CelticsStrong
Celtics Basketball => Celtics Talk => Topic started by: celticsclay on August 22, 2017, 07:29:10 PM
-
If have traded the Brooklyn Pick, Zizic, Crowder and IT for Irving. We will have helped our biggest rival in the east. Given up a chance at a transcendent talent and given them a pick they can use to acquire another star to make them compete with the Warriors or crush us all while destroying our team chemistry... I have never felt this baffled by a trade before, and as much as I trust Ainge in general, this is a flat out awful trade if true.
-
If have traded the Brooklyn Pick, Zizic, Crowder and IT for Irving. We will have helped our biggest rival in the east. Given up a chance at a transcendent talent and given them a pick they can use to acquire another star to make them compete with the Warriors or crush us all while destroying our team chemistry... I have never felt this baffled by a trade before, and as much as I trust Ainge in general, this is a flat out awful trade if true.
You're asking the wrong guy...I'm literally about to vomit..
-
This is TERRIBLE.
I live Kyrie. I think he is better than Isaiah. But we just made our biggest rival BETTER! Why?!
This is what is happening, Lebron and IT are going to love playing together in Cleveland and both resign and they are going to get Michael Porter with the second pick.
The Lakers are going to get the first pick. AND WE GET SCREWED.
-
This is TERRIBLE.
I live Kyrie. I think he is better than Isaiah. But we just made our biggest rival BETTER! Why?!
This is what is happening, Lebron and IT are going to love playing together in Cleveland and both resign and they are going to get Michael Porter with the second pick.
The Lakers are going to get the first pick. AND WE GET SCREWED.
we have screwed ourself in the present (helping our biggest rival out of a bad situation) and the future (giving up a chance at an elite player and giving him to our biggest rival as an asset that can help keep Lebron...)
-
I'm as pro-Danny as they come.
I got nothing.
What in the hell...
-
I'm as pro-Danny as they come.
I got nothing.
What in the hell...
Me 2...i have nothing. Awful deal.
-
I have been able to at least understand all of his trades. This one has be completely baffled. We are going to be the laughingstock of the league on this one.
-
That's not really the deal is it?
Because that would indeed be a big setback.
-
Zicic hasn't shown much of anything yet. Doesn't seem like he'd get significant minutes on a team looking to contend. Crowder is a great role player, but the C's have more than enough players that can fulfill his role. It also gives the younger guys more chance to shine.
For me, the element that breaks or makes this trade is the pick. If the Nets can bounce back and have a decent season and send that pick outside the top 8, this trade is win for me. Anywhere in the top 5 and I think it's an L.
-
I'm as pro-Danny as they come.
I got nothing.
What in the hell...
Me 2...i have nothing. Awful deal.
Same!
-
1. Lakers will still be bad, solid chance of it coming our way.
2. If not, look at the kings roster and come back and tell me how good they will be next year.
3. IT is an expiring contract (less value), coming off potential recurring hip injury vs Irving with longer term contract, bigger on defense and like IT he breaks down defenses. Kyrie is better long term.
4. We have a Brown and Tatum to develop, taking on 2 high draft picks to integrate would be challenging, this gives us more focus on these players.
5. We can now have room to extend Smart, who is a good player.
6. If we were going to trade a nets pick, i feel this is the one considering our team development timeline.
-
That's not really the deal is it?
Because that would indeed be a big setback.
it is what i have seen reported Roy...
-
After winning trade after trade and building a warchest of assets Ainge overpays for Kyrie Irving?! Great player but my god he doesn't move the needle at all.
-
Set back??
We just got 3 years younger swapping our best player for a better player
Draft picks are always unpredictable on a number of levels
We just got the best PG in the NBA who's gonna be cheaper than IT
-
Can't believe we leveraged our future for a 2 year rental. Can not believe we gave up the Brooklyn pick!! And how does the team feel about losing IT???
On paper this sucks bad. Marginal upgrade at the deepest position in the nbA.
Nice job Danny, hand the team with LeBron a chance at the next LeBron.
I love Kyrie, but this suuuuuuuuuucks!
-
We still have Brown, Tatum, and the Laker/76er pick
"Mortgaged our future" is just stupid and wrong
We got younger and better
Stop being homers
-
I am now a huge Nets fan
-
The Brooklyn pick was the straw that broke the camels back for me. Not a fan of loosing that pick.
Kyrie is not only better than IT, he's younger, already signed, and ended last year healthy.
IT most likely needed to be operated on at the end of last season, he delayed the operation to try to get the "Brinks Truck" backing into his driveway. Players don't sign Max contracts recuperating on their back in the Hospital, and IT knew it. Somewhere in he next 18 months IT will need to be operated on. He will not be the same player in his 30's as he was last year.
Crowder is a player I would have liked to keep. But with Tatum and Brown maturing, he would eventually be sitting on the bench.
I know we have some hardcore fans of Zizic, IMO he is years away from being a contributing member of any NBA team. Incredibly slow getting off his feet.
I hated giving up the Nets pick, for me it would have been the deal breaker. The question must be asked, what other better options did the Cavs have, that we needed to include the pick.
-
You think LeBron and IT won't have extra motivation to play the C's now? Can't believe this happened.
-
1. Lakers will still be bad, solid chance of it coming our way.
2. If not, look at the kings roster and come back and tell me how good they will be next year.
3. IT is an expiring contract (less value), coming off potential recurring hip injury vs Irving with longer term contract, bigger on defense and like IT he breaks down defenses. Kyrie is better long term.
4. We have a Brown and Tatum to develop, taking on 2 high draft picks to integrate would be challenging, this gives us more focus on these players.
5. We can now have room to extend Smart, who is a good player.
6. If we were going to trade a nets pick, i feel this is the one considering our team development timeline.
I feel I am the biggest Danny defender, but I am completely dumbfounded by this.
To you points:
3. His defensive + is negligible. And he takes plays off, unlike IT.
4. Wow, really? That is the thing getting me off the ledge?
5. This gives us no more flexibility to extend Smart whatsoever.
6. No. That Nets pick is going to be Top 5 guaranteed. Lakers/Sac is still a longer shot at a high pick.
Things that will help me stay away from the ledge:
1. We have a nice 2 year look at Kyrie. If he falters, we can let him walk in FA. Pick up a good value PG (of which there are millions) for Horford's last year, and by which time Brown and Tatum will be getting closer to their prime.
2. We can rest players against the Nets. Scratch that: we can get the Claws to play the Nets.
That's about it at the moment.
-
Can't believe we leveraged our future for a 2 year rental. Can not believe we gave up the Brooklyn pick!! And how does the team feel about losing IT???
On paper this sucks bad. Marginal upgrade at the deepest position in the nbA.
Nice job Danny, hand the team with LeBron a chance at the next LeBron.
I love Kyrie, but this suuuuuuuuuucks!
How long would the Celtics have had IT? I think for ainge he wasn't going to extend IT. Or at least this is what I tell myself.
-
wow! I knew this board overrated our players, but the reaction to getting the best player in a trade in which we just got rid of a bunch of players that are easily replaceable is ludicrous.
in case any of you don't know though -
jae crowder has done nothing for this team since his 1st season here. if he stayed any longer all he'd be doing is taking mins. away from guys that can actually play like Brown and Tatum.
ante zizic dominated a bunch of guys in Europe that wouldn't even make the D-league. as soon as he came over and played here in summer league, guess what? he looked average... and that's being generous.
the Brooklyn pick sucks, but you have to give up something. and I actually think this says a lot about what they think about tatum and brown.
everybody here is butt-hurt for no reason. we got the better deal.
-
Geez, I run out to get some food for the wife and myself, and this happens. Man you can't blink around here.
I like this trade, the big loss is the pick but no guarantee it's Bagley.
-
You think LeBron and IT won't have extra motivation to play the C's now? Can't believe this happened.
Yeah. Opening night is going to be crazy for sure.
-
wow! I knew this board overrated our players, but the reaction to getting the best player in a trade in which we just got rid of a bunch of players that are easily replaceable is ludicrous.
in case any of you don't know though -
jae crowder has done nothing for this team since his 1st season here. if he stayed any longer all he'd be doing is taking mins. away from guys that can actually play like Brown and Tatum.
ante zizic dominated a bunch of guys in Europe that wouldn't even make the D-league. as soon as he came over and played here in summer league, guess what? he looked average... and that's being generous.
the Brooklyn pick sucks, but you have to give up something. and I actually think this says a lot about what they think about tatum and brown.
everybody here is butt-hurt for no reason. we got the better deal.
If only NBA teams were built in a video game. This trade was terrible. The C's will take a step back next season.
-
OK, here are the quick pros and cons after having thought this through:
Pros:
1) Kyrie and IT are at least equivalent players. Even though IT is a fan favorite, trading him for Kyrie makes all the sense in the world given age, health, contract status.
2) Jaylen Brown is a stud and it is time for him to start
3) Tatum is also possible stud and will need minutes at the 3/4
4) Some roster spots are freed up
Cons
1) Brooklyn pick is #1
2) Brooklyn pick is #2
3) Brooklyn pick is #3
4) Brooklyn pick is #4
5) LA pick is #1
6) LA pick is #6
-
wow! I knew this board overrated our players, but the reaction to getting the best player in a trade in which we just got rid of a bunch of players that are easily replaceable is ludicrous.
in case any of you don't know though -
jae crowder has done nothing for this team since his 1st season here. if he stayed any longer all he'd be doing is taking mins. away from guys that can actually play like Brown and Tatum.
ante zizic dominated a bunch of guys in Europe that wouldn't even make the D-league. as soon as he came over and played here in summer league, guess what? he looked average... and that's being generous.
the Brooklyn pick sucks, but you have to give up something. and I actually think this says a lot about what they think about tatum and brown.
everybody here is butt-hurt for no reason. we got the better deal.
If only NBA teams were built in a video game. This trade was terrible. The C's will take a step back next season.
wow you clearly think a lot of jae crowder. because at worst IT and Irving are a wash... which isn't the case at all.
-
bet the cavs try to get carmello now....
-
KYRIEEEEEEE
LETS GOOOOO
-
all you guys poo-pooing this trade, look at it this way there's a whole bunch of guys here like yabusele and ojelaye that you guys can move onto and overrate now.
-
wow! I knew this board overrated our players, but the reaction to getting the best player in a trade in which we just got rid of a bunch of players that are easily replaceable is ludicrous.
in case any of you don't know though -
jae crowder has done nothing for this team since his 1st season here. if he stayed any longer all he'd be doing is taking mins. away from guys that can actually play like Brown and Tatum.
ante zizic dominated a bunch of guys in Europe that wouldn't even make the D-league. as soon as he came over and played here in summer league, guess what? he looked average... and that's being generous.
the Brooklyn pick sucks, but you have to give up something. and I actually think this says a lot about what they think about tatum and brown.
everybody here is butt-hurt for no reason. we got the better deal.
If only NBA teams were built in a video game. This trade was terrible. The C's will take a step back next season.
wow you clearly think a lot of jae crowder. because at worst IT and Irving are a wash... which isn't the case at all.
IT and Irving isn't a wash from a leadership standpoint. Crowder is a good role player that the Cavs needed. Just watch.
-
Ugh big news time. So i wrote this semi long breakdown of my thoughts and cuz so many were posting it was lost!
So hopefully i can modify this and remember all my points!
IT, love you and all he did for team, hard player big time shooter. We just traded him for a better pg who is younger, bigger and tied into contract for longer. As hard as IT worked on defense he was still MY HEIGHT! I wish IT a great career from here out, he's proven he belongs a starter in the nba.
Jae, thanks, good hard player who is really a backup. We got him thrown in rondo deal. He played well for us and was a junk yard dog! But I don't see him beating out the kids, brown and Tatum for long.
Zizic i actually would have like to keep if possible. Who knows how he'll pan out in 2/3 years. (Again that is how long it'll take him to develope into nba ready material). If ever.
Nets pick had to be put in, I'm sure everyone understands that.
So reverse argument from the cavs side. IT leaves in year, lebron leaves in year, zizic doesn't prove to be nba player so they get a draft pick with full blown rebuild. And as we all know who knows where pick will fall and if player will pan out.
It's a good trade for team, maybe an overpay but now vets will be looking to come here (ala pj brown) to give quality minutes with a starting group of:
Irving, Hayward, horford and then Morris, smart, Tatum, brown depending on what Stevens wants to do
-
The Nets pick was too much. Other than that I'm OK.
-
The Nets pick was too much. Other than that I'm OK.
Does anyone know if the pick is for SURE unprotected?
-
Forgot a point, Jae is now lebrons backup (for a year) or does he start ?
-
Ledge removal, since I just talked myself off the same ledge:
We had no plans to resign IT after this year, and who knows what his health will be like the first half of the season. We got a younger, better version of him.
Crowder was a nice piece, but we are deep at the 3. Brown needs time to play.
Zizic was great in Europe but doesn't look NBA ready.
So, long-term, we traded Irving for the Nets pick, which has yet to be determined, for a borderline superstar. Even if there was a 50% chance that the Nets would be the worst team, there would then only be a 25% chance that we would get the first pick. We had a 12.5% shot at #1.
That's all I got, because even if we beat Cleveland, we still can't beat Golden State.
Mike
-
1. Lakers will still be bad, solid chance of it coming our way.
2. If not, look at the kings roster and come back and tell me how good they will be next year.
3. IT is an expiring contract (less value), coming off potential recurring hip injury vs Irving with longer term contract, bigger on defense and like IT he breaks down defenses. Kyrie is better long term.
4. We have a Brown and Tatum to develop, taking on 2 high draft picks to integrate would be challenging, this gives us more focus on these players.
5. We can now have room to extend Smart, who is a good player.
6. If we were going to trade a nets pick, i feel this is the one considering our team development timeline.
I feel I am the biggest Danny defender, but I am completely dumbfounded by this.
To you points:
3. His defensive + is negligible. And he takes plays off, unlike IT.
4. Wow, really? That is the thing getting me off the ledge?
5. This gives us no more flexibility to extend Smart whatsoever.
6. No. That Nets pick is going to be Top 5 guaranteed. Lakers/Sac is still a longer shot at a high pick.
Things that will help me stay away from the ledge:
1. We have a nice 2 year look at Kyrie. If he falters, we can let him walk in FA. Pick up a good value PG (of which there are millions) for Horford's last year, and by which time Brown and Tatum will be getting closer to their prime.
2. We can rest players against the Nets. Scratch that: we can get the Claws to play the Nets.
That's about it at the moment.
I understand all of that, and frankly adding the Brooklyn pick is a bad overpay, a mid first round pick is what Danny should have held firm with. But to counter:
3. Remember IT getting posted up at every opportune moment in the playoffs and forcing a double? He hurt the team there, not sure about Kyrie taking plays off, I never paid much attention, aside from the finals where has done a respectable job on Curry.
4. I think we can get back to the ledge when we know the draft order, if the Lakers pick is better than the Nets it will take the sting out of the trade. Still bad.
5. So you don't think Smart will be extended? Our luxury tax bill would have been huge paying IT 30mil and Smart 14-18mil. Irving only makes 19mil.
6. Maybe, maybe not, the west is a much stronger conference.
-
I don't think nets pick was too much. I look at it as we trade IT and the nets pick for irving. which makes sense because we got the better player.
the other scrubs were throw ins. this team is so much better it's not even funny. with that said it does mean the kids are going to have bigger expectations to make the right plays.
-
I don't think nets pick was too much. I look at it as we trade IT and the nets pick for irving. which makes sense because we got the better player.
the other scrubs were throw ins. this team is so much better it's not even funny. with that said it does mean the kids are going to have bigger expectations to make the right plays.
that's exactly how I think about it
-
Here take my hand...
...1. We were not paying IT $35 mil a year and 2. He's 29 going on 30 coming off a hip injury. and 3. Kyrie is 25 and not even in his prime yet.
Welcome back.
-
The Nets pick was too much. Other than that I'm OK.
That is the point...The Nets pick shouldn't have been traded.
-
Here take my hand...
...1. We were not paying IT $35 mil a year and 2. He's 29 going on 30 coming off a hip injury. and 3. Kyrie is 25 and not even in his prime yet.
Welcome back.
I like that
Tp
-
I can't believe guys are crying over Ante. He did not look that sharp in Summer League, mark my words Theis will surprise.
1. We were not paying IT $35 mil a year and 2. He's 29 going on 30 coming off a hip injury. and 3. Kyrie is 25 and not even in his prime yet.
I know TP, not even to mention what a defensive mismatch IT is the playoffs.
-
1. Lakers will still be bad, solid chance of it coming our way.
2. If not, look at the kings roster and come back and tell me how good they will be next year.
3. IT is an expiring contract (less value), coming off potential recurring hip injury vs Irving with longer term contract, bigger on defense and like IT he breaks down defenses. Kyrie is better long term.
4. We have a Brown and Tatum to develop, taking on 2 high draft picks to integrate would be challenging, this gives us more focus on these players.
5. We can now have room to extend Smart, who is a good player.
6. If we were going to trade a nets pick, i feel this is the one considering our team development timeline.
I feel I am the biggest Danny defender, but I am completely dumbfounded by this.
To you points:
3. His defensive + is negligible. And he takes plays off, unlike IT.
4. Wow, really? That is the thing getting me off the ledge?
5. This gives us no more flexibility to extend Smart whatsoever.
6. No. That Nets pick is going to be Top 5 guaranteed. Lakers/Sac is still a longer shot at a high pick.
Things that will help me stay away from the ledge:
1. We have a nice 2 year look at Kyrie. If he falters, we can let him walk in FA. Pick up a good value PG (of which there are millions) for Horford's last year, and by which time Brown and Tatum will be getting closer to their prime.
2. We can rest players against the Nets. Scratch that: we can get the Claws to play the Nets.
That's about it at the moment.
I understand all of that, and frankly adding the Brooklyn pick is a bad overpay, a mid first round pick is what Danny should have held firm with. But to counter:
3. Remember IT getting posted up at every opportune moment in the playoffs and forcing a double? He hurt the team there, not sure about Kyrie taking plays off, I never paid much attention, aside from the finals where has done a respectable job on Curry.
4. I think we can get back to the ledge when we know the draft order, if the Lakers pick is better than the Nets it will take the sting out of the trade. Still bad.
5. So you don't think Smart will be extended? Our luxury tax bill would have been huge paying IT 30mil and Smart 14-18mil. Irving only makes 19mil.
6. Maybe, maybe not, the west is a much stronger conference.
We can agree to disagree about everything, but Smart's extension deadline is October 17, this year. You can extend your own rookies over the cap, using their normal Bird Rights. We are over the cap with either Kyrie, or IT and Jae..
Perhaps another ledge argument, is that by not signing IT to the max, it opens the window for Marcus to compete at such a level that makes management think he can take over as the starting PG after Kyrie's second year.
-
Here you go....if this doesn't absolutely work Ainge is done
-
I posted this on 8/15 and stand by it :
Cleveland becomes a lot stronger/deeper this year and IT AND Crowder.....could make LeBaby stay.
On top of that, trading the guy H and H came here to play with in IT?
Bad, Bad juju.
No thanks.
PLUS the BK 18?!?!?!? un****gprotected!!!!!
This trade could come back and bite us for years to come in the ass especially if LeBron stays because of it.
Cleveland needed to trade Kyrie why does this trade seem like they had the position of strength?. Just gives Cleveland hope for now and in the future.
-
Wowzer. This is the best thing I have heard yet to keep you off the ledge:
From Bobby Marks:-
"Kyrie Irving is eligible to have his contract extended next summer but only with an increase to $24.1M, roughly $8M below his projected max in 2019. Irving could also have his contract renegotiated in July but the Celtics are projected to be over the salary cap."
Most people are saying we have an agreement that he will extend, although that does seem super strange that he would commit now to leaving 8 million on the table :/
-
Wowzer. This is the best thing I have heard yet to keep you off the ledge:
From Bobby Marks:-
"Kyrie Irving is eligible to have his contract extended next summer but only with an increase to $24.1M, roughly $8M below his projected max in 2019. Irving could also have his contract renegotiated in July but the Celtics are projected to be over the salary cap."
Most people are saying we have an agreement that he will extend, although that does seem super strange that he would commit now to leaving 8 million on the table :/
Just leak spin from the Celts front office. I'll believe it when I see it
-
The only thing I can say is that we have Brad Stevens. If he signed off on this, and he thinks he can make Kyrie even better than he already is, this looks a lot better.
-
Here take my hand...
...1. We were not paying IT $35 mil a year and 2. He's 29 going on 30 coming off a hip injury. and 3. Kyrie is 25 and not even in his prime yet.
Welcome back.
1. That's true, mostly because the max he can get will be 30% of the cap and the cap isn't rising to $116 million next year. He literally can't get $35 million per year
2. He's 28 and turns 29 in February. That is not "29 going on 30"
3. No arguments there
-
Zicic hasn't shown much of anything yet. Doesn't seem like he'd get significant minutes on a team looking to contend. Crowder is a great role player, but the C's have more than enough players that can fulfill his role. It also gives the younger guys more chance to shine.
For me, the element that breaks or makes this trade is the pick. If the Nets can bounce back and have a decent season and send that pick outside the top 8, this trade is win for me. Anywhere in the top 5 and I think it's an L.
I agree with this for the most part in that it all comes down to where that pick lands. We definitely got the best player in this deal, and if Ainge loves Brown and Tatum's future, then a Irving is a great running mate for those guys for the next 7-8 years.
My issue here is that the Cavs had zero leverage here, yet still got a great deal. Did we really need to include the Brooklyn pick (as opposed to one of our other picks) AND leave it unprotected? That seems like a steep price when the Cavs had zero leverage and we had more assets than any other team in the league.
Think about what OKC gave up for Paul George (I realize he's older than Irving and only has one year remaining on his deal), and what we gave up for Irving far exceeds that. That concerns me. I love Ainge, but this will be a career-defining deal for him.
-
The Brooklyn pick was the straw that broke the camels back for me. Not a fan of loosing that pick.
Kyrie is not only better than IT, he's younger, already signed, and ended last year healthy.
IT most likely needed to be operated on at the end of last season, he delayed the operation to try to get the "Brinks Truck" backing into his driveway. Players don't sign Max contracts recuperating on their back in the Hospital, and IT knew it. Somewhere in he next 18 months IT will need to be operated on. He will not be the same player in his 30's as he was last year.
Crowder is a player I would have liked to keep. But with Tatum and Brown maturing, he would eventually be sitting on the bench.
I know we have some hardcore fans of Zizic, IMO he is years away from being a contributing member of any NBA team. Incredibly slow getting off his feet.
I hated giving up the Nets pick, for me it would have been the deal breaker. The question must be asked, what other better options did the Cavs have, that we needed to include the pick.
Exactly. The only thing I can think of is Ainge might have been worried that LeBron and Kyrie would mend the fences, Kyrie stays in Cleveland, the Cavs win the title - or come very close to doing so - this year, and LeBron decides to stay. If Ainge thought this was the only way to guarantee LeBron heads West next summer, then this makes a lot more sense.
-
I cannot, but please do not jump.
-
edit: Reading is hard.
-
come on down .....times are good
the party is just getting started
all aboard the Irving / Hayward train .....choo choo ... ;D
-
Just ignore the last few years, I guess. If somebody told you we'd trade the aging KG and Pierce, along with spare parts, for Kyrie, Tatum, Brown and a likely lottery pick, you'd be pretty excited, right?
That's the best I've got.
-
wow! I knew this board overrated our players, but the reaction to getting the best player in a trade in which we just got rid of a bunch of players that are easily replaceable is ludicrous.
in case any of you don't know though -
jae crowder has done nothing for this team since his 1st season here. if he stayed any longer all he'd be doing is taking mins. away from guys that can actually play like Brown and Tatum.
ante zizic dominated a bunch of guys in Europe that wouldn't even make the D-league. as soon as he came over and played here in summer league, guess what? he looked average... and that's being generous.
the Brooklyn pick sucks, but you have to give up something. and I actually think this says a lot about what they think about tatum and brown.
everybody here is butt-hurt for no reason. we got the better deal.
If only NBA teams were built in a video game. This trade was terrible. The C's will take a step back next season.
MELT! lol
-
Yeah... Sorry I can't. I'm on the ledge too.
-
Here take my hand...
...1. We were not paying IT $35 mil a year and 2. He's 29 going on 30 coming off a hip injury. and 3. Kyrie is 25 and not even in his prime yet.
Welcome back.
1. That's true, mostly because the max he can get will be 30% of the cap and the cap isn't rising to $116 million next year. He literally can't get $35 million per year
2. He's 28 and turns 29 in February. That is not "29 going on 30"
3. No arguments there
You are one of the cap kings around here so you should know better, BJ.
Just based on this year's $99M cap, a player in the 7-9 year range signing a 5 year max contract with 8% raises would make a total of just over $172M over the course of that contract ($34.4M/yr). There just needs to be a $1M increase in the cap next year for IT to sign a $35M/yr contract.
Personally, I don't think Danny was ever going to sign IT to the max and I don't think Cleveland will either. Cleveland will give it one big last shot this year and then immediately look to rebuild with a prime pick. That is [unfortunately] why the price was so high. I know I was wrong about what we had to give up (overrating IT's value, underrating Kyrie's 'trade demand' value).
-
Just ignore the last few years, I guess. If somebody told you we'd trade the aging KG and Pierce, along with spare parts, for Kyrie, Tatum, Brown and a likely lottery pick, you'd be pretty excited, right?
That's the best I've got.
Is that what we really did here? Did Crowder, IT and Zizic come out of the PP KG trades? People tend to forget we suffered through years of Wallace on the bench making $10 million to get these assets from BKN.
-
Just ignore the last few years, I guess. If somebody told you we'd trade the aging KG and Pierce, along with spare parts, for Kyrie, Tatum, Brown and a likely lottery pick, you'd be pretty excited, right?
That's the best I've got.
Is that what we really did here? Did Crowder, IT and Zizic come out of the PP KG trades? People tend to forget we suffered through years of Wallace on the bench making $10 million to get these assets from BKN.
IT did (via the CLE pick and Marcus Thronton, which we got along with Zeller for the Paul Pierce trade exception). Zizic came from out own 2016 pick, and Crowder came from the Rondo deal
-
If have traded the Brooklyn Pick, Zizic, Crowder and IT for Irving. We will have helped our biggest rival in the east. Given up a chance at a transcendent talent and given them a pick they can use to acquire another star to make them compete with the Warriors or crush us all while destroying our team chemistry... I have never felt this baffled by a trade before, and as much as I trust Ainge in general, this is a flat out awful trade if true.
Lebron is gone my dude. This year is cleveland's last ride.
Celtic will walk into the finals this year or the next
-
Here take my hand...
...1. We were not paying IT $35 mil a year and 2. He's 29 going on 30 coming off a hip injury. and 3. Kyrie is 25 and not even in his prime yet.
Welcome back.
1. That's true, mostly because the max he can get will be 30% of the cap and the cap isn't rising to $116 million next year. He literally can't get $35 million per year
2. He's 28 and turns 29 in February. That is not "29 going on 30"
3. No arguments there
You are one of the cap kings around here so you should know better, BJ.
Just based on this year's $99M cap, a player in the 7-9 year range signing a 5 year max contract with 8% raises would make a total of just over $172M over the course of that contract ($34.4M/yr). There just needs to be a $1M increase in the cap next year for IT to sign a $35M/yr contract.
Personally, I don't think Danny was ever going to sign IT to the max and I don't think Cleveland will either. Cleveland will give it one big last shot this year and then immediately look to rebuild with a prime pick. That is [unfortunately] why the price was so high. I know I was wrong about what we had to give up (overrating IT's value, underrating Kyrie's 'trade demand' value).
He's not signing a 5 year max deal, though. I don't think there was even a chance of getting it from us (3 year max at most, 4 or 5 years only at a discount), and there's definitely no chance he gets it in CLE or elsewhere. A 3 year deal puts him at ~$97.5 million over three years (assuming a modest cap raise next year, which seems likely). But even then 1st year cap hit is what we really need to worry about as far as resigning Smart goes (which should be the only concern this summer since we have no cap space no matter what. And 2019 Morris comes off the cap sheet, which lightens the lead a bit, and 2020 Horford and Hayward should come off)
-
Now I'm really glad we traded down for Tatum + LAL/SAC pick vs. Fultz.
-
If have traded the Brooklyn Pick, Zizic, Crowder and IT for Irving. We will have helped our biggest rival in the east. Given up a chance at a transcendent talent and given them a pick they can use to acquire another star to make them compete with the Warriors or crush us all while destroying our team chemistry... I have never felt this baffled by a trade before, and as much as I trust Ainge in general, this is a flat out awful trade if true.
Lebron is gone my dude. This year is cleveland's last ride.
Celtic will walk into the finals this year or the next
yup. this is lebrons last year in cleveland.
-
If have traded the Brooklyn Pick, Zizic, Crowder and IT for Irving. We will have helped our biggest rival in the east. Given up a chance at a transcendent talent and given them a pick they can use to acquire another star to make them compete with the Warriors or crush us all while destroying our team chemistry... I have never felt this baffled by a trade before, and as much as I trust Ainge in general, this is a flat out awful trade if true.
Lebron is gone my dude. This year is cleveland's last ride.
Celtic will walk into the finals this year or the next
yup. this is lebrons last year in cleveland.
Maybe. Or, maybe the Cavs add another star and Lebron decides the Cavs can beat the Warriors.
-
I...um....hate this trade. With a passion. This is probably the first deal of Danny's that I've said that about. I didn't even have a problem with the Raef LaFrentz or Wally Sczerbiak trades. But I'm struggling here.
I can see the intent. Ainge didn't want to "back up the Brinks truck" on an 5'8" defensive liability who would spend most of the next contract in his 30s. At the same time, he couldn't afford to let him go for nothing next year. So this gave him a chance to trade for a better, younger player who he has under contract for two years (and probably can extend) and thus avoids the tax for those two years and can resign Smart. So a lineup of Hayward, Smart, Irving, Tatum, Brown and LAL 2018 is a team that can compete for a decade. We're going to be impossible to defend on the offensive end of the floor - Irving, Hayward, Tatum, Brown (if he progresses) with Horford facilitating - and we're not going to be worse on the defensive end as IT was hopeless on that end of the floor.
I also understand him getting rid of Crowder. In the past few weeks I've posted how there's a minutes crunch especially at the SF/PF positions. Crowder's been a bit of a disruption the last year or so and there may be some questions as to how he'd react in a more limited role coming off the bench. Plus it's another $7m saved and Marcus Morris can fill the defensive role that was Crowder's bread and butter.
At the same time....
To give up Brooklyn's #1 with no protections no option to swap that for LAL's #1 if it was the top pick was just a gross overpay. If it ends up being #1 again this could go down as a massive stinker of a decision along the lines of Bowie over Jordan in '84.
I don't like Irving. I think he's self-centered, either he's the worlds' greatest troller or an idiot and he lacks intensity on the floor. This is not a guy that I have warmed up to.
Crowder could have been a valuable piece. Zizic is the equivalent of a late lottery pick. Those aren't trivial and I don't like them being part of a "throw in" when we already gave so much away.
To win this trade, there's a lot that has to go Danny's way. IT's hip may not get better or his game may drop off substantially as he gets older. Brooklyn's pick may be #6 instead of #1. Irving could end up being as good as Russell Westbrook and that top tier guy to carry us all the way. If those things happen, then Danny wins. But if Brooklyn's pick is #1 (or #2 and LAL is #1), if we don't get by Cleveland, if Irving signs elsewhere after two years, if we don't win an NBA Championship then it's a massive bust of a deal.
Well, a lot of people have been wanting to go all-in on the poker table for a while now. They got their wish. Personally, I'm not feeling good about this one.
-
Losing IT hurts, but I think Irving is better and will become a loved presence in Boston.
Losing Jae hurts but more minutes for Jaylen and Jayson is good for their development and there's no guarantee Jae's 3 point shooting last season was going to continue, given his history.
Losing Zizic hurts but we don't know what he'll be able to contribute.
Losing that Nets pick hurts but the C's still have the Lakers/Kings pick and the calculus may have changed for that Nets pick given the changes at the bottom of the Eastern conference this coming year.
I think this trade feels bad, but I also think it looks good.
-
Now I'm really glad we traded down for Tatum + LAL/SAC pick vs. Fultz.
I agree. That trade really disturbed me when it happened.
But now, I don't mind so much.
-
I don't think the pick is going to land as high as many do. I expect it to be in the 7-11 range. A recent BR article says the same:
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2723737-nba-schedule-2017-18-team-by-team-record-predictions-and-playoff-odds
I still would have liked to have seen maybe the Lakers/Philly pick, but am OK with this. You can only have so many young guys, our core is now Tatum (19), Brown (20), Irving (25), Hayward (27). Toss in Smart, Yabu, and Rozier and [dang], that's the team to build around.
That said, I think one more is coming. Stay tuned!
-
I...um....hate this trade. With a passion. This is probably the first deal of Danny's that I've said that about. I didn't even have a problem with the Raef LaFrentz or Wally Sczerbiak trades. But I'm struggling here.
I can see the intent. Ainge didn't want to "back up the Brinks truck" on an 5'8" defensive liability who would spend most of the next contract in his 30s. At the same time, he couldn't afford to let him go for nothing next year. So this gave him a chance to trade for a better, younger player who he has under contract for two years (and probably can extend) and thus avoids the tax for those two years and can resign Smart. So a lineup of Hayward, Smart, Irving, Tatum, Brown and LAL 2018 is a team that can compete for a decade. We're going to be impossible to defend on the offensive end of the floor - Irving, Hayward, Tatum, Brown (if he progresses) with Horford facilitating - and we're not going to be worse on the defensive end as IT was hopeless on that end of the floor.
I also understand him getting rid of Crowder. In the past few weeks I've posted how there's a minutes crunch especially at the SF/PF positions. Crowder's been a bit of a disruption the last year or so and there may be some questions as to how he'd react in a more limited role coming off the bench. Plus it's another $7m saved and Marcus Morris can fill the defensive role that was Crowder's bread and butter.
At the same time....
To give up Brooklyn's #1 with no protections no option to swap that for LAL's #1 if it was the top pick was just a gross overpay. If it ends up being #1 again this could go down as a massive stinker of a decision along the lines of Bowie over Jordan in '84.
I don't like Irving. I think he's self-centered, either he's the worlds' greatest troller or an idiot and he lacks intensity on the floor. This is not a guy that I have warmed up to.
Crowder could have been a valuable piece. Zizic is the equivalent of a late lottery pick. Those aren't trivial and I don't like them being part of a "throw in" when we already gave so much away.
To win this trade, there's a lot that has to go Danny's way. IT's hip may not get better or his game may drop off substantially as he gets older. Brooklyn's pick may be #6 instead of #1. Irving could end up being as good as Russell Westbrook and that top tier guy to carry us all the way. If those things happen, then Danny wins. But if Brooklyn's pick is #1 (or #2 and LAL is #1), if we don't get by Cleveland, if Irving signs elsewhere after two years, if we don't win an NBA Championship then it's a massive bust of a deal.
Well, a lot of people have been wanting to go all-in on the poker table for a while now. They got their wish. Personally, I'm not feeling good about this one.
This pretty much sums up the situation. All I will add is:
First, we were running out of time. The problems with keeping IT and Crowder were going to start costing the C's as soon as the season started, and these two were going to degrade as tradeable assets. I've been worried for some time that IT's contract just wasn't going to be resolved, and if he didn't start the season strong, things were going to get difficult. Crowder was going to lose significant minutes.
You could argue that there should have been other deals, but we don't know what those might be.
Second, I have to have some faith in Ainge doing his homework. He knows the state of IT's hip, and he did a lot of research into Kyrie's character and coachability. We don't know the insider take on either of those things.
Third, while I'm terrified that the Brooklyn pick might turn into a superstar, I have to accept the actual odds. They seem to have a really smart coach and they may very well not be so terrible next year.
We offloaded the risks of dealing with IT and the uncertainty of the Brooklyn pick to Cleveland. I just hope Irving has the intelligence and character to lead this team all the way.
-
either he's the worlds' greatest troller or an idiot
http://www.cleveland.com/cavs/index.ssf/2017/02/kyrie_irving_admits_science_su.html
Not an idiot, however good of a troller he is.
-
I guess, something to note as well is that while the C's were #1 last season and IT was spectacular....the playoffs proved they were smoke and mirrors. if Rondo was healthy, they likely would've lost to the bulls. they had to have some game 7 heroics to beat the wizards. and then they met the buzzsaw in the cavs and were demolished. Ainge took the gamble of do you trade for the guaranteed superstar now, or put your odds in the BKN-18 pick being a superstar.
is this team better than last year? I would say yes....likely not good enough to unseat the cavs. but could at least make it a series IMO.
I also kind of kept it in the back of my mind to not get attached to anyone on this team. I will miss IT4, but as exciting as the last few years playoff runs have been I knew this is a bridge team for Ainge to get to the next championship
-
We could have kept all these guys, but it wouldn't matter as we were not getting past Clev or GS for the next couple of years anyway. This wasn't a panic trade and it should help us.
-
Kyrie destroyed IT in the playoffs. Any time IT was on him he went to the hole or shot over him. I think that is what did it in Danny's mind. The tapes are pretty devastating. We don't have Avery to cover up for IT on defense so something had to give.
-
I'm not happy but its not an objectively terrible trade like the Pacers/Bulls ones. Its all down to lottery luck and the Nets if this looks bad, or pretty good.
-
I don't think nets pick was too much. I look at it as we trade IT and the nets pick for irving. which makes sense because we got the better player.
the other scrubs were throw ins. this team is so much better it's not even funny. with that said it does mean the kids are going to have bigger expectations to make the right plays.
You could almost look at it as the Nets pick and Crowder for Irving. IT is on the last year of his contract, demanding max money, and is injured going into the season. While Irving is replacing IT's spot on the roster, if there is a chance IT would miss significant time due to his injury (and reports this week were now saying he is likely to miss the start of the season), then he was essentially salary filler in the deal. If Ainge wasn't planning to give IT a max contract at the end of this year, not a bad move to trade an injured star and a high draft pick for a healthy, younger star under team control for 2 more years.
CLE may be looking at IT as insurance for LeBron leaving next year. If he does, they can can give IT his Brinks truck, and they still have a star player on their roster. If his injury requires surgery or if Lebron stays, they can just let him walk at the end of the year.
If the Nets pick ends up being high in the draft AND if that player turns into a superstar, this could end up as a bad trade for the Cs. Otherwise, we trade an expiring contract of an injured star, a role player who lost his starting spot on the team, a rookie who isn't likely to get playing time, and a potentially high draft pick for a young, borderline superstar. Given the risk with IT's health and the uncertainty of future draft picks, it seems like a fair deal.
-
I guess, something to note as well is that while the C's were #1 last season and IT was spectacular....the playoffs proved they were smoke and mirrors. if Rondo was healthy, they likely would've lost to the bulls. they had to have some game 7 heroics to beat the wizards. and then they met the buzzsaw in the cavs and were demolished. Ainge took the gamble of do you trade for the guaranteed superstar now, or put your odds in the BKN-18 pick being a superstar.
is this team better than last year? I would say yes....likely not good enough to unseat the cavs. but could at least make it a series IMO.
I also kind of kept it in the back of my mind to not get attached to anyone on this team. I will miss IT4, but as exciting as the last few years playoff runs have been I knew this is a bridge team for Ainge to get to the next championship
The Celtics beat the Bulls and Wizards. Look for some moral victories losses if you want, but it doesn't change the fact that this team beat the Bulls in 6 games (and no, Rondo is not the difference between the Bulls beating us and losing 4 straight games. His injury doubtless played a role, but so did IT/the team having more time to recover from the shock of IT's sister dieing and Brad changing the gameplan/lineup to play more to our strengths) and the Wizards in 7 (would have been in 6, "they had to have some game [6] heroics to beat the [celtics]")
-
I guess, something to note as well is that while the C's were #1 last season and IT was spectacular....the playoffs proved they were smoke and mirrors. if Rondo was healthy, they likely would've lost to the bulls. they had to have some game 7 heroics to beat the wizards. and then they met the buzzsaw in the cavs and were demolished. Ainge took the gamble of do you trade for the guaranteed superstar now, or put your odds in the BKN-18 pick being a superstar.
is this team better than last year? I would say yes....likely not good enough to unseat the cavs. but could at least make it a series IMO.
I also kind of kept it in the back of my mind to not get attached to anyone on this team. I will miss IT4, but as exciting as the last few years playoff runs have been I knew this is a bridge team for Ainge to get to the next championship
The Celtics beat the Bulls and Wizards. Look for some moral victories losses if you want, but it doesn't change the fact that this team beat the Bulls in 6 games (and no, Rondo is not the difference between the Bulls beating us and losing 4 straight games. His injury doubtless played a role, but so did IT/the team having more time to recover from the shock of IT's sister dieing and Brad changing the gameplan/lineup to play more to our strengths) and the Wizards in 7 (would have been in 6, "they had to have some game [6] heroics to beat the [celtics]")
ok, taking that into account, once they met the cavs we saw how far behind them they were.
Don't get me wrong, im pretty melancholy about the whole trade because I love IT4 and he gave boston hope. His addition allowed us to get horford and Hayward.
but are we better equipped to take on the cavs in the eastern conference today if we met them? I would have to say yes.
-
I don't get it, just last week fans on this blog were saying IT4 is not worth the max and wanting to trade him for pennies on the dollar. now we trade him for Irving and it is horrible
-
I don't get it, just last week fans on this blog were saying IT4 is not worth the max and wanting to trade him for pennies on the dollar. now we trade him for Irving and it is horrible
We traded IT for Irving straight up?
That's a different story! Why didn't you tell us? We were all under the impression that we gave up a likely top 3 pick, Crowder and Zizic too! Phew, I'm glad that didn't happen!
-
If have traded the Brooklyn Pick, Zizic, Crowder and IT for Irving. We will have helped our biggest rival in the east. Given up a chance at a transcendent talent and given them a pick they can use to acquire another star to make them compete with the Warriors or crush us all while destroying our team chemistry... I have never felt this baffled by a trade before, and as much as I trust Ainge in general, this is a flat out awful trade if true.
Lebron is gone my dude. This year is cleveland's last ride.
Celtic will walk into the finals this year or the next
I'll believe it when I see it
-
I guess, something to note as well is that while the C's were #1 last season and IT was spectacular....the playoffs proved they were smoke and mirrors. if Rondo was healthy, they likely would've lost to the bulls. they had to have some game 7 heroics to beat the wizards. and then they met the buzzsaw in the cavs and were demolished. Ainge took the gamble of do you trade for the guaranteed superstar now, or put your odds in the BKN-18 pick being a superstar.
is this team better than last year? I would say yes....likely not good enough to unseat the cavs. but could at least make it a series IMO.
I also kind of kept it in the back of my mind to not get attached to anyone on this team. I will miss IT4, but as exciting as the last few years playoff runs have been I knew this is a bridge team for Ainge to get to the next championship
The Celtics beat the Bulls and Wizards. Look for some moral victories losses if you want, but it doesn't change the fact that this team beat the Bulls in 6 games (and no, Rondo is not the difference between the Bulls beating us and losing 4 straight games. His injury doubtless played a role, but so did IT/the team having more time to recover from the shock of IT's sister dieing and Brad changing the gameplan/lineup to play more to our strengths) and the Wizards in 7 (would have been in 6, "they had to have some game [6] heroics to beat the [celtics]")
ok, taking that into account, once they met the cavs we saw how far behind them they were.
Don't get me wrong, im pretty melancholy about the whole trade because I love IT4 and he gave boston hope. His addition allowed us to get horford and Hayward.
but are we better equipped to take on the cavs in the eastern conference today if we met them? I would have to say yes.
Don't get me wrong, I 100% agree that we're a better team now than we were in June. But it's not because we weren't that good last year or we didn't deserve to make it as far in the playoffs as we did - it's because we added Hayward and Tatum without giving up that much and still have an All Star PG. It remains to be seen whether we're a better team than we were this time yesterday, but we are 100% a better team than we were a few months ago
-
So it's not the easiest thing to gather and organize your thoughts on this complex trade, especially without emotion. At first when I saw the Nets pick was included, and that it was unprotected, I was pretty peeved. But here is how I would talk you off the ledge:
1) This trade tells me that IT was going to take whoever was going to give him a max, and Danny wasn't going to give it to him. So I'm going to consider that IT was gone for nothing at the end of the year, and we weren't winning it all with him this year, so for effective purposes I'd remove him from the deal. You don't have to agree here, but that's my view.
2) With IT factored out, the trade is really 2 role players and a lottery pick for a top 15 player in the NBA. So far that's a good deal for us, but it will come down to where the pick lands. If it lands top 2, or even top 5, that'll be tough to swallow. But if the Bulls, Pacers, Hawks and 2 West teams finish worse and the Nets finish out of the bottom 5 (say #6) and on lottery night they drop another spot or two (say pick #7 or #8) then I think that could be a steal.
3) IT may be damaged goods now and may have peaked, or will have peaked after 1-2 more years. Tatum & Jaylen likely won't be in their primes then. Kyrie likely gets better than he is now, and likely has a bigger year than IT this year if their roles were reversed since he played with Lebron and Love. Now, both of our top 2 players / all stars are on the timeline of the future of our team, which is Tatum, JB, LA/SAC pick, and the rest.
4) Re: timeline, with the Warriors being what they are we needed to stop straddling the line between the present and the future at some point. If we stayed the course we could have been a top 5 team for over a decade, but likely never would have been a true contender. Now if the LA pick lands and we nail it, and our young guys develop, we are likely to be a true contender in 3-4 years when the young guys develop and Kyrie is in his prime.
5) With the money we save next year due to the trade, we should be able to afford to keep Smart if that's what we want to do. If he doesn't develop good offense next season he should be affordable under the tax, and if he does, he'd be a player worth getting taxed for.
So factoring out IT and looking at the trade as 2 role players and a lottery pick for a top 15 player and cap flexibility, we need to wait a year and see where the pick lands. Even if the pick is top 2, which seems bad, we'd need to wait to see who pans out.
-
There are only two things that will make me rationalize this trade:
1) Irving really does have Top-5 NBA talent in him, and getting away from LeBron and under the tutelage of Stevens maximizes his production.
2) IT's hip is really that bad.
The second makes me sad to think about, because I like IT too much to hope for anything bad for him. So hopefully Irving really can be that great. He's only 25 -- it's not impossible to believe he has MVP-caliber seasons in his future, and he's already proven himself in the Finals. If he is, then it's a good trade regardless of the price paid, because those players are very rare.
But unless and until Irving is the best player on a title winning Boston team, I'm going to question this deal. I think Irving is a great player, but I don't know that he's great.
-
You're on a ledge ?
Irving > Thomas
Hayward > Bradley
Morris > Crowder
Baynes > every Center on the roster
You should be dancing on the ceiling. Upgrades EVERYWHERE
-
There are only two things that will make me rationalize this trade:
1) Irving really does have Top-5 NBA talent in him, and getting away from LeBron and under the tutelage of Stevens maximizes his production.
2) IT's hip is really that bad.
The second makes me sad to think about, because I like IT too much to hope for anything bad for him. So hopefully Irving really can be that great. He's only 25 -- it's not impossible to believe he has MVP-caliber seasons in his future, and he's already proven himself in the Finals. If he is, then it's a good trade regardless of the price paid, because those players are very rare.
But unless and until Irving is the best player on a title winning Boston team, I'm going to question this deal. I think Irving is a great player, but I don't know that he's great.
This echoes my thoughts exactly.
The onus is on Irving now to prove he is or can be a significant upgrade over Thomas. And by "significant" he has to be better than Thomas by enough to make up the value of losing the Nets pick, Jae & Zizic.
If he isn't, then this trade won't look good.
-
There are only two things that will make me rationalize this trade:
1) Irving really does have Top-5 NBA talent in him, and getting away from LeBron and under the tutelage of Stevens maximizes his production.
2) IT's hip is really that bad.
The second makes me sad to think about, because I like IT too much to hope for anything bad for him. So hopefully Irving really can be that great. He's only 25 -- it's not impossible to believe he has MVP-caliber seasons in his future, and he's already proven himself in the Finals. If he is, then it's a good trade regardless of the price paid, because those players are very rare.
But unless and until Irving is the best player on a title winning Boston team, I'm going to question this deal. I think Irving is a great player, but I don't know that he's great.
pretty much thinking the same thing. Including the Brooklyn pick was the overpayment from my viewpoint. unless IT is only half the player next year that he was last year, we overpaid. when both are healthy, the difference in production between Kyrie and IT didn't justify including that pick. Maybe the C's pick next year if being generous but Crowder alone would make up for any talent gap between those 2 players.
-
There are only two things that will make me rationalize this trade:
1) Irving really does have Top-5 NBA talent in him, and getting away from LeBron and under the tutelage of Stevens maximizes his production.
2) IT's hip is really that bad.
The second makes me sad to think about, because I like IT too much to hope for anything bad for him. So hopefully Irving really can be that great. He's only 25 -- it's not impossible to believe he has MVP-caliber seasons in his future, and he's already proven himself in the Finals. If he is, then it's a good trade regardless of the price paid, because those players are very rare.
But unless and until Irving is the best player on a title winning Boston team, I'm going to question this deal. I think Irving is a great player, but I don't know that he's great.
This echoes my thoughts exactly.
The onus is on Irving now to prove he is or can be a significant upgrade over Thomas. And by "significant" he has to be better than Thomas by enough to make up the value of losing the Nets pick, Jae & Zizic.
If he isn't, then this trade won't look good.
See, I am choosing to look at this trade in a different way. Assuming Danny wasn't going to re-sign IT and also assuming Irving [deservingly] re-signs with the Cs for the max in two years, I see it as two trades:
For this year only, it is: Irving for IT, Crowder, and Zizic
For 2018 and beyond, it is: Irving for Crowder, Zizic, and BKN pick
With IT only having one season left and with major doubts about him re-signing (due to age, injury concerns, etc), it is not fair to look at this trade like we are giving up IT as an asset beyond this season. Just like it is not fair to look at the BKN pick as an asset for this season. Luckily Irving is young enough and good enough to cover for both of these 'trades.'
I feel just like everybody else, though - losing that BKN pick hurts and a lot now rests on Irving's shoulders. Hopefully he can prove his value...and also BKN is considerably better than we all think they will be.
-
I should also note that if trading IT for Kyrie was the difference between keeping Smart or letting him go, then he should also be 'included' in this deal (I don't have any idea if this is true).
Of course if DA was just going to let IT walk, then we likely would have kept Smart at any cost.
-
There are only two things that will make me rationalize this trade:
1) Irving really does have Top-5 NBA talent in him, and getting away from LeBron and under the tutelage of Stevens maximizes his production.
2) IT's hip is really that bad.
The second makes me sad to think about, because I like IT too much to hope for anything bad for him. So hopefully Irving really can be that great. He's only 25 -- it's not impossible to believe he has MVP-caliber seasons in his future, and he's already proven himself in the Finals. If he is, then it's a good trade regardless of the price paid, because those players are very rare.
But unless and until Irving is the best player on a title winning Boston team, I'm going to question this deal. I think Irving is a great player, but I don't know that he's great.
This echoes my thoughts exactly.
The onus is on Irving now to prove he is or can be a significant upgrade over Thomas. And by "significant" he has to be better than Thomas by enough to make up the value of losing the Nets pick, Jae & Zizic.
If he isn't, then this trade won't look good.
With all due respect, that may be a limited way to view this trade.
IT is 28. He'll be 29 before the playoffs next season. I think it's a reasonable assumption that given his height, defensive limitations and style of play that he's a major risk for taking a sharp dropoff in production in the coming years. I think IT's a bit more than just a one year wonder but in some ways I think IT is a bit like Rondo. Both shined in systems that were tailor-made for their talents. Rondo came way back to Earth when he wasn't surrounded by sharpshooters and when his athleticism took a hit because of his injury. It could see the same for IT - he gets exposed in the playoffs and the way he plays he's an awful risk for a max contract in his 30s. In short, IT could be considered a declining asset. In fact, I could see a $30m/yr IT being a negative asset within two years.
Kyrie - and remember, I'm not a big fan of his - simply going to be a better player longer. That's also a very reasonable assumption. He's also better from contract standpoint and assuming he gets resigned his highly productive lifespan is significantly greater than ITs. While he'll get a bigger contract, Danny's counting on him to continue to improve. Even if he doesn't and he signs a max contract in two years, he's not a declining asset.
So it's not just a matter of peak. It's also a matter of volume of production. And in that area the money is on Kyrie to produce far more than IT. Kyrie at 25 creates a great window for years down the road with Tatum and Brown. If you look at normal player development, those two guys won't hit their true stride for 3-4 more years. By that time IT's probably done as a starter but Irving should be still in his prime.
Now to be fair we lose the possible production of the Nets 2018 pick. That could be HUGE. But we are also likely to gain Marcus Smart for another few years. It was a foregone conclusion that Smart would have to leave in FA if we resigned IT. Now that's not going to happen and it opens up the possibility of bringing Smart back. If that happens - and that's now pretty likely - then that also has to be factored in.
Crowder's role in Boston would be severely curtailed with the addition on Hayward and Tatum. His real value was short term (this year) as guys became more familiar with the team. His long term value was only really a decent contract and while it's still good after this year, his value isn't quite as good @ 2 years, $15m. He's also a declining asset and the closer his contract comes to being up, the less of a real asset he is.
To redefine the equation, it's likely to be:
IT (shorter term) + Nets 2018 + Crowder (shorter term) + Zizic for Kyrie and Smart.
I'm still not saying it's a win. I'm just saying it's not as simple as Irving's peak.
-
There are only two things that will make me rationalize this trade:
1) Irving really does have Top-5 NBA talent in him, and getting away from LeBron and under the tutelage of Stevens maximizes his production.
2) IT's hip is really that bad.
The second makes me sad to think about, because I like IT too much to hope for anything bad for him. So hopefully Irving really can be that great. He's only 25 -- it's not impossible to believe he has MVP-caliber seasons in his future, and he's already proven himself in the Finals. If he is, then it's a good trade regardless of the price paid, because those players are very rare.
But unless and until Irving is the best player on a title winning Boston team, I'm going to question this deal. I think Irving is a great player, but I don't know that he's great.
This echoes my thoughts exactly.
The onus is on Irving now to prove he is or can be a significant upgrade over Thomas. And by "significant" he has to be better than Thomas by enough to make up the value of losing the Nets pick, Jae & Zizic.
If he isn't, then this trade won't look good.
With all due respect, that may be a limited way to view this trade.
IT is 28. He'll be 29 before the playoffs next season. I think it's a reasonable assumption that given his height, defensive limitations and style of play that he's a major risk for taking a sharp dropoff in production in the coming years. I think IT's a bit more than just a one year wonder but in some ways I think IT is a bit like Rondo. Both shined in systems that were tailor-made for their talents. Rondo came way back to Earth when he wasn't surrounded by sharpshooters and when his athleticism took a hit because of his injury. It could see the same for IT - he gets exposed in the playoffs and the way he plays he's an awful risk for a max contract in his 30s. In short, IT could be considered a declining asset. In fact, I could see a $30m/yr IT being a negative asset within two years.
Kyrie - and remember, I'm not a big fan of his - simply going to be a better player longer. That's also a very reasonable assumption. He's also better from contract standpoint and assuming he gets resigned his highly productive lifespan is significantly greater than ITs. While he'll get a bigger contract, Danny's counting on him to continue to improve. Even if he doesn't and he signs a max contract in two years, he's not a declining asset.
So it's not just a matter of peak. It's also a matter of volume of production. And in that area the money is on Kyrie to produce far more than IT. Kyrie at 25 creates a great window for years down the road with Tatum and Brown. If you look at normal player development, those two guys won't hit their true stride for 3-4 more years. By that time IT's probably done as a starter but Irving should be still in his prime.
Now to be fair we lose the possible production of the Nets 2018 pick. That could be HUGE. But we are also likely to gain Marcus Smart for another few years. It was a foregone conclusion that Smart would have to leave in FA if we resigned IT. Now that's not going to happen and it opens up the possibility of bringing Smart back. If that happens - and that's now pretty likely - then that also has to be factored in.
Crowder's role in Boston would be severely curtailed with the addition on Hayward and Tatum. His real value was short term (this year) as guys became more familiar with the team. His long term value was only really a decent contract and while it's still good after this year, his value isn't quite as good @ 2 years, $15m. He's also a declining asset and the closer his contract comes to being up, the less of a real asset he is.
To redefine the equation, it's likely to be:
IT (shorter term) + Nets 2018 + Crowder (shorter term) + Zizic for Kyrie and Smart.
I'm still not saying it's a win. I'm just saying it's not as simple as Irving's peak.
Good post Granath. Just curious, you sound very different than your post earlier today (see page 5). Have you warmed up to the trade?
-
There are only two things that will make me rationalize this trade:
1) Irving really does have Top-5 NBA talent in him, and getting away from LeBron and under the tutelage of Stevens maximizes his production.
2) IT's hip is really that bad.
The second makes me sad to think about, because I like IT too much to hope for anything bad for him. So hopefully Irving really can be that great. He's only 25 -- it's not impossible to believe he has MVP-caliber seasons in his future, and he's already proven himself in the Finals. If he is, then it's a good trade regardless of the price paid, because those players are very rare.
But unless and until Irving is the best player on a title winning Boston team, I'm going to question this deal. I think Irving is a great player, but I don't know that he's great.
This echoes my thoughts exactly.
The onus is on Irving now to prove he is or can be a significant upgrade over Thomas. And by "significant" he has to be better than Thomas by enough to make up the value of losing the Nets pick, Jae & Zizic.
If he isn't, then this trade won't look good.
With all due respect, that may be a limited way to view this trade.
IT is 28. He'll be 29 before the playoffs next season. I think it's a reasonable assumption that given his height, defensive limitations and style of play that he's a major risk for taking a sharp dropoff in production in the coming years. I think IT's a bit more than just a one year wonder but in some ways I think IT is a bit like Rondo. Both shined in systems that were tailor-made for their talents. Rondo came way back to Earth when he wasn't surrounded by sharpshooters and when his athleticism took a hit because of his injury. It could see the same for IT - he gets exposed in the playoffs and the way he plays he's an awful risk for a max contract in his 30s. In short, IT could be considered a declining asset. In fact, I could see a $30m/yr IT being a negative asset within two years.
Kyrie - and remember, I'm not a big fan of his - simply going to be a better player longer. That's also a very reasonable assumption. He's also better from contract standpoint and assuming he gets resigned his highly productive lifespan is significantly greater than ITs. While he'll get a bigger contract, Danny's counting on him to continue to improve. Even if he doesn't and he signs a max contract in two years, he's not a declining asset.
So it's not just a matter of peak. It's also a matter of volume of production. And in that area the money is on Kyrie to produce far more than IT. Kyrie at 25 creates a great window for years down the road with Tatum and Brown. If you look at normal player development, those two guys won't hit their true stride for 3-4 more years. By that time IT's probably done as a starter but Irving should be still in his prime.
Now to be fair we lose the possible production of the Nets 2018 pick. That could be HUGE. But we are also likely to gain Marcus Smart for another few years. It was a foregone conclusion that Smart would have to leave in FA if we resigned IT. Now that's not going to happen and it opens up the possibility of bringing Smart back. If that happens - and that's now pretty likely - then that also has to be factored in.
Crowder's role in Boston would be severely curtailed with the addition on Hayward and Tatum. His real value was short term (this year) as guys became more familiar with the team. His long term value was only really a decent contract and while it's still good after this year, his value isn't quite as good @ 2 years, $15m. He's also a declining asset and the closer his contract comes to being up, the less of a real asset he is.
To redefine the equation, it's likely to be:
IT (shorter term) + Nets 2018 + Crowder (shorter term) + Zizic for Kyrie and Smart.
No. Your math is off. If the was no intention to sign IT long term, then they would have probably kept Smart anyway.
So your equation becomes:
IT (shorter term) + Nets 2018 + Crowder (shorter term) + Zizic for Kyrie
And keep in mind, that you don't re-sign Smart for just one year, right? Assuming he wants a multi-year deal, his salary won't magically evaporate the following year when faced with re-signing Irving in 2019. In 2019-20, the Celtics will have 63M committed to Hayward and Horford and will likely want to max-out Irving, meaning somewhere around 95-100M on those three. If they signed Marcus the year before, then you have to add his contract and suddenly you are around 110M on those 4 players.
Horford's contract expires after that year ... but Jaylen's will as well and he will need to get paid in 2020. And Hayward may or may not re-up on his option.
So the decision next summer (2018) on Smart can't be made just on the basis of having enough room under the tax in 2018. It has to be made in anticipation of where it puts us in the next few years.
So there is still a significant question as to whether Smart will be re-signed next Summer.
I'm still not saying it's a win. I'm just saying it's not as simple as Irving's peak.
This is fair. Though their are lots of mitigating adjustments that one can start to throw in pro/con. (For example, what is the perception cost around the league for this?) I still think the onus is on Irving to prove to be quite a bit more valuable than Isaiah in order for this trade to be looked back as a "win".
-
There are only two things that will make me rationalize this trade:
1) Irving really does have Top-5 NBA talent in him, and getting away from LeBron and under the tutelage of Stevens maximizes his production.
2) IT's hip is really that bad.
The second makes me sad to think about, because I like IT too much to hope for anything bad for him. So hopefully Irving really can be that great. He's only 25 -- it's not impossible to believe he has MVP-caliber seasons in his future, and he's already proven himself in the Finals. If he is, then it's a good trade regardless of the price paid, because those players are very rare.
But unless and until Irving is the best player on a title winning Boston team, I'm going to question this deal. I think Irving is a great player, but I don't know that he's great.
This echoes my thoughts exactly.
The onus is on Irving now to prove he is or can be a significant upgrade over Thomas. And by "significant" he has to be better than Thomas by enough to make up the value of losing the Nets pick, Jae & Zizic.
If he isn't, then this trade won't look good.
With all due respect, that may be a limited way to view this trade.
IT is 28. He'll be 29 before the playoffs next season. I think it's a reasonable assumption that given his height, defensive limitations and style of play that he's a major risk for taking a sharp dropoff in production in the coming years. I think IT's a bit more than just a one year wonder but in some ways I think IT is a bit like Rondo. Both shined in systems that were tailor-made for their talents. Rondo came way back to Earth when he wasn't surrounded by sharpshooters and when his athleticism took a hit because of his injury. It could see the same for IT - he gets exposed in the playoffs and the way he plays he's an awful risk for a max contract in his 30s. In short, IT could be considered a declining asset. In fact, I could see a $30m/yr IT being a negative asset within two years.
Kyrie - and remember, I'm not a big fan of his - simply going to be a better player longer. That's also a very reasonable assumption. He's also better from contract standpoint and assuming he gets resigned his highly productive lifespan is significantly greater than ITs. While he'll get a bigger contract, Danny's counting on him to continue to improve. Even if he doesn't and he signs a max contract in two years, he's not a declining asset.
So it's not just a matter of peak. It's also a matter of volume of production. And in that area the money is on Kyrie to produce far more than IT. Kyrie at 25 creates a great window for years down the road with Tatum and Brown. If you look at normal player development, those two guys won't hit their true stride for 3-4 more years. By that time IT's probably done as a starter but Irving should be still in his prime.
Now to be fair we lose the possible production of the Nets 2018 pick. That could be HUGE. But we are also likely to gain Marcus Smart for another few years. It was a foregone conclusion that Smart would have to leave in FA if we resigned IT. Now that's not going to happen and it opens up the possibility of bringing Smart back. If that happens - and that's now pretty likely - then that also has to be factored in.
Crowder's role in Boston would be severely curtailed with the addition on Hayward and Tatum. His real value was short term (this year) as guys became more familiar with the team. His long term value was only really a decent contract and while it's still good after this year, his value isn't quite as good @ 2 years, $15m. He's also a declining asset and the closer his contract comes to being up, the less of a real asset he is.
To redefine the equation, it's likely to be:
IT (shorter term) + Nets 2018 + Crowder (shorter term) + Zizic for Kyrie and Smart.
I'm still not saying it's a win. I'm just saying it's not as simple as Irving's peak.
Good post Granath. Just curious, you sound very different than your post earlier today (see page 5). Have you warmed up to the trade?
Surf, much respect.
It's a steep price to pay and carries an awful lot of risk. What happens if Irving isn't as good and Lebron made him better? What happens if he doesn't re-sign? What happens if Zizic turns out to be a stud? What happens if the pick ends up in the top 3 (or even worse, #1) in what looks like a loaded draft?
Plus, I truly hope he makes me eat my words but I'm not Irving's biggest fan.
I understand the trade but it doesn't mean I like it. I was concerned about re-signing IT and losing Smart. I was worried about IT being exposed in the playoffs against bigger players. Danny obviously was concerned about the same things. But I think we paid a King's Ransom and I didn't want to do that unless we got a true superstar. I'm not sure Irving fits that bill.
-
There are only two things that will make me rationalize this trade:
1) Irving really does have Top-5 NBA talent in him, and getting away from LeBron and under the tutelage of Stevens maximizes his production.
2) IT's hip is really that bad.
The second makes me sad to think about, because I like IT too much to hope for anything bad for him. So hopefully Irving really can be that great. He's only 25 -- it's not impossible to believe he has MVP-caliber seasons in his future, and he's already proven himself in the Finals. If he is, then it's a good trade regardless of the price paid, because those players are very rare.
But unless and until Irving is the best player on a title winning Boston team, I'm going to question this deal. I think Irving is a great player, but I don't know that he's great.
This echoes my thoughts exactly.
The onus is on Irving now to prove he is or can be a significant upgrade over Thomas. And by "significant" he has to be better than Thomas by enough to make up the value of losing the Nets pick, Jae & Zizic.
If he isn't, then this trade won't look good.
With all due respect, that may be a limited way to view this trade.
IT is 28. He'll be 29 before the playoffs next season. I think it's a reasonable assumption that given his height, defensive limitations and style of play that he's a major risk for taking a sharp dropoff in production in the coming years. I think IT's a bit more than just a one year wonder but in some ways I think IT is a bit like Rondo. Both shined in systems that were tailor-made for their talents. Rondo came way back to Earth when he wasn't surrounded by sharpshooters and when his athleticism took a hit because of his injury. It could see the same for IT - he gets exposed in the playoffs and the way he plays he's an awful risk for a max contract in his 30s. In short, IT could be considered a declining asset. In fact, I could see a $30m/yr IT being a negative asset within two years.
Kyrie - and remember, I'm not a big fan of his - simply going to be a better player longer. That's also a very reasonable assumption. He's also better from contract standpoint and assuming he gets resigned his highly productive lifespan is significantly greater than ITs. While he'll get a bigger contract, Danny's counting on him to continue to improve. Even if he doesn't and he signs a max contract in two years, he's not a declining asset.
So it's not just a matter of peak. It's also a matter of volume of production. And in that area the money is on Kyrie to produce far more than IT. Kyrie at 25 creates a great window for years down the road with Tatum and Brown. If you look at normal player development, those two guys won't hit their true stride for 3-4 more years. By that time IT's probably done as a starter but Irving should be still in his prime.
Now to be fair we lose the possible production of the Nets 2018 pick. That could be HUGE. But we are also likely to gain Marcus Smart for another few years. It was a foregone conclusion that Smart would have to leave in FA if we resigned IT. Now that's not going to happen and it opens up the possibility of bringing Smart back. If that happens - and that's now pretty likely - then that also has to be factored in.
Crowder's role in Boston would be severely curtailed with the addition on Hayward and Tatum. His real value was short term (this year) as guys became more familiar with the team. His long term value was only really a decent contract and while it's still good after this year, his value isn't quite as good @ 2 years, $15m. He's also a declining asset and the closer his contract comes to being up, the less of a real asset he is.
To redefine the equation, it's likely to be:
IT (shorter term) + Nets 2018 + Crowder (shorter term) + Zizic for Kyrie and Smart.
No. Your math is off. If the was no intention to sign IT long term, then they would have probably kept Smart anyway.
So your equation becomes:
IT (shorter term) + Nets 2018 + Crowder (shorter term) + Zizic for Kyrie
And keep in mind, that you don't re-sign Smart for just one year, right? Assuming he wants a multi-year deal, his salary won't magically evaporate the following year when faced with re-signing Irving in 2019. In 2019-20, the Celtics will have 63M committed to Hayward and Horford and will likely want to max-out Irving, meaning somewhere around 95-100M on those three. If they signed Marcus the year before, then you have to add his contract and suddenly you are around 110M on those 4 players.
Horford's contract expires after that year ... but Jaylen's will as well and he will need to get paid in 2020. And Hayward may or may not re-up on his option.
So the decision next summer (2018) on Smart can't be made just on the basis of having enough room under the tax in 2018. It has to be made in anticipation of where it puts us in the next few years.
So there is still a significant question as to whether Smart will be re-signed next Summer.
I'm still not saying it's a win. I'm just saying it's not as simple as Irving's peak.
This is fair. Though their are lots of mitigating adjustments that one can start to throw in pro/con. (For example, what is the perception cost around the league for this?) I still think the onus is on Irving to prove to be quite a bit more valuable than Isaiah in order for this trade to be looked back as a "win".
You misunderstand.
I don't think that they would have kept Smart over IT. I think Danny would have signed IT and let Smart go. I think (and it's fairly obvious now) that he had concerns about doing so - but when push comes to shove he'd have done it if he didn't have other options.
So that's why Marcus is on the Irving side of this equation.
-
Here take my hand...
...1. We were not paying IT $35 mil a year and 2. He's 29 going on 30 coming off a hip injury. and 3. Kyrie is 25 and not even in his prime yet.
Welcome back.
1. That's true, mostly because the max he can get will be 30% of the cap and the cap isn't rising to $116 million next year. He literally can't get $35 million per year
2. He's 28 and turns 29 in February. That is not "29 going on 30"
3. No arguments there
You are one of the cap kings around here so you should know better, BJ.
Just based on this year's $99M cap, a player in the 7-9 year range signing a 5 year max contract with 8% raises would make a total of just over $172M over the course of that contract ($34.4M/yr). There just needs to be a $1M increase in the cap next year for IT to sign a $35M/yr contract.
Personally, I don't think Danny was ever going to sign IT to the max and I don't think Cleveland will either. Cleveland will give it one big last shot this year and then immediately look to rebuild with a prime pick. That is [unfortunately] why the price was so high. I know I was wrong about what we had to give up (overrating IT's value, underrating Kyrie's 'trade demand' value).
He's not signing a 5 year max deal, though. I don't think there was even a chance of getting it from us (3 year max at most, 4 or 5 years only at a discount), and there's definitely no chance he gets it in CLE or elsewhere. A 3 year deal puts him at ~$97.5 million over three years (assuming a modest cap raise next year, which seems likely). But even then 1st year cap hit is what we really need to worry about as far as resigning Smart goes (which should be the only concern this summer since we have no cap space no matter what. And 2019 Morris comes off the cap sheet, which lightens the lead a bit, and 2020 Horford and Hayward should come off)
How did this trade affect our cap room? Did we bring in more salary with the Irving acquisition? I'm assuming so since Cleveland supposedly saved a bunch in luxury tax.
-
Here take my hand...
...1. We were not paying IT $35 mil a year and 2. He's 29 going on 30 coming off a hip injury. and 3. Kyrie is 25 and not even in his prime yet.
Welcome back.
1. That's true, mostly because the max he can get will be 30% of the cap and the cap isn't rising to $116 million next year. He literally can't get $35 million per year
2. He's 28 and turns 29 in February. That is not "29 going on 30"
3. No arguments there
You are one of the cap kings around here so you should know better, BJ.
Just based on this year's $99M cap, a player in the 7-9 year range signing a 5 year max contract with 8% raises would make a total of just over $172M over the course of that contract ($34.4M/yr). There just needs to be a $1M increase in the cap next year for IT to sign a $35M/yr contract.
Personally, I don't think Danny was ever going to sign IT to the max and I don't think Cleveland will either. Cleveland will give it one big last shot this year and then immediately look to rebuild with a prime pick. That is [unfortunately] why the price was so high. I know I was wrong about what we had to give up (overrating IT's value, underrating Kyrie's 'trade demand' value).
He's not signing a 5 year max deal, though. I don't think there was even a chance of getting it from us (3 year max at most, 4 or 5 years only at a discount), and there's definitely no chance he gets it in CLE or elsewhere. A 3 year deal puts him at ~$97.5 million over three years (assuming a modest cap raise next year, which seems likely). But even then 1st year cap hit is what we really need to worry about as far as resigning Smart goes (which should be the only concern this summer since we have no cap space no matter what. And 2019 Morris comes off the cap sheet, which lightens the lead a bit, and 2020 Horford and Hayward should come off)
How did this trade affect our cap room? Did we bring in more salary with the Irving acquisition? I'm assuming so since Cleveland supposedly saved a bunch in luxury tax.
No matter what, we have no cap room and will have none for the foreseeable future. That's okay, though, there's still plenty we can do without cap room.
We brought in more salary than we sent out for this season, but for next year we should have significantly less. We sent out IT's $6.3 million, Jae's $7.8 million, and Zizic's $1.6 million in return for Kyrie's $18.9 million, which adds ~$3.2 million to our cap this year (if we add another vet minimum or 2, that could rise to $6.2 million). However, we're under the tax line after this trade, meaning that the added salary doesn't really matter. Next year, though, we'll be swapping IT's $25 million (being conservative), Jae's $7.3 million, Zizic's $2 million, and the salary for the Nets' first rounder (being conservative we'll say $4 million) for Irving's $20.1 million. This is a savings of ~$18 million next year, which should mean we can bring back Smart without worrying about luxury tax (and, more importantly, delaying when repeater tax rates would start for us by another year)
-
There are only two things that will make me rationalize this trade:
1) Irving really does have Top-5 NBA talent in him, and getting away from LeBron and under the tutelage of Stevens maximizes his production.
2) IT's hip is really that bad.
The second makes me sad to think about, because I like IT too much to hope for anything bad for him. So hopefully Irving really can be that great. He's only 25 -- it's not impossible to believe he has MVP-caliber seasons in his future, and he's already proven himself in the Finals. If he is, then it's a good trade regardless of the price paid, because those players are very rare.
But unless and until Irving is the best player on a title winning Boston team, I'm going to question this deal. I think Irving is a great player, but I don't know that he's great.
This echoes my thoughts exactly.
The onus is on Irving now to prove he is or can be a significant upgrade over Thomas. And by "significant" he has to be better than Thomas by enough to make up the value of losing the Nets pick, Jae & Zizic.
If he isn't, then this trade won't look good.
With all due respect, that may be a limited way to view this trade.
IT is 28. He'll be 29 before the playoffs next season. I think it's a reasonable assumption that given his height, defensive limitations and style of play that he's a major risk for taking a sharp dropoff in production in the coming years. I think IT's a bit more than just a one year wonder but in some ways I think IT is a bit like Rondo. Both shined in systems that were tailor-made for their talents. Rondo came way back to Earth when he wasn't surrounded by sharpshooters and when his athleticism took a hit because of his injury. It could see the same for IT - he gets exposed in the playoffs and the way he plays he's an awful risk for a max contract in his 30s. In short, IT could be considered a declining asset. In fact, I could see a $30m/yr IT being a negative asset within two years.
Kyrie - and remember, I'm not a big fan of his - simply going to be a better player longer. That's also a very reasonable assumption. He's also better from contract standpoint and assuming he gets resigned his highly productive lifespan is significantly greater than ITs. While he'll get a bigger contract, Danny's counting on him to continue to improve. Even if he doesn't and he signs a max contract in two years, he's not a declining asset.
So it's not just a matter of peak. It's also a matter of volume of production. And in that area the money is on Kyrie to produce far more than IT. Kyrie at 25 creates a great window for years down the road with Tatum and Brown. If you look at normal player development, those two guys won't hit their true stride for 3-4 more years. By that time IT's probably done as a starter but Irving should be still in his prime.
Now to be fair we lose the possible production of the Nets 2018 pick. That could be HUGE. But we are also likely to gain Marcus Smart for another few years. It was a foregone conclusion that Smart would have to leave in FA if we resigned IT. Now that's not going to happen and it opens up the possibility of bringing Smart back. If that happens - and that's now pretty likely - then that also has to be factored in.
Crowder's role in Boston would be severely curtailed with the addition on Hayward and Tatum. His real value was short term (this year) as guys became more familiar with the team. His long term value was only really a decent contract and while it's still good after this year, his value isn't quite as good @ 2 years, $15m. He's also a declining asset and the closer his contract comes to being up, the less of a real asset he is.
To redefine the equation, it's likely to be:
IT (shorter term) + Nets 2018 + Crowder (shorter term) + Zizic for Kyrie and Smart.
No. Your math is off. If the was no intention to sign IT long term, then they would have probably kept Smart anyway.
So your equation becomes:
IT (shorter term) + Nets 2018 + Crowder (shorter term) + Zizic for Kyrie
And keep in mind, that you don't re-sign Smart for just one year, right? Assuming he wants a multi-year deal, his salary won't magically evaporate the following year when faced with re-signing Irving in 2019. In 2019-20, the Celtics will have 63M committed to Hayward and Horford and will likely want to max-out Irving, meaning somewhere around 95-100M on those three. If they signed Marcus the year before, then you have to add his contract and suddenly you are around 110M on those 4 players.
Horford's contract expires after that year ... but Jaylen's will as well and he will need to get paid in 2020. And Hayward may or may not re-up on his option.
So the decision next summer (2018) on Smart can't be made just on the basis of having enough room under the tax in 2018. It has to be made in anticipation of where it puts us in the next few years.
So there is still a significant question as to whether Smart will be re-signed next Summer.
I'm still not saying it's a win. I'm just saying it's not as simple as Irving's peak.
This is fair. Though their are lots of mitigating adjustments that one can start to throw in pro/con. (For example, what is the perception cost around the league for this?) I still think the onus is on Irving to prove to be quite a bit more valuable than Isaiah in order for this trade to be looked back as a "win".
You misunderstand.
I don't think that they would have kept Smart over IT. I think Danny would have signed IT and let Smart go. I think (and it's fairly obvious now) that he had concerns about doing so - but when push comes to shove he'd have done it if he didn't have other options.
So that's why Marcus is on the Irving side of this equation.
My first point is that you put "IT (shorter term)" on the left. That means you are trading off an assumption of NOT signing IT long term. If that is what is being traded away, then Smart can't be on the right side. Because keeping Smart trades off against "IT (long term)".
And my second point is, given that they added Irving (and assuming they will sign him in 2019 to a new max deal), that doesn't really settle the question of whether they will sign Smart in 2018. The Irving trade only relieves salary pressure by a few million for the one season. Then it jumps back up and then some.
-
And my second point is, given that they added Irving (and assuming they will sign him in 2019 to a new max deal), that doesn't really settle the question of whether they will sign Smart in 2018. The Irving trade only relieves salary pressure by a few million for the one season. Then it jumps back up and then some.
As it stands right now, this trade saves us $25M in 2018-19 versus keeping IT (max deal), Crowder and the pick. Which allows us to have Irving AND Smart if we want. We'll happily eat the luxury tax for 1 year in 2019-20, after which Horford comes off that summer at $30M. Contenders are regularly spending $200M+ including luxury tax and we'll have managed to avoid it for 3 good years already.
-
Here take my hand...
...1. We were not paying IT $35 mil a year and 2. He's 29 going on 30 coming off a hip injury. and 3. Kyrie is 25 and not even in his prime yet.
Welcome back.
1. That's true, mostly because the max he can get will be 30% of the cap and the cap isn't rising to $116 million next year. He literally can't get $35 million per year
2. He's 28 and turns 29 in February. That is not "29 going on 30"
3. No arguments there
You are one of the cap kings around here so you should know better, BJ.
Just based on this year's $99M cap, a player in the 7-9 year range signing a 5 year max contract with 8% raises would make a total of just over $172M over the course of that contract ($34.4M/yr). There just needs to be a $1M increase in the cap next year for IT to sign a $35M/yr contract.
Personally, I don't think Danny was ever going to sign IT to the max and I don't think Cleveland will either. Cleveland will give it one big last shot this year and then immediately look to rebuild with a prime pick. That is [unfortunately] why the price was so high. I know I was wrong about what we had to give up (overrating IT's value, underrating Kyrie's 'trade demand' value).
He's not signing a 5 year max deal, though. I don't think there was even a chance of getting it from us (3 year max at most, 4 or 5 years only at a discount), and there's definitely no chance he gets it in CLE or elsewhere. A 3 year deal puts him at ~$97.5 million over three years (assuming a modest cap raise next year, which seems likely). But even then 1st year cap hit is what we really need to worry about as far as resigning Smart goes (which should be the only concern this summer since we have no cap space no matter what. And 2019 Morris comes off the cap sheet, which lightens the lead a bit, and 2020 Horford and Hayward should come off)
How did this trade affect our cap room? Did we bring in more salary with the Irving acquisition? I'm assuming so since Cleveland supposedly saved a bunch in luxury tax.
We have no cap room and will not have cap room for the foreseeable future unless a trade happens.
The Irving trade added a few million in 2017-18 salary, but it also alleviated some in 2018-19 and forward because we no longer have the 2018 Nets pick, which probably would have cost 4-7M per. Of course, we won't have that draft pick and will have someone else instead in that roster slot so how much that saves isn't clear.
Our current salary schedule looks roughly like so:
2017-18: 111.5M 15 players with guaranteed contracts, 1 more with non-guaranteed.
2018-19: 107.4M 9 players guaranteed, 2 team options (Brown 5.1M & Rozier 3.0M), Smart & Baynes will be free agents.
2019-20: 105.9M 5 players guaranteed, Al Horford likely to opt-in on 30M, Irving likely to opt-out on 21.3M, 3 team options (Tatum 7.8M, Brown 6.5M, Yabu 3.1M. Morris, Rozier & Theis will be FAs.
The salary totals are committed money for the players noted. We obviously have to field more players than currently contracted in the future years so the actual numbers will be much higher.
Assuming the team opts-in on Brown & Rozier, and given that we still have two first round picks in 2018, any contract for Smart over about 13M probably puts us over the tax threshold for that year.
And you have to add that contract plus the ones for the two picks to the salary number for 2019-20 so that is also likely close to or over the tax threshold ... and then you add another ~10M or so for Kyrie's likely salary bump on a new contract. So plan on being way over the tax threshold in 2019-20.
In 2020, Horford's contract comes off the books. He either takes a pay cut or walks at that point in his career, so you get some salary relief. But two things could dramatically affect the budget in that year. (1) Hayward will have a player option on his 34M salary and (2) Jaylen will be a Restricted Free Agent.
If we don't sign Smart, then we can slip under the luxury tax through 2018-19. But we'll probably go over regardless in 2019-20, at least for that one year.
-
I talked myself off the ledge today and am now in favor of the trade. Here is why:
-- Danny Ainge has a clear track record of not investing in players who have suffered significant lower leg injuries. Tony Allen, Kendrick Perkins, Rajon Rondo - all key contributors to the only championship in 30 years - all either traded just prior to free agency or let go. IT falls into this category due to his hip issue. It confirms to me that Danny was never going to resign him, especially for anything resembling max money. Given this, IT had to be traded or let go. Coming off his best season of his life, even with the injury, his trade value was too high to not use.
-- Crowder, while incredibly useful and affordable, had to be included to make the salaries match. I wish that wasn't the case but it is what it is. However, this now opens up the path for the emergence of Jaylen Brown and Jayson Tatum (and maybe Semi). I have to believe that Danny and Brad feel that Jaylen is ready for 25+ minutes a game. With Crowder and Marcus here, that is not possible.
-- Brooklyn may be a horrible team again next year but they added enough in the offseason to scrap towards 30 wins. I would not be surprised if that happens given the dumpster fire that is the Eastern Conference. The unprotected pick Danny gave up may wind up being 6-through-10. That is worth trading for Kyrie Irving, every time.
-
I talked myself off the ledge today and am now in favor of the trade. Here is why:
-- Danny Ainge has a clear track record of not investing in players who have suffered significant lower leg injuries. Tony Allen, Kendrick Perkins, Rajon Rondo - all key contributors to the only championship in 30 years - all either traded just prior to free agency or let go. IT falls into this category due to his hip issue. It confirms to me that Danny was never going to resign him, especially for anything resembling max money. Given this, IT had to be traded or let go. Coming off his best season of his life, even with the injury, his trade value was too high to not use.
-- Crowder, while incredibly useful and affordable, had to be included to make the salaries match. I wish that wasn't the case but it is what it is. However, this now opens up the path for the emergence of Jaylen Brown and Jayson Tatum (and maybe Semi). I have to believe that Danny and Brad feel that Jaylen is ready for 25+ minutes a game. With Crowder and Marcus here, that is not possible.
-- Brooklyn may be a horrible team again next year but they added enough in the offseason to scrap towards 30 wins. I would not be surprised if that happens given the dumpster fire that is the Eastern Conference. The unprotected pick Danny gave up may wind up being 6-through-10. That is worth trading for Kyrie Irving, every time.
I have managed to talk myself into this somehow too but I am probably just being ridiculous.
-
And my second point is, given that they added Irving (and assuming they will sign him in 2019 to a new max deal), that doesn't really settle the question of whether they will sign Smart in 2018. The Irving trade only relieves salary pressure by a few million for the one season. Then it jumps back up and then some.
As it stands right now, this trade saves us $25M in 2018-19 versus keeping IT (max deal), Crowder and the pick. Which allows us to have Irving AND Smart if we want. We'll happily eat the luxury tax for 1 year in 2019-20, after which Horford comes off that summer at $30M. Contenders are regularly spending $200M+ including luxury tax and we'll have managed to avoid it for 3 good years already.
Where are you getting $25M?
See my breakdown above. Yes, it is possible to sign Smart in 2018 and squeeze under the luxury tax, but it depends on (a) what the scale contracts are for the one or two draft picks we still have for that year end up as and (b) how much we sign Smart for. If the LAL18 pick comes in then that contract (which would be a 2-5 pick) would be between 4.4M and 6M.
If the LAL18 pick does not vest, then that saves that space and pushes that off to the next year as the SAC19 pick.
We already have 107.4M budgeted on 11 players. Smart plus the two picks would be 13 so we could stop there. Cheapest case is we don't get the LAL18 pick so we only need to budget room for our own pick and a minimum contract, so that puts us at about 110M before adding Smart. Based on the estimates I've seen, the tax threshold should be right around 122M. So that leaves about 12M of room for Smart's contract.
Do we think that any other team will make an offer sheet for that much or more for Smart?
If the LAL18 pick conveys, of course, the budget room is much smaller, perhaps half that.
Of the 11 players already budgeted for, we could free up 3M by declining Rozier's option. So if Danny really really wants Marcus, he can squeeze a little more room there.
-
I talked myself off the ledge today and am now in favor of the trade. Here is why:
-- Danny Ainge has a clear track record of not investing in players who have suffered significant lower leg injuries. Tony Allen, Kendrick Perkins, Rajon Rondo - all key contributors to the only championship in 30 years - all either traded just prior to free agency or let go. IT falls into this category due to his hip issue. It confirms to me that Danny was never going to resign him, especially for anything resembling max money. Given this, IT had to be traded or let go. Coming off his best season of his life, even with the injury, his trade value was too high to not use.
-- Crowder, while incredibly useful and affordable, had to be included to make the salaries match. I wish that wasn't the case but it is what it is. However, this now opens up the path for the emergence of Jaylen Brown and Jayson Tatum (and maybe Semi). I have to believe that Danny and Brad feel that Jaylen is ready for 25+ minutes a game. With Crowder and Marcus here, that is not possible.
-- Brooklyn may be a horrible team again next year but they added enough in the offseason to scrap towards 30 wins. I would not be surprised if that happens given the dumpster fire that is the Eastern Conference. The unprotected pick Danny gave up may wind up being 6-through-10. That is worth trading for Kyrie Irving, every time.
I have managed to talk myself into this somehow too but I am probably just being ridiculous.
The Nets are still going to be bad but the good news is the bottom of the East is going to be worse than it was last year. The Hawks and Bulls are going to be atrocious and depending on what happens with the Pacers, Knicks, and Magic we could wind up seeing 2-4 teams outright tanking in the East. Out West, the Lakers, Suns, and Kings should all be pretty bad too.
I can't convince myself that the Nets will win more than 28 games, at the most, but I can see a universe where there are 5-6 teams that win 27 games or fewer.