Let's keep this simple and make it a straight up or down poll. If you were in Ainge's position would you have pulled the trigger on this trade?
The Cavs had no leverage. Everyone knew Irving wanted out, so what was their incentive to offer a blockbuster package to get him? Neither the Bulls nor the Pacers were able to snag a true superstar in deals for their superstars, Jimmy Butler and Paul George. Why should the Cavs be any different?
Somehow, brand new Cavs GM Koby Altman and the front office orchestrated a deal to replace Irving with an All-NBA point guard, a top-of-the-line 3-and-D guy, a young big man with potential and -- perhaps most impressively -- an unprotected first-round pick that well could wind up in the top five of the 2018 draft, if not No. 1.
CBS Sports still gives the Celtics a B for this move. Of the grades you cite, only one gives it anything less than a B. Isn't that more important than whether the Celtics "win" the trade?Does any disinterested observer out there think that we won this? Ainge blew it. Here's CBS Sports; I couldn't agree with this more (I know second paragraph is a little overdramatic with "All-NBA point guard," but still):
There is no statistical basis for this assertion (and coincidentally I've yet to see any SoSHer make this case). I imagine for most who like this trade is that they actually believe this. I'm also going to guess they think this way because they only watch the playoffs and maybe a handful of high profile Cleveland games during the regular season. Not only is Kyrie not an "elite" NBA player, but he has extreme difficulty fitting into modern NBA systems given his penchant for overdribblling and refusal to share the basketball (he played alongside the best player on the planet soooo not a good sign). An "elite" NBA player should be what??? top-3 at his position? Kyrie plays the least important position on the floor and yet he's not even a top-7... top-8 PG... top-9 PG?My initial reaction was quite negative because I got addicted to tankathon. However, after sleeping on it, I like the deal while acknowledging that there is some risk.
For starters, the NBA is about having elite talent. As history has proven, you don't win titles in the NBA with the Joe Flaccos of the world. Offensively, Kyrie Irving is elite. Defensively, he's far from it but he's still an incremental upgrade over what we had with Isaiah. And that was pre-injury Isaiah. Given his contract, injury, and general supply of PGs in the league, I think he clearly had minimal value on the market.
Crowder is a nice piece but you never let a Jae Crowder hold up a deal for a legitimate all-star. He'll be missed but he should also be replaced by Tatum/Brown without missing too much of a beat. Those guys are young so it could take a little while but both offer higher upside.
Zizic looked to be a rotational big. He didn't jump off the screen in the summer league but you saw some skills there. End of the day, similar to Crowder, you're never going to regret a deal for an all-star PG because of Zizic.
And then we get to the Nets pick. This is what stung the most for me since I had basically written them off as a bottom 5 team. They certainly may finish as such but there is clearly some risk there since they've improved and some other teams have entered their suckisphere. If this pick ends up in the 6-10 range, Ainge got a slam dunk. If it's 1-5, it gets murkier but we obviously don't know how good any of these 19 year-olds really are. And we still have a comparable pick left in LA/SAC. If Ainge can land that LA pick this year, he absolutely nailed this trade.
All in all, I think there's more good than bad here and I'm really looking forward to the next few years when you should have 3 elite closers in Irving, Hayward, and Tatum.
So you think they we're calling the coach they fired to get background on Zizic?If you think this was a good trade, I'll meet you back here in June of 2018. Wish they had found a way to ship out Yabusele instead of Zizic (by the way, did anyone note yesterday that former Cleveland coach David Blatt was his European coach -- so Cleveland probably knew exactly what they were doing, asking for him.)
I don’t think this trade will age well. But, like smastroyin, I hope I'm wrong.
I don't think there's anyway that IT is better than Irving. In a playoff setting, his size and lack of defense is a killer. If the opposing team doesn't have a player who is sub 6'6 and a complete 0 offensively then there is nowhere to hide IT and he can be exploited every time down the floor.There is no statistical basis for this assertion (and coincidentally I've yet to see any SoSHer make this case). I imagine for most who like this trade is that they actually believe this. I'm also going to guess they think this way because they only watch the playoffs and maybe a handful of high profile Cleveland games during the regular season. Not only is Kyrie not an "elite" NBA player, but he has extreme difficulty fitting into modern NBA systems given his penchant for overdribblling and refusal to share the basketball (he played alongside the best player on the planet soooo not a good sign). An "elite" NBA player should be what??? top-3 at his position? Kyrie plays the least important position on the floor and yet he's not even a top-7... top-8 PG... top-9 PG?
Curry
Westbrook
Wall
Harden
Paul
Lowry
IT
Lillard
And some would argue he's more Bledsoe, Conley territory than elite.
Furthermore, Kyrie actually plays a position and it's really the only one he can play for he seems to need the ball in his hands a lot in order to be an effective offensive player. This runs counter to the direction it seemed the Celtics (and the league itself) were moving in.
I'm ok with moving on from IT but I cannot stand Kyrie's game and the only way this makes the Celtics better than a game or two is if Brad gets Kyrie's buy-in to change his game and play harder on defense. Good luck.
I voted no, I would not have done this trade. But, I also am not complaining because when it comes to the trade market I'm in full "in Ainge I trust" mode. I think Ainge has earned the benefit of the doubt with the way he has gone outside the box in the past and basically won nearly every trade, sometimes quite handily.
That being said, while I think Kyrie is very good, my personal preference would've been Butler. I think he's been the best player to change hands by trade in recent years (not including the head case Cousins). I would've rather used this package of assets on him.
When you are trying to catch the team that you made the trade with shouldn't you narrow the gap? Note: I'm only answering that question, not commenting on the trade it self.CBS Sports still gives the Celtics a B for this move. Of the grades you cite, only one gives it anything less than a B. Isn't that more important than whether the Celtics "win" the trade?
The grades don't speak strictly to wins and losses.When you are trying to catch the team that you made the trade with shouldn't you narrow the gap? Note: I'm only answering that question, not commenting on the trade it self.
IT is an expiring contract and is injured.....the trade wasn't about him. The trade was about the Nets pick and we added a role player and another young prospect.Irving was worth IT and one more asset. Danny gave up three. Fail.
Not to mention the fact that this pick has a LOT of downside risk for Cleveland. There's a very good chance Brooklyn finishes outside the top 5. Jae Crowder, Ante Zizic, an injured IT, and the #9 pick would end up as a pretty shitty haul for Kyrie Irving.For those suggesting the pick should have protections, what kind of protections would have been reasonable-I'm genuinely curious, I'm not being snarky. Because that pick is so unique, I'm not sure you could offer up an alternative pick that would be anything close in value that would make Cleveland do the deal. I guess maybe the Lakers pick this year but if that doesnt convey, I dont see cleveland having much interest in a 2019 pick that is #1 protected and could be very middling.
I think George is a better player than Butler, and doesn't have a bad knee as an added plus. I also think that it's pretty clear that plan A was to sign Hayward and then trade for either George or Butler, but neither Chicago nor Indiana was willing to wait. So Boston moved on to plan B.That being said, while I think Kyrie is very good, my personal preference would've been Butler. I think he's been the best player to change hands by trade in recent years (not including the head case Cousins). I would've rather used this package of assets on him.
When you lie to make your point nobody is going to care what you say.This is fucking ridiculous. When the possibility of this trade was debated on this exact forum, nobody, and I mean nobody, was willing to consider it if the Cavs were asking for the Lakers pick. Now the nets pick and Zizic have been sent and a majority support it. There is some, as of yet unnamed psychological phenomenon, at play here that I don't understand but I'm guessing we might have gotten similar results if Ainge had also included Tatum and Brown. At the very least all those that voted in favor of this trade can shut the fuck up when Curley ends up drafted by the Cavs and dominates the league for the next 15 years. While I will regret the fact that the Cs have cashed in all their chips for four fifty win seasons (until the eventual rebuild) I will at least be able to say I never supported Ainge's early stage dementia trade of all his assets for an injury prone, defensively insufficient moron of a point guard.
fyi, ESPN gives the Celtics a C (and the Cavs an A).CBS Sports still gives the Celtics a B for this move. Of the grades you cite, only one gives it anything less than a B. Isn't that more important than whether the Celtics "win" the trade?
I've almost talked myself into this. I rate the trade as a win from the Cavs perspective because they were dysfunctional as is, and checks all their boxes in what they want from a trade. For the Celtics, I'd assign an incomplete - if Kyrie can grow under a real coach, get into the conversation for top 3 in his position, then it's fine. I originally thought that that had to happen in addition to the the BKN pick not being that good and IT being a shell of his former self, but now I think it's just a bet on Stevens ability to get the most out of Kyrie. Imagine trading for Westbrook at 25 or Harden at 24, that's how you look at it.I get the notion it's good for both teams
I'm still thinking he's confused in that it was us who traded away the injured and defensively insufficient PG.When you lie to make your point nobody is going to care what you say.
This is also easily the best offensive player Stevens has gotten to work with, in terms of where that player was upon arrival in Boston. The closest comp is probably Isaiah himself, who went from a $6M/year player who was traded for a late 20s pick, to one of the top 5-10 offensive players in the league.Agreed. To me this comes down to Stevens getting more out of Irving and/or Irving realizing he has to walk the walk and be less hero ball-er more all-around player. I believe that's possible -- the physical skills are extraordinary -- but experience also shows that guys are who they are and it can be fools gold thinking they'll be transformed. But...that's why sports are fun -- going to be great seeing how he develops (and how IT meshes with Lebron if his hip is healthy).
I don't think anyone can accuse me of having green colored glasses, I hated the drafting of Brown at #3 and said so at the time (and ate crow later because I was dead wrong about him) and have always been critical of Boston where I have felt they went wrong. (Like the 2011 draft, I wonder if there are any of those threads left archived? I may have set a world record for expletives that night, and on that occasion I was 100% right about the uselessness of JuJuan Johnson, although wrong about Moore (I thought he would be in Europe by the start of the '13 season), but right nonetheless because they should have fucking drafted Lil' Zeke.)I'm finding critical articles like this:
Danny Ainge Goes All in on Baffling Kyrie Irving Trade
Celtics saved Cavs, sank themselves with terrible trade for Kyrie Irving
Anyone have a link to an article by a decent independent sportswriter (not a shamrock-glasses-wearing Celtics fan) calling this a great move by the Celtics? Looking for a glass of water in the desert ...
A real key here for me is that there was zero chance they were signing IT to a max deal after his contract expired, but Kyrie will be 27 when he opts out (assuming he does). That's right in the beginning of his prime and is exactly the kind of guy you give the max (supermax?) deal to. So Irving is not only a huge part of this team's present, but he is also a huge part of this team's future when the GS dynasty ends.I think the Celts are better team today than they were yesterday and the trade is a pretty good long-term solution to a problem.
This trade gave Ainge an expensive (but not crazy expensive) solution to the IT conundrum.
What to do with a popular and very good 5'9" guard with a bad hip, the inability to get taller, with no easy place to hide on D, and who has a hankering for a Brinks truck full of dough.
So he got a 6' 3" PG who can score, is younger, under contract and hopefully will take to Coach Brad's coaching.
IMO the real question is the value of the Nets #1.