And one of the guys has played one season (largely above expectations), and the other has yet to play in an NBA game. Pretty early to be calling those drafts fails or wins.
Kyrie Irving traded to Celtics for IT, Crowder, Zizic, BKN 1st, 2020 2nd
- Thread starter RedOctober3829
- Start date
- Status
Way too early.
But my point is, it's foolish to think next year's BKN pick is more likely to yield a star than the two #3 picks already on the roster.
Everyone always thinks next year's draft is the one with all the sure things.
But my point is, it's foolish to think next year's BKN pick is more likely to yield a star than the two #3 picks already on the roster.
Everyone always thinks next year's draft is the one with all the sure things.
The Celtics and Cavs clearly think so as well: by all accounts, getting Tatum instead of the Nets pick was Cleveland's first choice.
I agree, in addition to Al Horford and Gordon Hayward, it would be nice to get a third star.
I am trying to be real hopeful about Ainge's evaluation and on Stevens ability to use Irving, but the assumption that he is the star this team has been waiting for is just wrong. He hasn't been that guy for most of the time he has been in the league. I hope he's half as good as you guys think he is.
I am trying to be real hopeful about Ainge's evaluation and on Stevens ability to use Irving, but the assumption that he is the star this team has been waiting for is just wrong. He hasn't been that guy for most of the time he has been in the league. I hope he's half as good as you guys think he is.
Wait so you think Horford is a star but Kyrie isn't? Horford is a nice player who had to be paid to come here and that's all appropriate, but if you're down grading a star on this team it's him, not irving
I think Horford is better than Irving in terms of winning actual basketball games in the NBA not masturbatory sessions to ESPN highlights. That this is because he spreads his value across a lot of different things instead of being really great at one doesn't make his contribution less.
I guess it's funny how differently players get evaluated here. IMO Hayward, Horford, and Irving are all second tier stars, they would all be the 2nd or 3rd guy on perennial championship contenders without LeBron. As such, the Celtics either need to find a really true alpha (top 15 NBA player) or you can just acknoweldge that they need 4 stars (and even that may not be enough).
The idea that we need to downgrade one of the three already here is foolish to start. The idea that the Celtics were super awesome to throw in their chips for Irving because he's so good, but then ignoring how good Al Horford is compared to Hayward and Irving is a fucking laughable take on NBA talent that echoes someone who hasn't really watched since 1988. The only way in which it makes sense is the idea that Horford is older and on the downside and by the time the Celtics are real contenders he's not going be a star anymore, but for the remaining two years of Irving's contract, I don't think that comes into play - again, unless Brad Stevens has some magic for Irving that makes him the superstar some of the posts in this thread think he is, which is again, my point.
I guess it's funny how differently players get evaluated here. IMO Hayward, Horford, and Irving are all second tier stars, they would all be the 2nd or 3rd guy on perennial championship contenders without LeBron. As such, the Celtics either need to find a really true alpha (top 15 NBA player) or you can just acknoweldge that they need 4 stars (and even that may not be enough).
The idea that we need to downgrade one of the three already here is foolish to start. The idea that the Celtics were super awesome to throw in their chips for Irving because he's so good, but then ignoring how good Al Horford is compared to Hayward and Irving is a fucking laughable take on NBA talent that echoes someone who hasn't really watched since 1988. The only way in which it makes sense is the idea that Horford is older and on the downside and by the time the Celtics are real contenders he's not going be a star anymore, but for the remaining two years of Irving's contract, I don't think that comes into play - again, unless Brad Stevens has some magic for Irving that makes him the superstar some of the posts in this thread think he is, which is again, my point.
For me it is particularly galling that people are ignoring the value of defense, passing, off-ball movement, team spacing, etc when our team got the #1 seed in the East last year doing all of that stuff. If you think Horford, Olynyk, Crowder, Amir, Bradley, etc are NBA flotsam, then how the hell did the team win more games than anyone else in the East?
I don't believe anyone is arguing that those players are flotsam, or even ignoring the value of those other attributes. I just think your post instead misses some important realities:
1.) The #1 seed was a bit of a mirage. The talent gap between the Celtics and the Cavs was pretty wide. The Celtics happened to be a hair's breath better than the Wizards, and was a team that was vulnerable to an early round upset. No telling what would have happened had the Celtics drawn the Bucks in either of the first 2 rounds. So, fans are naturally cheering Ainge's attempts to improve the team.
2.) Olynyk and Amir had decent years, playing very specific and limited roles. Neither one was any likely to get better, and Amir appeared to be in decline. Crowder's role became a lot less defined once Hayward was signed.
3.) Horford is indeed criminally underrated. Unfortunately, the noise from the Green Team fan club seems to have an outsized influence on poster's ability to fairly evaluate him.
4.) And, no matter how you feel about Irving the player (a point that I feel reasonable people can disagree), the reality is that Kyrie is almost certainly going to be a better Isaiah the next 2 seasons than Isaiah himself. Hip injuries like Thomas's usually don't just magically heal up.
What I don't quite understand is why people are so quick to dismiss Brad Stevens' ability to coax more out of a player than Tyronn Lue.
I will agree that James makes everyones scoring a lot more efficient just due to the fact that opponents' defenses need to be focused on him every minute he's on the floor. That being said playing in a far more structured offense might be better suited for Irving's game, and he has the scoring chops to be an alpha. That's the least of my worries as regards the Irving trade.
I mean I get that people don't think he's a top 15 player, but that's a defensive thing, not an offensive one. Offensively he's good enough to be an alpha scorer, so complaining that he isn't a "true alpha" is much ado about nothing.
I mean I get that people don't think he's a top 15 player, but that's a defensive thing, not an offensive one. Offensively he's good enough to be an alpha scorer, so complaining that he isn't a "true alpha" is much ado about nothing.
You say that like guys that are really knowledgeable about the NBA--like Danny Ainge and Brad Stevens--didn't also want Kyrie.
I don't think Ainge or Stevens would argue that Kyrie Irving is super mega better than Al Horford or Gordon Hayward.
In any land where Horford and Hayward are stars, Kyrie is too. He may not be better than either, but he probably has the most potential. Horford is also pretty damn good. People really undervalue his passing skills from the position and I think we'll see those skills on display even more this season. It's possible he can still improve his 3 point shot as well as it's something he added to his game only 2 years ago.
Upgrading either of the 3 means acquiring a top 5-10 talent in the NBA. Hopefully, the 3 play very well off each other so the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. That or hope Tatum develops into Paul Pierce and/or Jaylen Brown turns into Jimmy Butler.
Upgrading either of the 3 means acquiring a top 5-10 talent in the NBA. Hopefully, the 3 play very well off each other so the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. That or hope Tatum develops into Paul Pierce and/or Jaylen Brown turns into Jimmy Butler.
Last edited:
But I assume they would argue that he improves the outlook of the team or else the trade wouldn't have been made.
Its a bit more complicated than that imho. I think the C's only make that trade with Thomas' hip the question mark that we now know that it is and with him expecting the Brinks truck. If Thomas' hip was not a problem and he had indicated to Ainge that he would be willing to come back for max money but, say, a shorter contract, I don't think the C's make the trade. They paid a huge sum, all things considered, for a player who is arguably only as good as a healthy Thomas (yes, Kyrie is 25 and Thomas is 29).
People should view Irving like they do Boogie Cousins - not in terms of temperament or personality - but in the sense that while they both possess elite talent, neither has, thus far, maximized their potential. With the caveat that in Irving's case, he now arguably has his first real chance to do so.
On Horford, its mind boggling how some people fail to see his value. He is the most complete player they've had since the days of Pierce and Garnett.
Sure, but your trust in Danny mantra is boring conversation, and Danny has fallen in love with plenty of ho hum players before. That doesn't mean Kyrie is shitty, it just means Danny is hardly flawless (for the record, I can't think of a basketball GM that is)
Regardless, in context of the conversation, my point was that wishing for a third Celtics star is an insult to Horford, who is already as good as Irving and Hayward, though admittedly a bit past his prime while we hope they are entering theirs.
My own opinion on the trade has been given many times, I won't bore everyone again.
Last edited:
Irving is 25 years old, a ridiculous scorer, a proven clutch performer on the biggest of stages, and is going from a team that effectively had no coach, to a coach who spent the last two years making Isaiah Thomas look like an All-NBA talent. I feel like some optimism is warranted here.
It appears as though hurt feelings about losing the very lovable IT are clouding our collective vision regarding Irving.
He is a superstar. Not a ho-hum player. Not a good player. Not a borderline star. Wait and see what he does in this system and out from under Lebron and his sock puppet "coach".
It appears as though hurt feelings about losing the very lovable IT are clouding our collective vision regarding Irving.
He is a superstar. Not a ho-hum player. Not a good player. Not a borderline star. Wait and see what he does in this system and out from under Lebron and his sock puppet "coach".
I think they make the trade, even if it's a three way so that they get something back for including a healthy Thomas. Thomas is 5'9" and covering that hole wore out Boston's defense.
We keep going down this road but statistically, by just about any measure (and I know they are all flawed), Kyrie Irving, with six inches of additional height is and has been every bit as bad a defender as Thomas.
As smas points out, Irving is the ESPN highlights/mixtape star. He isn't a superstar in the sense that there are at least ten and perhaps a lot more players you would take over him if you were starting a team today.
Finally, LeBron has a lot to do with Irving being a "proven clutch performer on the biggest of stages". I will grant you, though, that its entirely fair to believe he will play his best basketball in Boston.
The whole "he needs to get out from under the burden of playing with the best player on the planet" thing is just ridiculous.
And it is not at all established what level of star he is. Obviously we'll find out in the coming years, but I think there is plenty of reason to worry that he might be nothing more than a ball-stopping defensive liability with elite one-on-one scoring ability. Thats not without value, but in a league that is increasingly about two-way players and ball movement there is plenty of reason to question how much of a "superstar" Irving is.
Yep. But this is a case where I just don't buy the numbers. I keep going back to game 7 vs Washington, when Stevens had to not play him against Wall/Beal to stop Wasington from pulling away in the third.
This is simply untrue. Irving is quite bad, but RPM has Thomas as *significantly* worse. I'm far from an RPM-is-the-end-all guy, but it definitely counts as "any measure."
The numbers mostly apply to the regular season.
In the playoffs, Kyrie Irving goes from very bad defender to a very bad defender, except when he focuses for short periods.
In the playoffs, Isaiah Thomas goes from tire fire to "borderline unplayable against starting 5s because teams can gameplan."
Fair enough - last year, Kyrie's DRPM was minus 2.3 while Thomas' was the worst at minus 3.89. They were both in the bottom ten in the league. The year prior Kyrie was actually worse than Thomas at minus 2.68 while Thomas was minus 1.89, .
And as you note above to EJ, Kyrie is still a generally bad defender in the playoffs.
In the end, there is no denying that Thomas is a horrific defender but its not for lack of effort. Its a bit more concerning that a guy who has the height and the physical skills simply chooses not to play defense.
I'm just a casual observer, but I see this point made a lot, but is there actually data to back this up? I would imagine the argument could be made the other way for guys like Kyrie. LBJ requires a lot of touches and the offense funnels through him, I could see that negatively impacting a player like Kyrie.
I'll hang up and listen.
I would argue that Danny is gambling that you can win a title without an Alpha -- because I agree with you that none of the current 3 stars qualifies, and by passing on Fultz and trading the last BKN pick, he's basically conceding that he isn't going to get an Alpha as part of this rebuild, unless you think Anthony Davis will somehow end up here.
It's not a terrible bet -- the 2010 C's didn't have an Alpha and came a whisker away from winning the title.
The league is increasingly about two-way players and ball movement.
Yes, Irving is a bad defender.
No, you have no basis to conclude that he only functions offensively as a ball-stopping iso player. He was in that offense and played accordingly.
There is a legitimate difference of opinion about whether Irving's elite shot-creating and shot-making skills (especially in the playoffs) dwarf his obvious defensive liabilities. There should be no conclusions drawn about whether those offensive skills will work in Stevens' system, based on his Cleveland days. They will, and everyone knows that.
Kyrie is Danny's Harden. He was supp interested in Harden but hadn't made the Pierce/Garnett trade so wasn't in the conversation. When you look at Kyrie, think Harden with equal D at worst.
Also, Kyrie loved Blatt. He was the only Cleve coach that had a real plan and he was pre-LBJ. Hence he was out. Kyrie is going to allow Brad to mold him.
Lastly, iT expected the Brinks truck to be backed up in the same way that it was for Otto Porter. He didn't think he could be traded and that the Celts would have no choice but to pay him the Max if he performed similar to last season. They would have had no other choice unless they wanted to lose him for nothing.
Also, Kyrie loved Blatt. He was the only Cleve coach that had a real plan and he was pre-LBJ. Hence he was out. Kyrie is going to allow Brad to mold him.
Lastly, iT expected the Brinks truck to be backed up in the same way that it was for Otto Porter. He didn't think he could be traded and that the Celts would have no choice but to pay him the Max if he performed similar to last season. They would have had no other choice unless they wanted to lose him for nothing.
I like Ainge's approach. Top 10-15 guys are incredibly difficult to land and getting one doesn't even guarantee squat. We've all seen what New Orleans has been able to accomplish with one. There aren't many teams that can trot out a better top 3 than Irving/Hayward/Horford. And of those teams, none have two top 3 picks waiting in the wings. In lieu of chasing a white whale, I'm fine seeing what our trio can accomplish while also seeing if Tatum or Brown can quickly develop to make it a quartet. And the assets are still there if someone unexpectedly becomes available.
It's just too bad that our lotto luck didn't coincide with better drafts. If we had been able to add a guy like Towns to Irving/Hayward/Horford, we would have been off and running. Still, though, hard to complain given the range of possibilities that we were facing a couple years ago.
I think this point is germane, but to the opposite of your argument.
There's no fixing IT. Kyrie, at least, has a chance to get better.
Kyrie Irving provides poor defense at one spot on the floor, but has stretches where his defense is just run-of-the-mill bad. Put another way you don't have to jigger the entire defense around the 5'9" in his Doc Martens sized hole.
If Thomas' hip wasn't as bad as it's now openly apparent to be, they likely can at least put restrictions on the Nets pick, or find some other way to pay less for KI. Even with no hip injury at all, I don't think they pass on Irving, as I don't think there was any scenario where they were extending him at a number both sides would be happy with. As someone noted, I think a lot of eyes were opened this year about how much of a run you could make with him being one of the key cogs and the Wizards series exacerbated it enough that I think they would have been looking for their spot either way, or treading water for another year and making a move for 2018-19. Of course, we won't ever know either way, but I find it difficult that his hip was the only reason they made the move.
So the fact that he has played that way thus far in his career is "no basis to conclude that he only functions offensively as a ball-stopping iso play"? I mean, I suppose the word "only" saves you a bit, but if a player's past performance is "no basis" to make conclusions about their future performance I don't know what is.
So past performance is "no basis" for predicting future performance but "everyone knows" how he will perform in a totally new situation in the future? Umm..really? Jeez....
Depends on what you are trying to predict. Cleveland ran one of the most predictable offenes in the league last year, and one that was taliored to LBJ. Boston will do neither of those things. How big of an effect there will be on Kyrie is to be seen, but I don't see any good argument for why the changes will have no effect or a negligible one.
I don't need anything to "save" me. You're the one pigeonholing the elite offensive player--one barely old enough to rent a car.
I'm not arguing that he's going to learn to play defense. I'm arguing that an intelligent, supremely gifted offensive player will join a team with an established offensive system that is about 100x more advanced that the playground ball that he has been asked to play and will figure out how to capitalize on that. If you don't see the difference between those two points of view, fine.
Last edited:
Maybe we should think about this another way. Kyrie is one of the what top 10 or top 15 SCORER (probably only LBJ, KD, Curry, Harden, Westbrook, Leonard, Davis, Paul, and Towns arguably ahead of him and a whole cast of characters that might produce arguments).
How much defense does he have to be to a top 10 player? League average? A little below league average?
And if Kyrie buys into the system and is helped by having a team full of plus defenders around him, how good is he going to be?
That's Brad's challenge.
edit: left out an important word and that was "scorer." Top 15 scorer in the NBA right now. Sorry about that. Shouldn't post before coffee.
How much defense does he have to be to a top 10 player? League average? A little below league average?
And if Kyrie buys into the system and is helped by having a team full of plus defenders around him, how good is he going to be?
That's Brad's challenge.
edit: left out an important word and that was "scorer." Top 15 scorer in the NBA right now. Sorry about that. Shouldn't post before coffee.
Last edited:
I know you love Fultz but the odds of Fultz being an "alpha" (i.e., top 15 player in the league) isn't very good. Not that he's not going to be a good player but if he becomes Kyrie Irving he'll be a success.
I'm not sure I'd say I love Fultz, but he has a chance to be an "alpha" that Tatum does not. Whatever the merits of that trade (and I'm coming around on it), I think it's fairly clear Danny traded some upside for more of a sure thing -- which coupled with the Kyrie trade suggests he doesn't think you need an "alpha" to win a championship if you can assemble 4-5 above-average players with complementary skill sets and a great coach to hold it all together. (Though you could argue that IT's hip forced his hand on the Kyrie deal and that he otherwise wouldn't have traded away the BKN pick without top-2 protection.)
See, there's where I'm talking about the overrating. Kyrie Irving as a top 15 player in the NBA? I'm not even sure we are watching the same league.
Top 15 at "give me the ball and get out of my way" OK yes, I'll grant you that. But that's not the only skill that NBA teams need.
Top 15 at "I squint really hard and assume all the guys in their early 30's are going to fall off immediately and he is going to improve?" Kinda maybe I guess?
Top 15 at "I don't really pay attention to the NBA except the Celtics and the Finals?" This maybe is closest to the truth. Have you watched Damian Lillard play? Mike Conley? John Wall? Kyle Lowry? Am I the only one who sees that there are a ton of really good PG in the league (I'm not even counting Curry and Paul who are miles better on both ends and Westbrook and Harden who do Kyrie better than Kyrie). And how to compare him to a guy like DeRozan who also plays a lot like him but isn't a PG?
Anyway, without even looking up stats or even box scores, off the top of my head, here are the guys I think are better than Kyrie without question (again, this is in terms of winning NBA games, not just scoring the ball)
Ball handlers: Curry, Paul, Westbrook, Harden
Wings: James, Leonard, Durant, Antetokuonmpo, Butler
Bigs: Davis, Towns, Gobert, Jokic, Green
These are the guys I think you can argue about based on different skill levels and age - I think he is firmly in this group, but honestly right around the middle to lower half.
Ball handlers: Conley, Lowry, Lillard, Wall, Walker (just look up what he's been doing), Thomas (hip might drop him out of this group, sure)
Wings: Hayward, George, Beal, DeRozan, Millsap, Thompson
Bigs: Griffin, Jordan, Cousins, Gasol (only because of age or he'd be in the first group), Horford, Embiid (only because of injury question)
I won't get into the developing guys that might also pass him. Too much variation, and I would agree with the argument that at least with Kyrie there is a floor we're talking about that's pretty high. And I'll say that my list is also too PG heavy, there are probably a few under appreciated wings I'm missing.
Again, if Stevens can coach him up to a definitive top 15 guy in the NBA, then awesome. Back up the Brinks truck for Brad.
Top 15 at "give me the ball and get out of my way" OK yes, I'll grant you that. But that's not the only skill that NBA teams need.
Top 15 at "I squint really hard and assume all the guys in their early 30's are going to fall off immediately and he is going to improve?" Kinda maybe I guess?
Top 15 at "I don't really pay attention to the NBA except the Celtics and the Finals?" This maybe is closest to the truth. Have you watched Damian Lillard play? Mike Conley? John Wall? Kyle Lowry? Am I the only one who sees that there are a ton of really good PG in the league (I'm not even counting Curry and Paul who are miles better on both ends and Westbrook and Harden who do Kyrie better than Kyrie). And how to compare him to a guy like DeRozan who also plays a lot like him but isn't a PG?
Anyway, without even looking up stats or even box scores, off the top of my head, here are the guys I think are better than Kyrie without question (again, this is in terms of winning NBA games, not just scoring the ball)
Ball handlers: Curry, Paul, Westbrook, Harden
Wings: James, Leonard, Durant, Antetokuonmpo, Butler
Bigs: Davis, Towns, Gobert, Jokic, Green
These are the guys I think you can argue about based on different skill levels and age - I think he is firmly in this group, but honestly right around the middle to lower half.
Ball handlers: Conley, Lowry, Lillard, Wall, Walker (just look up what he's been doing), Thomas (hip might drop him out of this group, sure)
Wings: Hayward, George, Beal, DeRozan, Millsap, Thompson
Bigs: Griffin, Jordan, Cousins, Gasol (only because of age or he'd be in the first group), Horford, Embiid (only because of injury question)
I won't get into the developing guys that might also pass him. Too much variation, and I would agree with the argument that at least with Kyrie there is a floor we're talking about that's pretty high. And I'll say that my list is also too PG heavy, there are probably a few under appreciated wings I'm missing.
Again, if Stevens can coach him up to a definitive top 15 guy in the NBA, then awesome. Back up the Brinks truck for Brad.
Last edited:
Apologies if this has been covered upthread, and I'll gladly accept correction from anyone who knows the CBA better than I do, but doesn't this deal help the C's long-range plan to minimize luxury tax?
The C's will be under the tax threshold next season. With this deal, they can probably squeeze under again in 2019, even if they resign Smart. A Kyrie extension would put them over that threshold in 2020, but they have Horford, Brown, and Hayward (assuming he opts out) coming off the books after that season. If that's a contending team, I think Wyc will bite the repeater tax bullet to hold it together, but if they disappoint, he can blow it up and avoid the worst-case scenario (from an owner's perspective) of paying the repeater tax on a 45-win team.
By contrast, reupping both IT and Smart would've put them in tax land in 2019, repeating in 2020 (maybe even if Kyrie doesn't resign), and they while they could certainly get back under in 2021, they might have to gut the team to do it.
The C's will be under the tax threshold next season. With this deal, they can probably squeeze under again in 2019, even if they resign Smart. A Kyrie extension would put them over that threshold in 2020, but they have Horford, Brown, and Hayward (assuming he opts out) coming off the books after that season. If that's a contending team, I think Wyc will bite the repeater tax bullet to hold it together, but if they disappoint, he can blow it up and avoid the worst-case scenario (from an owner's perspective) of paying the repeater tax on a 45-win team.
By contrast, reupping both IT and Smart would've put them in tax land in 2019, repeating in 2020 (maybe even if Kyrie doesn't resign), and they while they could certainly get back under in 2021, they might have to gut the team to do it.
The Celtics should absolutely plan on Irving being great (meaning good enough that they will want to give him a max and he doesn't walk), so yes, in that case, it helps the short and medium term planning at the expense of the long term, and the only person who's managed to move my needle on this trade is DeJesus who makes a convincing argument about the 19 and 20 seasons (though, again, I would have been perfectly happy with taking a chance on Fultz at PG and having the backup plan be Smart/Rozier/vet - I was never ever a re-sign Isaiah guy as much as I love him). In that, Danny was not thinking about improving the 17-18 team alone when doing this trade and maybe the kickers are worth having another year before hitting the luxury tax (combined with the idea that they had neither roster space nor playing time for all of their picks).
Last edited:
I also would have been happy with Fultz and, frankly, am still disappointed they gave up the opportunity to get him. Tatum has already surprised me so I'll concede I may be wrong about this but, to be fair, he surprised me in Summer League so...
But you have to look at it from the perspective of what the Celtics are trying to do. They are trying to thread the needle between young potential stars and competing right now. That's extremely tough to do. If you take Fultz then you have to accept him taking 3-4 years to develop, primarily due to the position he plays. At that point, what's the point in signing Haywood and how excited is Horford to play on a team working to groom Fultz and Brown when he'll be past his prime by the time they are ready to compete?
I think the plan continues to be to try to develop the young guys while seriously competing. I don't know if it works long term because I don't know if they get enough playing time, I'm not sure Irving will be passing the rock to either Tatum or Brown (he may, I just don't know). But we can know for sure that our "big three" are stars, not superstars. They are not the foundation of a championship.
Why exactly? I can't help but think that this valuation would have been reversed a year ago, when Tatum was coming off his Gatorade National Player of the Year season as a senior in high school. And I suspect that it could be again a year from now and further into the future after we see how their games translate to the NBA.
I think it's fairly clear that he valued Tatum and the LAL / SAC / PHI pick more than Fultz.
I think it suggests more that an "alpha" is hard to come by, and your prospects are limited by the prospects that come available in a given draft class or trade window.
At some level, I'm not especially optimistic about 2017, just due to the turnover. I hope that by playoff time they will have figured some stuff out or made further supplementary moves. But I definitely think the deal was mostly about 2018 and beyond.
If you were responding to me, I apologize since I left out a word. The idea was that if Kyrie is a top 15 scorer in the NBA, where would he be ranked if Brad got him to play league average defense?
I wonder how much Kyrie's regular season indifference had to do with the Cavs organizational philosophy of not really caring about the regular season.
Why are you so insistent on insulting the basketball knowledge of anyone who doesn't agree with you? Reasonable people can disagree on what makes for a top 15 player in the league but you're insistent on pulling rank as if you're the only person with a cable tv subscription who can watch the rest of the league. It's severely off putting and i've already deleted over 3 posts responding because it feels entirely pointless.
You listed 14 guys "better" than Kyrie. So you didn't even get him out of the top 15. And you had to include some reaches to get there. I get it, you value more than just the ability to score the ball. Players who are more complete definitely have value. I'd add that not a single player in your "definitely better" list (aside from Butler, who is a stretch and belongs in your second group) are or have been even remotely available. The only one who was available the Celtics made a serious run at (Durant). Which I guess is my biggest gripe with your break out -- you've basically got a tier 1 of "untouchables" that no team would move and then a tier 2 of guys who are hoping to become tier 1. Kyrie is in that group and has been precluded from making a jump precisely because it's impossible to disambiguate his contribution from the best player in the league's contribution.
Kyrie is absolutely a matter of projection. He has the upside of Westbrook and Harden. He's that kind of scorer. Those of you who are railing against his defense have a point but overplay the hand. Having a guy on your team who can get a bucket when everyone in the arena knows you need a bucket is an extremely valuable tool. That's not confined to 1988 or whatever time period you've decided would have valued Irving higher. That's very much a thing today and the fact that Westbrook and Harden make your list is practically evidence enough. Playoff games and big games are won and lost on situational execution and having a tremendous ISO player who can go get you that bucket has very high value. He has not, to this point, been the dominant scorer on a successful team. If he had done that, however ,he also wouldn't be available so there's no point in the discussion.
I also don't understand all this "never" talk in regards to a young player. Irving filled up the stat sheet on some bad Cavs teams and then scored well and was instrumental in winning with Lebron. Reasonable people can disagree about what extent Lebron made Kyrie look better than he is, but he's always been a 20 point a night scorer since pretty much the day he entered the league. There's not much more he could have done to this point in the league than he has done.
So it all comes back to your ability to evaluate and project his defense. I think it's fine to want more of a two way player but there just aren't a lot of those players out there and certainly none who are available right now or in the foreseeable future. Without a doubt, coaching will play a part.
The problem is not just defense, but rather the fact that Kyrie wants to hold onto the ball for long periods without running the offense. He is a shot creator, but he only wants to create shots for himself rather than the team. That is the issue that needs to change.
Most of the scoring gurus in the NBA are shitty defenders. When a guy is expending so many calories per night on offense he will not have much energy left for defense. There's only so much adenosine triphosphate available in the body at any given time.
If Kyrie sets up other players in Boston and averages 10+ assists per game I can live with him being a poor defender. And if he is willing to give up the ball and contribute through scoring off ball and playing defense that works too. His problem thus far has been wanting to contribute very little to his team except individual scoring.
On an RPM-level, Kyrie would have ranked between 15 and 20 last year if he played league average defense. That's surprisingly low largely because his offense has graded out well, but not on the James Harden level. That's visible reasonable clearly in the box-score numbers, where he's just not as efficient as Harden, nor does he use as many possessions. I think you can construct a narrative where both of those are functions of coaching (shot selection and scheme) and/or playing with LeBron (usage), but it's also not nuts to think Kyrie is actually just a tier below someone like Harden as an offensive talent.
I don't have a particularly strong view as to whether that narrative is correct - the whole situation is unique historically, so we don't have much useful precedent to go off of here. I'm a lot more comfortable betting on Kyrie turning the corner all of a sudden than I am with other players however (e.g., Jaylen Brown).
- Status