In fairness lots of point guards did that to Boston last year.Lol, was he not paying attention when he dropped 26 ppg on .763 true shooting on his team in the ECF, including winning the pivotal Game 4 almost single-handedly?
In fairness lots of point guards did that to Boston last year.Lol, was he not paying attention when he dropped 26 ppg on .763 true shooting on his team in the ECF, including winning the pivotal Game 4 almost single-handedly?
I fucking hate this rationale.DA explains why he finally traded BRK18 here: http://www.csnne.com/video/danny-ainge-trading-brooklyn-pick-owed-it-hayward-and-horford.
Bottom line: felt responsibility to to Al and GH to compete now.
Would you be better off with no Hayward or kyrie and he left with half a year of IT, Brooklyns pick and Crowder?I fucking hate this rationale.
Well that is certainly not the only other possibility.Would you be better off with no Hayward or kyrie and he left with half a year of IT, Brooklyns pick and Crowder?
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.I fucking hate this rationale.
Is that the only option?Would you be better off with no Hayward or kyrie and he left with half a year of IT, Brooklyns pick and Crowder?
C'mon seriously. Are you new to GM-speak?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.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.
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.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.
I'm not sure what you're arguing. I'm not against the trade. I'm against making trades just to make players happy.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?
Sure, but I think that’s just Ainge spouting off stuff.I'm not sure what you're arguing. I'm not against the trade. I'm against making trades just to make players happy.
That's probably true.Sure, but I think that’s just Ainge spouting off stuff.