Kyrie Irving traded to Celtics for IT, Crowder, Zizic, BKN 1st, 2020 2nd

Status
Not open for further replies.

Spelunker

Well-Known Member
Gold Supporter
SoSH Member
Jul 17, 2005
5,771
Hell Rondo had just been dismantling us. Kyrie likely just seemed par for the course.
 

the moops

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 19, 2016
2,240
Saint Paul, MN
Would you be better off with no Hayward or kyrie and he left with half a year of IT, Brooklyns pick and Crowder?
Well that is certainly not the only other possibility.

I like this trade, but I doubt that Hayward was told specifically that the BRK pick would be traded to bring in help. Celtics could have traded Crowder + LAL pick for some help. Or IT and Clippers pick. Or a whole host of other combinations.

George, Butler, Cousins, etc. show that good players get traded for less than expected returns often. Now, maybe there was nothing like that avialble, or if it was, it wasn't for a player that Ainge thought moved the needle liek Kyrie. But I am not sold on the idea that it was trade the BRK pick or be stuck with no Hayward.
 

leetinsley38

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 24, 2005
654
SF Bay Area
I fucking hate this rationale.
It’s total Bullshit from Danny. The trade is done. With that month after the fact quote he gives himself an out in case the Brooklyn pick turns into a transcendent player, gives a little massage to Al and Gordon, and signals to future stars at the same time. Doesn’t mean he won’t trade Horford in a year if he has to match salaries.
 

Papelbon's Poutine

Homeland Security
SoSH Member
Dec 4, 2005
17,677
Portsmouth, NH
I highly doubt DA promised to anyone that he would trade that pick. I do 100% believe that part of his pitch to Horford, Durant and Hayward was ‘I have a stockpile of assets and I will use them to make this team a contender again’. He didn’t have to specifically cite the Nets pick next year to do that, but I also don’t think we get either guy unless hat or kiss is made. And two consecutive offseasons of not fulfilling that would start to pile up.

In hindsight, I think it’s safe to say that he knew ITs hip situation. Had an idea about lottery reform. And internal projections led him to believe BKL would not be finishing with the worst record again. When KI came open, that was a perfect opportunity.

He’s a cold blooded assassin but I also don’t think he’s heartless or stupid. If he passed up chances at legit longer term running mates, it would not have behooved him down the road with future FAs or agents.
 

Kenny F'ing Powers

posts 18% useful shit
Nov 17, 2010
10,668
Would you be better off with no Hayward or kyrie and he left with half a year of IT, Brooklyns pick and Crowder?
Is that the only option?

You don't give up one of the most valued assets in the NBA because, "Shucks, the max contracts arent enough for these guys! We owe it to them to do what's right for them, not whats right for the team." You do it because you think it's the best move for the team. Full stop.
 

HomeRunBaker

bet squelcher
SoSH Member
Jan 15, 2004
17,935
Is that the only option?

You don't give up one of the most valued assets in the NBA because, "Shucks, the max contracts arent enough for these guys! We owe it to them to do what's right for them, not whats right for the team." You do it because you think it's the best move for the team. Full stop.
C'mon seriously. Are you new to GM-speak?

Ainge has always been patient in waiting for KG to become available and now holding onto the BKN pick for an extra year waiting for another star, this time Kyrie, to become available. One thing I love about Ainge is that he is decisive and puts himself in position well ahead of time to when these guys become available. The talk is just that.....talk. GM-speak.
 

wade boggs chicken dinner

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 26, 2005
16,736
Is that the only option?

You don't give up one of the most valued assets in the NBA because, "Shucks, the max contracts arent enough for these guys! We owe it to them to do what's right for them, not whats right for the team." You do it because you think it's the best move for the team. Full stop.
It's not that easy.

The Cs are better today than they would have been without the trade. Much better. And if IT's hip doesn't come through like we all hope it does, it could be much better for the next two years.

The Cs will likely be worse off four years from now.

So DA made the decision to make his team as good as it could possibly be this year and next year and see what happens. The decision was partially made because he wanted to give Al and GH the best chance they had at winning the title. I think it's a fine decision to make and I think it's a player-friendly move which could help recruit in the future.

Is that such a bad thought process?
 

lexrageorge

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2007
7,471
It's not that easy.

The Cs are better today than they would have been without the trade. Much better. And if IT's hip doesn't come through like we all hope it does, it could be much better for the next two years.

The Cs will likely be worse off four years from now.

So DA made the decision to make his team as good as it could possibly be this year and next year and see what happens. The decision was partially made because he wanted to give Al and GH the best chance they had at winning the title. I think it's a fine decision to make and I think it's a player-friendly move which could help recruit in the future.

Is that such a bad thought process?
I'm not sure the bolded is necessarily true, either. 4 years from now, the only relevant players remaining from the trade will be Kyrie, the BKN pick, and possibly Zizic. It's unclear to me that the Brooklyn pick will necessarily be better than a 29 y/o Kyrie, especially if the Brooklyn pick is in that dreaded 6-10 range, which really is a distinct possibility. And projecting Zizic's play 4 years in the future at this point is a fool's errand.

I think we're in agreement that Ainge's primary rationale for the trade almost certainly went well beyond just keeping Horford and Hayward happy. Claiming otherwise is either taking Ainge's quotes out of context, or simply generating more hot takez.
 

bosox79

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
10,123
I'm not sure the bolded is necessarily true, either. 4 years from now, the only relevant players remaining from the trade will be Kyrie, the BKN pick, and possibly Zizic. It's unclear to me that the Brooklyn pick will necessarily be better than a 29 y/o Kyrie, especially if the Brooklyn pick is in that dreaded 6-10 range, which really is a distinct possibility. And projecting Zizic's play 4 years in the future at this point is a fool's errand.

I think we're in agreement that Ainge's primary rationale for the trade almost certainly went well beyond just keeping Horford and Hayward happy. Claiming otherwise is either taking Ainge's quotes out of context, or simply generating more hot takez.

A lot of it will depend on how Tatum/Brown develop and if they find sleepers in the draft. If any of the lesser named rookies/youngs like Yabu, Semi, Theis etc. step up and prove to be 25-30 minute rotational players, it will go a long way too. It's all about developing players to replace Horford and Gordon when they are ready to walk.
 

Kenny F'ing Powers

posts 18% useful shit
Nov 17, 2010
10,668
It's not that easy.

The Cs are better today than they would have been without the trade. Much better. And if IT's hip doesn't come through like we all hope it does, it could be much better for the next two years.

The Cs will likely be worse off four years from now.

So DA made the decision to make his team as good as it could possibly be this year and next year and see what happens. The decision was partially made because he wanted to give Al and GH the best chance they had at winning the title. I think it's a fine decision to make and I think it's a player-friendly move which could help recruit in the future.

Is that such a bad thought process?
I'm not sure what you're arguing. I'm not against the trade. I'm against making trades just to make players happy.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.