could have scored 50 a game at 60% shooting and they weren't winning. Then he gets LBJ but it's in the era of the Warriors super team, however he did win one and was spectacular.
Those odds are from real online sportsbooks, and the juice is already built into the odds, so he could definitely get someone to take his bets. And his math is correct...
Ok this made me laugh well played.
Interesting and good way to look at it.
i think the age difference is a big factor.. we're getting Irving in his prime while IT is headed into his 30s.
Whoops! I added the +240 as exactly that, not +2400, because I'm an idiot.
I don't like the deal (duh!) and I agree that the delta between Irving and Thomas this next season isn't a huge one, even if Thomas misses the start of the season and regresses a bit. That was my main point for not trading any of those assets at all - at the end of the day, I don't see the Celtics improving much, if at all, and they now have less...er, fewer chips to deal for a transformational talent should it become available.
Irving is a bridge of one year over Thomas. People are acting like the C's just solved their ball-handler position for several years when, in reality, they will be in roughly the same spot next summer that they were in during the summer of 2017. They will have a year left of a offensively talented PG who cannot play defense and will have to decide whether they want to max the guy out in a league where two way players are the most valuable assets.
Yes, but every competitive team will have blown their wad by that point and Kyrie can sign for more here. Who's their competition for him? And the 'cant' play defense thing is not set in stone. He balled up in the playoffs as he always does. It may be a bit of 'Rondo on national broadcast syndrome' but let's give the guy a minute to get into the system before we equate him to IT. He at least *can play defense when so inspired. IT didn't have that ability no matter how hard he tried.
