CelticsStrong

Celtics Basketball => Celtics Talk => Topic started by: dweeks7 on September 09, 2017, 11:49:26 AM

Title: Why the Celtics won the Kyrie Irving trade
Post by: dweeks7 on September 09, 2017, 11:49:26 AM
The reason Boston won the Kyrie Irving trade is they got an all-star player and Cleveland did not get an all-star player. Yes Isaiah Thomas was an all-star but I think it's very likely he will never perform again like he performed this year. Multiple reports are saying his hip injury is much more serious than initially reported. I hate this for Isaiah by the way.

Now I move on to Crowder and Zizic. Both good players but not all-stars. Besides the 2018 Nets pick I would argue the biggest loss for Boston is Zizic because I think he is going to end up being a rebounding machine. Boston still got the best player for now and the future.

Last but not least is the 2018 Nets pick. Many predictions are predicting the Nets to finish with a better record than Atlanta, Chicago, Indiana, Phoenix, New York, Los Angeles(not sure I agree on this) and possibly Sacremento. Assuming the Nets finish 5th there are only 2 potential franchise players as it looks right now. The Cavaliers have a shot at a very good player picking 5th but there is no guarantee that player will be an all-star player and more than likely won't be.

Based on this I would say the Celtics won the trade but not by much. People saying Cleveland won the trade probably have a good argument but only time will tell and I think the future will prove the Celtics won the trade.
Title: Re: Why the Celtics won the Kyrie Irving trade
Post by: makaveli on September 09, 2017, 12:11:58 PM
your hole post is "based" on predictions:

1.
"Yes Isaiah Thomas was an all-star but I think it's very likely he will never perform again like he performed this year."

nobody knows when will he be back or how good will he be. So this can be in range from he will be back by allstar game and cavs will win a chip, to he will be back at some point of this season and they will have to shut him down.

2.
"Zizic because I think he is going to end up being a rebounding machine."

Zizic has done nothing but disappoint so far. His "high" motor was not that high at all, but rebounding was fair. He will most likely be a Tristan Thopson off the bench for the Cavs, best case scenario.

3.
"Last but not least is the 2018 Nets pick. Many predictions are predicting the Nets to finish with a better record than Atlanta, Chicago, Indiana, Phoenix, New York, Los Angeles(not sure I agree on this) and possibly Sacremento"

Don't get me started on the pick...worst team doesn't mean they will get #1 pick, and even if they do, no way of telling what type of a player you get in return, especially when that "stud" would be playing on a championship level team and his development would be seriously slowed down

4.
Kyrie Irving
Who knows what will he and Gordon bring to the table

Bottom line: i do think we won the trade as well, only because the fact that Kyrie is the best player and under contract + the fact that we made a lot of space for our young guys to develop.

Everything else, only time will tell
Title: Re: Why the Celtics won the Kyrie Irving trade
Post by: Bucketgetter on September 09, 2017, 12:24:55 PM
your hole post is "based" on predictions:

1.
"Yes Isaiah Thomas was an all-star but I think it's very likely he will never perform again like he performed this year."

nobody knows when will he be back or how good will he be. So this can be in range from he will be back by allstar game and cavs will win a chip, to he will be back at some point of this season and they will have to shut him down.

2.
"Zizic because I think he is going to end up being a rebounding machine."

Zizic has done nothing but disappoint so far. His "high" motor was not that high at all, but rebounding was fair. He will most likely be a Tristan Thopson off the bench for the Cavs, best case scenario.

3.
"Last but not least is the 2018 Nets pick. Many predictions are predicting the Nets to finish with a better record than Atlanta, Chicago, Indiana, Phoenix, New York, Los Angeles(not sure I agree on this) and possibly Sacremento"

Don't get me started on the pick...worst team doesn't mean they will get #1 pick, and even if they do, no way of telling what type of a player you get in return, especially when that "stud" would be playing on a championship level team and his development would be seriously slowed down

4.
Kyrie Irving
Who knows what will he and Gordon bring to the table

Bottom line: i do think we won the trade as well, only because the fact that Kyrie is the best player and under contract + the fact that we made a lot of space for our young guys to develop.

Everything else, only time will tell
So I guess you hate Tatum and Brown then?
Title: Re: Why the Celtics won the Kyrie Irving trade
Post by: rollie mass on September 09, 2017, 12:31:30 PM
Zizic has not played a NBA game is  so young and his outside game doesn't exist at this time
At his age and experience he will be foul prone
Isaiah is out, the draft is next year and crowder shot well but was taking minutes from hayward ,tatum,brown-he might have instigated some problems he couldn't win-
semi can be as good as crowder shoots the three,better lateral,more vertical a has work ethic and high character-did i forget defensive DNA
This trade favors Boston in near and intermediate time span

If iIT had stayed and was hurt most of season-the celts would certainly be worse off ,if he comes back damaged and asked for brinks truck next season -that was it

We got a superstar with playoff experience that has chemistry with hayward,younger and just set free.Now with Brad as his coach after 3 Lebron puppets
-A four times all star, playoff finals three times-clutch,best ball handler in league and able to jell with a whole new cast of players
Title: Re: Why the Celtics won the Kyrie Irving trade
Post by: Roy H. on September 09, 2017, 12:35:56 PM
The Celts got an all-star and the Cavs potentially got two all-stars.

Title: Re: Why the Celtics won the Kyrie Irving trade
Post by: CelticsElite on September 09, 2017, 12:36:51 PM
your hole post is "based" on predictions:

1.
"Yes Isaiah Thomas was an all-star but I think it's very likely he will never perform again like he performed this year."

nobody knows when will he be back or how good will he be. So this can be in range from he will be back by allstar game and cavs will win a chip, to he will be back at some point of this season and they will have to shut him down.

2.
"Zizic because I think he is going to end up being a rebounding machine."

Zizic has done nothing but disappoint so far. His "high" motor was not that high at all, but rebounding was fair. He will most likely be a Tristan Thopson off the bench for the Cavs, best case scenario.

3.
"Last but not least is the 2018 Nets pick. Many predictions are predicting the Nets to finish with a better record than Atlanta, Chicago, Indiana, Phoenix, New York, Los Angeles(not sure I agree on this) and possibly Sacremento"

Don't get me started on the pick...worst team doesn't mean they will get #1 pick, and even if they do, no way of telling what type of a player you get in return, especially when that "stud" would be playing on a championship level team and his development would be seriously slowed down

4.
Kyrie Irving
Who knows what will he and Gordon bring to the table

Bottom line: i do think we won the trade as well, only because the fact that Kyrie is the best player and under contract + the fact that we made a lot of space for our young guys to develop.

Everything else, only time will tell
So I guess you hate Tatum and Brown then?
kind of a nitpick when he had many valid points
Title: Re: Why the Celtics won the Kyrie Irving trade
Post by: Boris Badenov on September 09, 2017, 12:40:02 PM
I found some recent over/under numbers for BKN:

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2730296-las-vegas-sets-overunder-win-totals-for-all-nba-teams-warriors-at-675

This would put them in the 3rd slot.

I've looked at a few of these and I think it's fair to say they have moved from "clearly the worst" to "one of the worst 3-4."

Lots of uncertainty about these predictions however, as Brooklyn and Chicago have significant roster turnover, and PHO has all those young guys.

tl;dr: We can be confident that Brooklyn will be bad, but can't say much more than that.
Title: Re: Why the Celtics won the Kyrie Irving trade
Post by: CelticsElite on September 09, 2017, 12:42:14 PM
The Celts got an all-star and the Cavs potentially got two all-stars.
I don't think the cavs got even 1 all star. Post hip injury IT should look different. He still isn't running. can the pick be an all star? Maybe but not a sure thing. See: Anthony Bennett. Tristan Thompson
Title: Re: Why the Celtics won the Kyrie Irving trade
Post by: Bucketgetter on September 09, 2017, 12:44:27 PM
your hole post is "based" on predictions:

1.
"Yes Isaiah Thomas was an all-star but I think it's very likely he will never perform again like he performed this year."

nobody knows when will he be back or how good will he be. So this can be in range from he will be back by allstar game and cavs will win a chip, to he will be back at some point of this season and they will have to shut him down.

2.
"Zizic because I think he is going to end up being a rebounding machine."

Zizic has done nothing but disappoint so far. His "high" motor was not that high at all, but rebounding was fair. He will most likely be a Tristan Thopson off the bench for the Cavs, best case scenario.

3.
"Last but not least is the 2018 Nets pick. Many predictions are predicting the Nets to finish with a better record than Atlanta, Chicago, Indiana, Phoenix, New York, Los Angeles(not sure I agree on this) and possibly Sacremento"

Don't get me started on the pick...worst team doesn't mean they will get #1 pick, and even if they do, no way of telling what type of a player you get in return, especially when that "stud" would be playing on a championship level team and his development would be seriously slowed down

4.
Kyrie Irving
Who knows what will he and Gordon bring to the table

Bottom line: i do think we won the trade as well, only because the fact that Kyrie is the best player and under contract + the fact that we made a lot of space for our young guys to develop.

Everything else, only time will tell
So I guess you hate Tatum and Brown then?
kind of a nitpick when he had many valid points
Actually not at all. The Brooklyn pick was a huge part of the trade, and if you’re under the notion that the pick wouldn’t have developed in Boston anyway since we’re too good, you probably don’t think Tatum and Brown will develop. Which would significantly hurt us in the future..
Title: Re: Why the Celtics won the Kyrie Irving trade
Post by: Donoghus on September 09, 2017, 12:51:23 PM
It's most likely going to take years before you can figure out who "won" this trade.
Title: Re: Why the Celtics won the Kyrie Irving trade
Post by: nebist on September 09, 2017, 01:03:22 PM
Bottom line is it comes down to the Nets pick.

It, Crowder, Zizic and a 1st rounder is a fair deal for Kyrie considering his contract/age/injury situation compared to Isaiah's.  However, IT, Crowder, Zizic, and a top 5 pick for Kyrie is an overpay based on what other stars have fetched.  I still think BRK will be extremely bad and likely deliver a top 5 pick, so it does seem like an overpay in the moment to me.  However, I'd be happy to be proven wrong.  If BRK does improve, and that pick is more in the 6-10 range, I'd be willing to admit I was wrong on the price point and would relinquish any 2nd guesses (even if that 6-10 players turns into a star).  I guess I'm saying the BRK pick would have to have been protected at the least 1-3 for me to feel comfortable making the trade.  Again, hopefully I'm too conservative there and Danny made a good gamble.  We'll see.
Title: Re: Why the Celtics won the Kyrie Irving trade
Post by: More Banners on September 09, 2017, 01:07:22 PM
Kyrie is a pretty sure thing, a safe bet. IT is definitely not a sure thing, with one rehab season left under contract. Draft picks are the opposite of safe bet.

I'd have to say this deal was close to a no-brainer for a team with Hayward, Horford, Brown, and Tatum.

For Cleveland, they were on the hot seat and had to deal, and got the return you should get for a star in a project (Zizic),  good pick, and player (Crowder), the second rounder, and the injured IT.  Nice for them. They might still compete now, and could have a couple future pieces with Zizic and the pick.

When everyone gets what they need, who wins?

They're still better on the boards and have veteran bench wings vs our youth. But it should be closer than last year.
Title: Re: Why the Celtics won the Kyrie Irving trade
Post by: Darío SpanishFan on September 09, 2017, 01:10:46 PM
The Celts got an all-star and the Cavs potentially got two all-stars.

And potentially none.
Title: Re: Why the Celtics won the Kyrie Irving trade
Post by: Bucketgetter on September 09, 2017, 01:14:26 PM
The Celts got an all-star and the Cavs potentially got two all-stars.

And potentially none.
No, IT is an all star, thats a fact.
Title: Re: Why the Celtics won the Kyrie Irving trade
Post by: CelticsElite on September 09, 2017, 01:18:14 PM
The Celts got an all-star and the Cavs potentially got two all-stars.

And potentially none.
No, IT is an all star, thats a fact.
yet he isn't able to run and is rumored to have a degenerative hip condition
Title: Re: Why the Celtics won the Kyrie Irving trade
Post by: Bucketgetter on September 09, 2017, 01:26:33 PM
The Celts got an all-star and the Cavs potentially got two all-stars.

And potentially none.
No, IT is an all star, thats a fact.
yet he isn't able to run and is rumored to have a degenerative hip condition
But is he an all star though?
Title: Re: Why the Celtics won the Kyrie Irving trade
Post by: GreenFaith1819 on September 09, 2017, 01:37:03 PM
lol folks here giving up on IT.

I hope he's reading this.

While I'm certain that BOS will always have a special place in his heart he's going to light us up once he's well.

And he WILL get well again. Dude has too much of a chip on his shoulder and will only get bigger next season.

While I love Kyrie I hope he's ready. We're going to have our hands FULL
Title: Re: Why the Celtics won the Kyrie Irving trade
Post by: SHAQATTACK on September 09, 2017, 01:53:38 PM
Have to wait till the season is over to judge for me .

Where do we finish ?
Where does Cleveland finish ?
Is Thomas playing in the playoffs for Cleveland?
Is Irving still healthy ?
Where does the Nets pick land ?

I m totally for the trade ,  but Im not going to call a certain winner till every card is played and playoffs and draft is done.

Title: Re: Why the Celtics won the Kyrie Irving trade
Post by: Eddie20 on September 09, 2017, 02:02:52 PM
lol folks here giving up on IT.

I hope he's reading this.

While I'm certain that BOS will always have a special place in his heart he's going to light us up once he's well.

And he WILL get well again. Dude has too much of a chip on his shoulder and will only get bigger next season.

While I love Kyrie I hope he's ready. We're going to have our hands FULL

Didn't you say the same thing about Rondo?
Title: Re: Why the Celtics won the Kyrie Irving trade
Post by: makaveli on September 09, 2017, 02:10:51 PM
your hole post is "based" on predictions:

1.
"Yes Isaiah Thomas was an all-star but I think it's very likely he will never perform again like he performed this year."

nobody knows when will he be back or how good will he be. So this can be in range from he will be back by allstar game and cavs will win a chip, to he will be back at some point of this season and they will have to shut him down.

2.
"Zizic because I think he is going to end up being a rebounding machine."

Zizic has done nothing but disappoint so far. His "high" motor was not that high at all, but rebounding was fair. He will most likely be a Tristan Thopson off the bench for the Cavs, best case scenario.

3.
"Last but not least is the 2018 Nets pick. Many predictions are predicting the Nets to finish with a better record than Atlanta, Chicago, Indiana, Phoenix, New York, Los Angeles(not sure I agree on this) and possibly Sacremento"

Don't get me started on the pick...worst team doesn't mean they will get #1 pick, and even if they do, no way of telling what type of a player you get in return, especially when that "stud" would be playing on a championship level team and his development would be seriously slowed down

4.
Kyrie Irving
Who knows what will he and Gordon bring to the table

Bottom line: i do think we won the trade as well, only because the fact that Kyrie is the best player and under contract + the fact that we made a lot of space for our young guys to develop.

Everything else, only time will tell
So I guess you hate Tatum and Brown then?
why would you say that.
Isn't it a fact that Brown would have developed much faster if he had more minutes, on a orlando or whatever team?
Like I said, the trade made a big gap to fill for Brown and Tatum, so there is plenty of playing time, even a starting job for them if they step up.
With the trade, a place has opened up even for the next years pick if we get a decent PF / C , which the next draft is full with(no expert about draft)

quick edit: you can say the same for marus smart as well, so i expect him to excel
Title: Re: Why the Celtics won the Kyrie Irving trade
Post by: kozlodoev on September 09, 2017, 02:26:31 PM
The Celts got an all-star and the Cavs potentially got two all-stars.

And potentially none.
No, IT is an all star, thats a fact.
yet he isn't able to run and is rumored to have a degenerative hip condition
But is he an all star though?
He is not an all-star when he's not on the court.
Title: Re: Why the Celtics won the Kyrie Irving trade
Post by: Phantom255x on September 09, 2017, 03:17:03 PM
Zizic has not played a NBA game is  so young and his outside game doesn't exist at this time
At his age and experience he will be foul prone
Isaiah is out, the draft is next year and crowder shot well but was taking minutes from hayward ,tatum,brown-he might have instigated some problems he couldn't win-
semi can be as good as crowder shoots the three,better lateral,more vertical a has work ethic and high character-did i forget defensive DNA
This trade favors Boston in near and intermediate time span

If iIT had stayed and was hurt most of season-the celts would certainly be worse off ,if he comes back damaged and asked for brinks truck next season -that was it

We got a superstar with playoff experience that has chemistry with hayward,younger and just set free.Now with Brad as his coach after 3 Lebron puppets
-A four times all star, playoff finals three times-clutch,best ball handler in league and able to jell with a whole new cast of players

Wait what, @rollie didn't you start the "KILL THE DEAL" thread like a few weeks ago?  :P
Title: Re: Why the Celtics won the Kyrie Irving trade
Post by: Bucketgetter on September 09, 2017, 04:18:56 PM
The Celts got an all-star and the Cavs potentially got two all-stars.

And potentially none.
No, IT is an all star, thats a fact.
yet he isn't able to run and is rumored to have a degenerative hip condition
But is he an all star though?
He is not an all-star when he's not on the court.
Nope still an all star. When you’ve made the last 2 all star games, you are an all star. Simply a fact. You can call him hurt, or declining, or not a max guy, but he is an all star, just like he is an NBA player and his name is Isaiah. Those are all facts.
Title: Re: Why the Celtics won the Kyrie Irving trade
Post by: Bucketgetter on September 09, 2017, 04:24:08 PM
your hole post is "based" on predictions:

1.
"Yes Isaiah Thomas was an all-star but I think it's very likely he will never perform again like he performed this year."

nobody knows when will he be back or how good will he be. So this can be in range from he will be back by allstar game and cavs will win a chip, to he will be back at some point of this season and they will have to shut him down.

2.
"Zizic because I think he is going to end up being a rebounding machine."

Zizic has done nothing but disappoint so far. His "high" motor was not that high at all, but rebounding was fair. He will most likely be a Tristan Thopson off the bench for the Cavs, best case scenario.

3.
"Last but not least is the 2018 Nets pick. Many predictions are predicting the Nets to finish with a better record than Atlanta, Chicago, Indiana, Phoenix, New York, Los Angeles(not sure I agree on this) and possibly Sacremento"

Don't get me started on the pick...worst team doesn't mean they will get #1 pick, and even if they do, no way of telling what type of a player you get in return, especially when that "stud" would be playing on a championship level team and his development would be seriously slowed down

4.
Kyrie Irving
Who knows what will he and Gordon bring to the table

Bottom line: i do think we won the trade as well, only because the fact that Kyrie is the best player and under contract + the fact that we made a lot of space for our young guys to develop.

Everything else, only time will tell
So I guess you hate Tatum and Brown then?
why would you say that.
Isn't it a fact that Brown would have developed much faster if he had more minutes, on a orlando or whatever team?
Like I said, the trade made a big gap to fill for Brown and Tatum, so there is plenty of playing time, even a starting job for them if they step up.
With the trade, a place has opened up even for the next years pick if we get a decent PF / C , which the next draft is full with(no expert about draft)

quick edit: you can say the same for marus smart as well, so i expect him to excel
Lol because you said, and I quote, "especially when that "stud" would be playing on a championship level team and his development would be seriously slowed down”. You put stud in parentheses and think that top prospects on top teams have their development seriously slowed down. So Brown and Tautum being top prospects on top teams you must think their development is being seriously slowed down.

And no, it is most certainly not a fact that Brown would develop much more faster on a crappy team like Orlando than here. He would shoot more and get more touches, but playing his role in a great system here lets the game come to him. He can learn how to play defense, move the ball, fit into the offense. And he can let the scoring come naturally and not have to rush it.
Title: Re: Why the Celtics won the Kyrie Irving trade
Post by: GreenFaith1819 on September 09, 2017, 04:32:19 PM
lol folks here giving up on IT.

I hope he's reading this.

While I'm certain that BOS will always have a special place in his heart he's going to light us up once he's well.

And he WILL get well again. Dude has too much of a chip on his shoulder and will only get bigger next season.

While I love Kyrie I hope he's ready. We're going to have our hands FULL

Didn't you say the same thing about Rondo?

I don't recall with Rondo but I'm sure "IF" I did post that you'd pull it up for me, Super Sleuth ;).

And Rondo "DID" light us up - in his return visit as a Mav "AND" as a BULL - in the playoffs...until he got injured.

IT will be no different.

Dude is NOT afraid of the Grand Stage and he WILL use that to his advantage.

Hell hath no fury as a Former Celtic scorned. :D
Title: Re: Why the Celtics won the Kyrie Irving trade
Post by: jambr380 on September 09, 2017, 04:44:00 PM
The Celts got an all-star and the Cavs potentially got two all-stars.

And potentially none.
No, IT is an all star, thats a fact.
yet he isn't able to run and is rumored to have a degenerative hip condition
But is he an all star though?
He is not an all-star when he's not on the court.
Nope still an all star. When you’ve made the last 2 all star games, you are an all star. Simply a fact. You can call him hurt, or declining, or not a max guy, but he is an all star, just like he is an NBA player and his name is Isaiah. Those are all facts.

He was an all-star.

When you acquire a player - either via FA or trade - it doesn't matter what he has done in the past, only what he does for your team. If people are confident that IT will make another all-star team, then more power to them, but I think everybody can admit that he won't be an all-star for the Cavs this season.
Title: Re: Why the Celtics won the Kyrie Irving trade
Post by: Sketch5 on September 09, 2017, 05:12:29 PM
The Celts got an all-star and the Cavs potentially got two all-stars.

And potentially none.
No, IT is an all star, thats a fact.

Actually former All Star. He wont be one this year unless he comes back by late Nov and tears it up.

I don't think we can really say who won this one yet We haven't seen what Irving can do in Stevens system. IT, who knows if he will be back to full strength, and if it's arthritis and cartilage damages like some reports have said, he's going to struggle to get even close to what he was. Which sucks, because the dude deserved a big pay day.

We don't even know what the pick is. I remember people posting videos of Randle in highschool and everyone drooling over him. Now, meh. Smart if he gets a consistent out side shot, may have the better career. Differently the better attitude. This is why I'm not super excited yet about these bigs. In highscholl they SHOULD be able to dominate. They have 6 inches or more on most of the other teams players. Last season everyone wanted Simmons, but I was in the Brown camp. Saw his measurements and looked him up. Watched a couple video's were Browns team went up against a Simmons team, and Brown just looked way better.

Now we haven't really seen Simmons play, but Brown has looked really good, and some times you could see that "IT" factor. Just needs to put it together. Tatum the same thing. I Liked Ball, until I saw he didn't shoot well inside the 3pt line, and once the #1 pick came up, started to look at Fultz. I liked him, but some thing was off about him. Something missing mentally. But he's young and could put it all together. But when Dicky V said Boston was going to take Tatum, looked into him more, and he had that PP vib about him. Again, he's got to put it together, but trainer Drew Hanlen who trained Beal and David Lee said that Tatum was one of the most ready for the NBA with his skill set.

And also, the CAVS are the team that picked Anthony Bennett #1. :)

This trade really could go either way. There is a small part of me that wants to see IT return to form this year, and with Crowder win the whole thing....But after that F the CAVS and hope the never win again. :)
Title: Re: Why the Celtics won the Kyrie Irving trade
Post by: rollie mass on September 09, 2017, 05:14:24 PM
Zizic has not played a NBA game is  so young and his outside game doesn't exist at this time
At his age and experience he will be foul prone
Isaiah is out, the draft is next year and crowder shot well but was taking minutes from hayward ,tatum,brown-he might have instigated some problems he couldn't win-
semi can be as good as crowder shoots the three,better lateral,more vertical a has work ethic and high character-did i forget defensive DNA
This trade favors Boston in near and intermediate time span

If iIT had stayed and was hurt most of season-the celts would certainly be worse off ,if he comes back damaged and asked for brinks truck next season -that was it

We got a superstar with playoff experience that has chemistry with hayward,younger and just set free.Now with Brad as his coach after 3 Lebron puppets
-A four times all star, playoff finals three times-clutch,best ball handler in league and able to jell with a whole new cast of players

Wait what, @rollie didn't you start the "KILL THE DEAL" thread like a few weeks ago?  :P

Yes .When they were targeting Tatum or looking for another pick high pick and before so much more came out of isaiahs injury-I didn't want to lose pick to get that big--since then emotions have settled down-a second rounder in 2020 no big deal-
Anyway KD gushed about how good kyrie was better better than AI and what that kid can do -how special he is-how he makes people smile.-And he was like a kid with hayward
Anyway its done no time to mourn what could have been.
Hope that answers your question
Title: Re: Why the Celtics won the Kyrie Irving trade
Post by: ManUp on September 09, 2017, 05:22:05 PM
The Cavs won the trade as of right now, but i don't think keeping Isaiah was an option for us. Imagine the trade as Crowder Zizic and the Brooklyn pick for Kyrie. Danny probably didn't plan on maxing IT so we probably would've lost him next off-season for nothing. It was all about replacing IT while keeping this current team a couple moves away from being true contenders. Kyrie is a young star in his prime how likely is the pick to be as good as him?
Title: Re: Why the Celtics won the Kyrie Irving trade
Post by: rollie mass on September 09, 2017, 05:37:46 PM
isaiah out for how long then free agency
they got crowder and zizic and whatever in the draft
we got the all star, all star that is playing now and brown and tatum
we got hayward and horford
and we got marcus and rozier we got semi and yubusele
and we got brad and ainge and wyck
Title: Re: Why the Celtics won the Kyrie Irving trade
Post by: Chris22 on September 09, 2017, 05:41:20 PM
We won the trade because we got a player who is younger and better.
Title: Re: Why the Celtics won the Kyrie Irving trade
Post by: Phantom255x on September 09, 2017, 05:44:51 PM
We won the trade because we got a player who is younger and better.

I really don't understand the logic that the team that gets the best player automatically wins the trade (any trade for that matter). And I've heard it from NUMEROUS people and media reporters/experts too.

So if say, the Pelicans traded Anthony Davis, DeMarcus Cousins, most of their bench and 2 future 1st rounders for Lebron James, does that mean Pelicans win the trade because they got back the best player in the entire thing?

It's not like the Celtics JUST gave up Isaiah in the trade (who is injured, yes, but good chance he'll return when it matters - 2nd half and playoffs).
Title: Re: Why the Celtics won the Kyrie Irving trade
Post by: Eddie20 on September 09, 2017, 06:10:56 PM
Zizic has not played a NBA game is  so young and his outside game doesn't exist at this time
At his age and experience he will be foul prone
Isaiah is out, the draft is next year and crowder shot well but was taking minutes from hayward ,tatum,brown-he might have instigated some problems he couldn't win-
semi can be as good as crowder shoots the three,better lateral,more vertical a has work ethic and high character-did i forget defensive DNA
This trade favors Boston in near and intermediate time span

If iIT had stayed and was hurt most of season-the celts would certainly be worse off ,if he comes back damaged and asked for brinks truck next season -that was it

We got a superstar with playoff experience that has chemistry with hayward,younger and just set free.Now with Brad as his coach after 3 Lebron puppets
-A four times all star, playoff finals three times-clutch,best ball handler in league and able to jell with a whole new cast of players

Wait what, @rollie didn't you start the "KILL THE DEAL" thread like a few weeks ago?  :P

Rollie always does that. Every C's player is always the answer (see Jerebko, Green, Zizic) until they're no longer on the team and someone else becomes the new answer (see Theis, Semi, Morris). Those green glasses are extra think. I do agree with him that we won the trade. However, he did want to kill the trade AFTER the Cavs had issues with Thomas' physical.
Title: Re: Why the Celtics won the Kyrie Irving trade
Post by: Bucketgetter on September 09, 2017, 06:29:46 PM
The Celts got an all-star and the Cavs potentially got two all-stars.

And potentially none.
No, IT is an all star, thats a fact.
yet he isn't able to run and is rumored to have a degenerative hip condition
But is he an all star though?
He is not an all-star when he's not on the court.
Nope still an all star. When you’ve made the last 2 all star games, you are an all star. Simply a fact. You can call him hurt, or declining, or not a max guy, but he is an all star, just like he is an NBA player and his name is Isaiah. Those are all facts.

He was an all-star.

When you acquire a player - either via FA or trade - it doesn't matter what he has done in the past, only what he does for your team. If people are confident that IT will make another all-star team, then more power to them, but I think everybody can admit that he won't be an all-star for the Cavs this season.
So I guess Kyrie isn’t an all star, he was an all star. Same with Paul George. And Chris Paul. And Jimmy Butler.

If IT doesn’t make the all star team this upcoming year, thats fine. But he is just as much an all star right now as any of the players I just listed.
Title: Re: Why the Celtics won the Kyrie Irving trade
Post by: Bucketgetter on September 09, 2017, 06:30:17 PM
The Celts got an all-star and the Cavs potentially got two all-stars.

And potentially none.
No, IT is an all star, thats a fact.

Actually former All Star. He wont be one this year unless he comes back by late Nov and tears it up.

I don't think we can really say who won this one yet We haven't seen what Irving can do in Stevens system. IT, who knows if he will be back to full strength, and if it's arthritis and cartilage damages like some reports have said, he's going to struggle to get even close to what he was. Which sucks, because the dude deserved a big pay day.

We don't even know what the pick is. I remember people posting videos of Randle in highschool and everyone drooling over him. Now, meh. Smart if he gets a consistent out side shot, may have the better career. Differently the better attitude. This is why I'm not super excited yet about these bigs. In highscholl they SHOULD be able to dominate. They have 6 inches or more on most of the other teams players. Last season everyone wanted Simmons, but I was in the Brown camp. Saw his measurements and looked him up. Watched a couple video's were Browns team went up against a Simmons team, and Brown just looked way better.

Now we haven't really seen Simmons play, but Brown has looked really good, and some times you could see that "IT" factor. Just needs to put it together. Tatum the same thing. I Liked Ball, until I saw he didn't shoot well inside the 3pt line, and once the #1 pick came up, started to look at Fultz. I liked him, but some thing was off about him. Something missing mentally. But he's young and could put it all together. But when Dicky V said Boston was going to take Tatum, looked into him more, and he had that PP vib about him. Again, he's got to put it together, but trainer Drew Hanlen who trained Beal and David Lee said that Tatum was one of the most ready for the NBA with his skill set.

And also, the CAVS are the team that picked Anthony Bennett #1. :)

This trade really could go either way. There is a small part of me that wants to see IT return to form this year, and with Crowder win the whole thing....But after that F the CAVS and hope the never win again. :)
See post directly above.
Title: Re: Why the Celtics won the Kyrie Irving trade
Post by: playdream on September 09, 2017, 06:51:20 PM
The Celts got an all-star and the Cavs potentially got two all-stars.

And potentially none.
No, IT is an all star, thats a fact.
yet he isn't able to run and is rumored to have a degenerative hip condition
But is he an all star though?
He is not an all-star when he's not on the court.
Nope still an all star. When you’ve made the last 2 all star games, you are an all star. Simply a fact. You can call him hurt, or declining, or not a max guy, but he is an all star, just like he is an NBA player and his name is Isaiah. Those are all facts.

He was an all-star.

When you acquire a player - either via FA or trade - it doesn't matter what he has done in the past, only what he does for your team. If people are confident that IT will make another all-star team, then more power to them, but I think everybody can admit that he won't be an all-star for the Cavs this season.
So I guess Kyrie isn’t an all star, he was an all star. Same with Paul George. And Chris Paul. And Jimmy Butler.

If IT doesn’t make the all star team this upcoming year, thats fine. But he is just as much an all star right now as any of the players I just listed.
Play the words as you want but a guy who can't even run isn't a all star
Title: Re: Why the Celtics won the Kyrie Irving trade
Post by: CelticsElite on September 09, 2017, 06:53:28 PM
The Celts got an all-star and the Cavs potentially got two all-stars.

And potentially none.
No, IT is an all star, thats a fact.
yet he isn't able to run and is rumored to have a degenerative hip condition
But is he an all star though?
He is not an all-star when he's not on the court.
Nope still an all star. When you’ve made the last 2 all star games, you are an all star. Simply a fact. You can call him hurt, or declining, or not a max guy, but he is an all star, just like he is an NBA player and his name is Isaiah. Those are all facts.

He was an all-star.

When you acquire a player - either via FA or trade - it doesn't matter what he has done in the past, only what he does for your team. If people are confident that IT will make another all-star team, then more power to them, but I think everybody can admit that he won't be an all-star for the Cavs this season.
So I guess Kyrie isn’t an all star, he was an all star. Same with Paul George. And Chris Paul. And Jimmy Butler.

If IT doesn’t make the all star team this upcoming year, thats fine. But he is just as much an all star right now as any of the players I just listed.
Play the words as you want but a guy who can't even run isn't a all star
exactly. its all semantics. i dont want a guy who cant run and still wants a max contract on the wrong side of 30

so glad we got kyrie and another team didnt. and the cavs lost him.
Title: Re: Why the Celtics won the Kyrie Irving trade
Post by: Sketch5 on September 09, 2017, 07:23:54 PM
The Celts got an all-star and the Cavs potentially got two all-stars.

And potentially none.
No, IT is an all star, thats a fact.

Actually former All Star. He wont be one this year unless he comes back by late Nov and tears it up.

I don't think we can really say who won this one yet We haven't seen what Irving can do in Stevens system. IT, who knows if he will be back to full strength, and if it's arthritis and cartilage damages like some reports have said, he's going to struggle to get even close to what he was. Which sucks, because the dude deserved a big pay day.

We don't even know what the pick is. I remember people posting videos of Randle in highschool and everyone drooling over him. Now, meh. Smart if he gets a consistent out side shot, may have the better career. Differently the better attitude. This is why I'm not super excited yet about these bigs. In highscholl they SHOULD be able to dominate. They have 6 inches or more on most of the other teams players. Last season everyone wanted Simmons, but I was in the Brown camp. Saw his measurements and looked him up. Watched a couple video's were Browns team went up against a Simmons team, and Brown just looked way better.

Now we haven't really seen Simmons play, but Brown has looked really good, and some times you could see that "IT" factor. Just needs to put it together. Tatum the same thing. I Liked Ball, until I saw he didn't shoot well inside the 3pt line, and once the #1 pick came up, started to look at Fultz. I liked him, but some thing was off about him. Something missing mentally. But he's young and could put it all together. But when Dicky V said Boston was going to take Tatum, looked into him more, and he had that PP vib about him. Again, he's got to put it together, but trainer Drew Hanlen who trained Beal and David Lee said that Tatum was one of the most ready for the NBA with his skill set.

And also, the CAVS are the team that picked Anthony Bennett #1. :)

This trade really could go either way. There is a small part of me that wants to see IT return to form this year, and with Crowder win the whole thing....But after that F the CAVS and hope the never win again. :)
See post directly above.

I did, and thats why the response "former" All Star.

IT was an All Star last two years, and IF healthy, you could say the CAVS were getting one. But since he may not be the same as he was( again if reports are true for worse case) the CAVS will not be getting an All Star but former All Star.

It's like signing Dwight Howard and saying he's an All Star. Hasn't been one since 2014, and plays nothing like an All Star now. It drives me nuts when people say Horford is an All Star. Nope former.

I see "All Stars" as guys who have made it for the last few years and if they don't get injured have several more to go with out doubt. Like Curry, he'll be one for the next 5+ years if he stays healthy. Even a Healthy IT has one ore two more left.

I mean BJ Armstrong was an All Star, but I wouldn't put him under the "All Star" caliber player category.
Title: Re: Why the Celtics won the Kyrie Irving trade
Post by: Bucketgetter on September 09, 2017, 07:28:16 PM
The Celts got an all-star and the Cavs potentially got two all-stars.

And potentially none.
No, IT is an all star, thats a fact.
yet he isn't able to run and is rumored to have a degenerative hip condition
But is he an all star though?
He is not an all-star when he's not on the court.
Nope still an all star. When you’ve made the last 2 all star games, you are an all star. Simply a fact. You can call him hurt, or declining, or not a max guy, but he is an all star, just like he is an NBA player and his name is Isaiah. Those are all facts.

He was an all-star.

When you acquire a player - either via FA or trade - it doesn't matter what he has done in the past, only what he does for your team. If people are confident that IT will make another all-star team, then more power to them, but I think everybody can admit that he won't be an all-star for the Cavs this season.
So I guess Kyrie isn’t an all star, he was an all star. Same with Paul George. And Chris Paul. And Jimmy Butler.

If IT doesn’t make the all star team this upcoming year, thats fine. But he is just as much an all star right now as any of the players I just listed.
Play the words as you want but a guy who can't even run isn't a all star
Not playing any words. A guy who has made the last two all star games is an all star. Just stating a fact. We don’t know whether IT can run right now though, so the only one playing any words would be you.
Title: Re: Why the Celtics won the Kyrie Irving trade
Post by: droopdog7 on September 09, 2017, 07:29:24 PM
The Celts got an all-star and the Cavs potentially got two all-stars.

And potentially none.
No, IT is an all star, thats a fact.
yet he isn't able to run and is rumored to have a degenerative hip condition
And, they may not even resign him if he's healthy.  The difference value between Kyrie and IT is significant.
Title: Re: Why the Celtics won the Kyrie Irving trade
Post by: Bucketgetter on September 09, 2017, 07:32:15 PM
The Celts got an all-star and the Cavs potentially got two all-stars.

And potentially none.
No, IT is an all star, thats a fact.

Actually former All Star. He wont be one this year unless he comes back by late Nov and tears it up.

I don't think we can really say who won this one yet We haven't seen what Irving can do in Stevens system. IT, who knows if he will be back to full strength, and if it's arthritis and cartilage damages like some reports have said, he's going to struggle to get even close to what he was. Which sucks, because the dude deserved a big pay day.

We don't even know what the pick is. I remember people posting videos of Randle in highschool and everyone drooling over him. Now, meh. Smart if he gets a consistent out side shot, may have the better career. Differently the better attitude. This is why I'm not super excited yet about these bigs. In highscholl they SHOULD be able to dominate. They have 6 inches or more on most of the other teams players. Last season everyone wanted Simmons, but I was in the Brown camp. Saw his measurements and looked him up. Watched a couple video's were Browns team went up against a Simmons team, and Brown just looked way better.

Now we haven't really seen Simmons play, but Brown has looked really good, and some times you could see that "IT" factor. Just needs to put it together. Tatum the same thing. I Liked Ball, until I saw he didn't shoot well inside the 3pt line, and once the #1 pick came up, started to look at Fultz. I liked him, but some thing was off about him. Something missing mentally. But he's young and could put it all together. But when Dicky V said Boston was going to take Tatum, looked into him more, and he had that PP vib about him. Again, he's got to put it together, but trainer Drew Hanlen who trained Beal and David Lee said that Tatum was one of the most ready for the NBA with his skill set.

And also, the CAVS are the team that picked Anthony Bennett #1. :)

This trade really could go either way. There is a small part of me that wants to see IT return to form this year, and with Crowder win the whole thing....But after that F the CAVS and hope the never win again. :)
See post directly above.

I did, and thats why the response "former" All Star.

IT was an All Star last two years, and IF healthy, you could say the CAVS were getting one. But since he may not be the same as he was( again if reports are true for worse case) the CAVS will not be getting an All Star but former All Star.

It's like signing Dwight Howard and saying he's an All Star. Hasn't been one since 2014, and plays nothing like an All Star now. It drives me nuts when people say Horford is an All Star. Nope former.

I see "All Stars" as guys who have made it for the last few years and if they don't get injured have several more to go with out doubt. Like Curry, he'll be one for the next 5+ years if he stays healthy. Even a Healthy IT has one ore two more left.

I mean BJ Armstrong was an All Star, but I wouldn't put him under the "All Star" caliber player category.
And like I said, that means Kyrie is a “former” all star. And PG13. And CP3. And Jimmy Butler. Because they have done just as much for their new teams as IT has.

It’s not at all like Dwight Howard. Like you said, Dwight hasn’t been an all star for years. IT played at the most recent all star game. And the one before that. If he doesn’t make the all star team this year then you can say he’s not an all star anymore, but until that actually happens, he is just as much an all star as anyone else.
Title: Re: Why the Celtics won the Kyrie Irving trade
Post by: Bucketgetter on September 09, 2017, 07:33:19 PM
The Celts got an all-star and the Cavs potentially got two all-stars.

And potentially none.
No, IT is an all star, thats a fact.
yet he isn't able to run and is rumored to have a degenerative hip condition
And, they may not even resign him if he's healthy.  The difference value between Kyrie and IT is significant.
Not debating that at all. But to say IT isn’t an all star is simply wrong. It is fiction.
Title: Re: Why the Celtics won the Kyrie Irving trade
Post by: moiso on September 09, 2017, 08:47:13 PM
I think it's wrong to keep referring to a guy doesn't make all NBA teams as a superstar.
Title: Re: Why the Celtics won the Kyrie Irving trade
Post by: tarheelsxxiii on September 09, 2017, 08:55:11 PM
I think it's wrong to keep referring to a guy doesn't make all NBA teams as a superstar.

But he does a lot of cute things with the ball...
Title: Re: Why the Celtics won the Kyrie Irving trade
Post by: More Banners on September 09, 2017, 09:02:56 PM
The Celts got an all-star and the Cavs potentially got two all-stars.

And potentially none.
No, IT is an all star, thats a fact.
yet he isn't able to run and is rumored to have a degenerative hip condition
And, they may not even resign him if he's healthy.  The difference value between Kyrie and IT is significant.
Not debating that at all. But to say IT isn’t an all star is simply wrong. It is fiction.

All star is an honorific title that an individual keeps nearly for life. Like being a senator or ambassador or whatever. But, say, Ainge was (somehow) an all star once. It didn't put him on MJ's level to describe them both as allstar players. There are a lot of allstars, and quite a few players seem to only make a few.

Once retired, it becomes x-time all star in the accomplishments and accolades list.

Players aren't better or worse due to the title, but perhaps refs are more generous to one than the other?

Any way, though, IT might not play enough games to make it this year. Or minutes, as managing wear and tear might be the critical piece for his career longevity. Kyrie is a near lock to be a 2018 allstar.
Title: Re: Why the Celtics won the Kyrie Irving trade
Post by: Darío SpanishFan on September 09, 2017, 09:05:26 PM
The Celts got an all-star and the Cavs potentially got two all-stars.

And potentially none.
No, IT is an all star, thats a fact.
yet he isn't able to run and is rumored to have a degenerative hip condition
But is he an all star though?

What matters for the trade (and the thread) is the future, not technical terms. We all know about his career so far.

In fact, he HAS BEEN an all-star. Maybe he comes back in November in good shape and is an all-star again or maybe he never plays a minute with the Cavaliers because he misses the season and signs with another team. Will he be an all-star for the Cavs if he never plays for them?

Anyway, reading the last posts it's you against the world. And in those cases the wrong part is usually the YOU, and not the rest of the people. So...that's it.
Title: Re: Why the Celtics won the Kyrie Irving trade
Post by: tarheelsxxiii on September 09, 2017, 09:15:41 PM
The Celts got an all-star and the Cavs potentially got two all-stars.

And potentially none.
No, IT is an all star, thats a fact.
yet he isn't able to run and is rumored to have a degenerative hip condition
But is he an all star though?

What matters for the trade (and the thread) is the future, not technical terms. We all know about his career so far.

In fact, he HAS BEEN an all-star. Maybe he comes back in November in good shape and is an all-star again or maybe he never plays a minute with the Cavaliers because he misses the season and signs with another team. Will he be an all-star for the Cavs if he never plays for them?

Anyway, reading the last posts it's you against the world. And in those cases the wrong part is usually the YOU, and not the rest of the people. So...that's it.

you can take that up with Tupac...
Title: Re: Why the Celtics won the Kyrie Irving trade
Post by: nickagneta on September 09, 2017, 09:24:48 PM
IT will be as much an All Star for Cleveland next year as Kyrie will be an NBA champion for the Celtics next year. Take that for what it is worth.
Title: Re: Why the Celtics won the Kyrie Irving trade
Post by: makaveli on September 09, 2017, 09:32:15 PM
your hole post is "based" on predictions:

1.
"Yes Isaiah Thomas was an all-star but I think it's very likely he will never perform again like he performed this year."

nobody knows when will he be back or how good will he be. So this can be in range from he will be back by allstar game and cavs will win a chip, to he will be back at some point of this season and they will have to shut him down.

2.
"Zizic because I think he is going to end up being a rebounding machine."

Zizic has done nothing but disappoint so far. His "high" motor was not that high at all, but rebounding was fair. He will most likely be a Tristan Thopson off the bench for the Cavs, best case scenario.

3.
"Last but not least is the 2018 Nets pick. Many predictions are predicting the Nets to finish with a better record than Atlanta, Chicago, Indiana, Phoenix, New York, Los Angeles(not sure I agree on this) and possibly Sacremento"

Don't get me started on the pick...worst team doesn't mean they will get #1 pick, and even if they do, no way of telling what type of a player you get in return, especially when that "stud" would be playing on a championship level team and his development would be seriously slowed down

4.
Kyrie Irving
Who knows what will he and Gordon bring to the table

Bottom line: i do think we won the trade as well, only because the fact that Kyrie is the best player and under contract + the fact that we made a lot of space for our young guys to develop.

Everything else, only time will tell
So I guess you hate Tatum and Brown then?
why would you say that.
Isn't it a fact that Brown would have developed much faster if he had more minutes, on a orlando or whatever team?
Like I said, the trade made a big gap to fill for Brown and Tatum, so there is plenty of playing time, even a starting job for them if they step up.
With the trade, a place has opened up even for the next years pick if we get a decent PF / C , which the next draft is full with(no expert about draft)

quick edit: you can say the same for marus smart as well, so i expect him to excel
Lol because you said, and I quote, "especially when that "stud" would be playing on a championship level team and his development would be seriously slowed down”. You put stud in parentheses and think that top prospects on top teams have their development seriously slowed down. So Brown and Tautum being top prospects on top teams you must think their development is being seriously slowed down.

And no, it is most certainly not a fact that Brown would develop much more faster on a crappy team like Orlando than here. He would shoot more and get more touches, but playing his role in a great system here lets the game come to him. He can learn how to play defense, move the ball, fit into the offense. And he can let the scoring come naturally and not have to rush it.
i guess it's cool to be in a winning environment, but IMHO minutes are what matter the most.
Title: Re: Why the Celtics won the Kyrie Irving trade
Post by: Boris Badenov on September 09, 2017, 09:33:03 PM
The Celts got an all-star and the Cavs potentially got two all-stars.

And potentially none.
No, IT is an all star, thats a fact.

Actually former All Star. He wont be one this year unless he comes back by late Nov and tears it up.

I don't think we can really say who won this one yet We haven't seen what Irving can do in Stevens system. IT, who knows if he will be back to full strength, and if it's arthritis and cartilage damages like some reports have said, he's going to struggle to get even close to what he was. Which sucks, because the dude deserved a big pay day.

We don't even know what the pick is. I remember people posting videos of Randle in highschool and everyone drooling over him. Now, meh. Smart if he gets a consistent out side shot, may have the better career. Differently the better attitude. This is why I'm not super excited yet about these bigs. In highscholl they SHOULD be able to dominate. They have 6 inches or more on most of the other teams players. Last season everyone wanted Simmons, but I was in the Brown camp. Saw his measurements and looked him up. Watched a couple video's were Browns team went up against a Simmons team, and Brown just looked way better.

Now we haven't really seen Simmons play, but Brown has looked really good, and some times you could see that "IT" factor. Just needs to put it together. Tatum the same thing. I Liked Ball, until I saw he didn't shoot well inside the 3pt line, and once the #1 pick came up, started to look at Fultz. I liked him, but some thing was off about him. Something missing mentally. But he's young and could put it all together. But when Dicky V said Boston was going to take Tatum, looked into him more, and he had that PP vib about him. Again, he's got to put it together, but trainer Drew Hanlen who trained Beal and David Lee said that Tatum was one of the most ready for the NBA with his skill set.

And also, the CAVS are the team that picked Anthony Bennett #1. :)

This trade really could go either way. There is a small part of me that wants to see IT return to form this year, and with Crowder win the whole thing....But after that F the CAVS and hope the never win again. :)
See post directly above.

I did, and thats why the response "former" All Star.

IT was an All Star last two years, and IF healthy, you could say the CAVS were getting one. But since he may not be the same as he was( again if reports are true for worse case) the CAVS will not be getting an All Star but former All Star.

It's like signing Dwight Howard and saying he's an All Star. Hasn't been one since 2014, and plays nothing like an All Star now. It drives me nuts when people say Horford is an All Star. Nope former.

I see "All Stars" as guys who have made it for the last few years and if they don't get injured have several more to go with out doubt. Like Curry, he'll be one for the next 5+ years if he stays healthy. Even a Healthy IT has one ore two more left.

I mean BJ Armstrong was an All Star, but I wouldn't put him under the "All Star" caliber player category.
And like I said, that means Kyrie is a “former” all star. And PG13. And CP3. And Jimmy Butler. Because they have done just as much for their new teams as IT has.

It’s not at all like Dwight Howard. Like you said, Dwight hasn’t been an all star for years. IT played at the most recent all star game. And the one before that. If he doesn’t make the all star team this year then you can say he’s not an all star anymore, but until that actually happens, he is just as much an all star as anyone else.

Even for this board, this is hair-splitting of epic proportions.

Title: Re: Why the Celtics won the Kyrie Irving trade
Post by: LilRip on September 09, 2017, 11:04:50 PM
IMO, the fate of the nets pick will determine whether we win the Kyrie trade or not. Kyrie will still get better. He's not yet even in his prime.
Title: Re: Why the Celtics won the Kyrie Irving trade
Post by: jambr380 on September 09, 2017, 11:07:40 PM
IT will be as much an All Star for Cleveland next year as Kyrie will be an NBA champion for the Celtics next year. Take that for what it is worth.

I don't think anybody is thinking the Cs will win the championship next year. Kyrie is 25 - he is here for the now and future. The trade was basically the BKN 18 for Kyrie. IT playing sparingly and then moving on to another team makes him barely more than salary filler unless he is able to come back strong for the playoffs and helps lead the Cavs to a championship.
Title: Re: Why the Celtics won the Kyrie Irving trade
Post by: jdz101 on September 10, 2017, 12:34:24 AM
The Celts got an all-star and the Cavs potentially got two all-stars.

And potentially none.
No, IT is an all star, thats a fact.
yet he isn't able to run and is rumored to have a degenerative hip condition

This is a big issue for me. Some torn labrums can take up to a year to get over and even then you're not the same after. That is with surgery and IT isn't going for surgery.
Title: Re: Why the Celtics won the Kyrie Irving trade
Post by: CelticsElite on September 10, 2017, 01:31:35 AM
The Celts got an all-star and the Cavs potentially got two all-stars.

And potentially none.
No, IT is an all star, thats a fact.
yet he isn't able to run and is rumored to have a degenerative hip condition

This is a big issue for me. Some torn labrums can take up to a year to get over and even then you're not the same after. That is with surgery and IT isn't going for surgery.
IT also has arthritis and cartilage loss making his situation more complicated http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2732177-isaiah-thomas-hip-injury-reportedly-more-than-just-torn-labrum
Title: Re: Why the Celtics won the Kyrie Irving trade
Post by: Bucketgetter on September 10, 2017, 02:20:49 AM
The Celts got an all-star and the Cavs potentially got two all-stars.

And potentially none.
No, IT is an all star, thats a fact.
yet he isn't able to run and is rumored to have a degenerative hip condition
But is he an all star though?

What matters for the trade (and the thread) is the future, not technical terms. We all know about his career so far.

In fact, he HAS BEEN an all-star. Maybe he comes back in November in good shape and is an all-star again or maybe he never plays a minute with the Cavaliers because he misses the season and signs with another team. Will he be an all-star for the Cavs if he never plays for them?

Anyway, reading the last posts it's you against the world. And in those cases the wrong part is usually the YOU, and not the rest of the people. So...that's it.
And will Kyrie be an all star for the celtics if he never makes it? The simple fact is that since IT has been an all star for the past 2 years, he is an all star. Until he misses one, he will be an all star, just like all the other all stars.

And, no just since other people or posters don’t agree with you doesn’t mean you’re wrong or “that’s it”. This isn’t an oppressive society or forum.
Title: Re: Why the Celtics won the Kyrie Irving trade
Post by: rollie mass on September 10, 2017, 05:31:09 AM
Zizic has not played a NBA game is  so young and his outside game doesn't exist at this time
At his age and experience he will be foul prone
Isaiah is out, the draft is next year and crowder shot well but was taking minutes from hayward ,tatum,brown-he might have instigated some problems he couldn't win-
semi can be as good as crowder shoots the three,better lateral,more vertical a has work ethic and high character-did i forget defensive DNA
This trade favors Boston in near and intermediate time span

If iIT had stayed and was hurt most of season-the celts would certainly be worse off ,if he comes back damaged and asked for brinks truck next season -that was it

We got a superstar with playoff experience that has chemistry with hayward,younger and just set free.Now with Brad as his coach after 3 Lebron puppets
-A four times all star, playoff finals three times-clutch,best ball handler in league and able to jell with a whole new cast of players

Wait what, @rollie didn't you start the "KILL THE DEAL" thread like a few weeks ago?  :P

Rollie always does that. Every C's player is always the answer (see Jerebko, Green, Zizic) until they're no longer on the team and someone else becomes the new answer (see Theis, Semi, Morris). Those green glasses are extra think. I do agree with him that we won the trade. However, he did want to kill the trade AFTER the Cavs had issues with Thomas' physical.

What did i say about jerebko -that i thought his 3 point shooting would improve after a summer with a court in his house
Green i was enamored with his athleticism and transition play as it was paired with isaiah with suns-I called green a stiletto and that as an opponent Brad feared him-a streaky,offensive weapon in brads hands
.I had little to say about Theis
 Zizic,  I only defended or thought something was wrong in Salt lake like long season,jet lag and elevation-he looked so slow
 I did give game results during his season
 I think i quoted Blatts story on his toughness and determination,relentless on boards and he had good form on foul shots.He set good screens and had good motor but he only made one mid range'good form.
 I have NEVER thought of Theis or Zizic as an answer
 
Morris was a good addition and brings some grit

-Nader i followed from summer league and and watched his games for Red Claws -he was much better than RJ and James but now is really at back end of loaded position

Semi shoots the three better and plays better defense  and a crowder replacement.

Nader was d league rookie of the year and shot the three much better in first half season until forced into point forward position
Nader would have helped last season off bench but is buried now-
Title: Re: Why the Celtics won the Kyrie Irving trade
Post by: LGC88 on September 10, 2017, 06:28:32 AM
Unless Irving develop into a MVP type of player like Curry, Harden in the future, I don't see how the Celtics won that trade.
Obviously Danny (and maybe Brad) think so. I still trust Danny even though I don't understand how a player that demand to be traded can have a so good return.

People are still sleeping on IT, that's unbelievable. The little guy has no break and will have to prove his entire life his worth. That's very sad.
Title: Re: Why the Celtics won the Kyrie Irving trade
Post by: Celtics4ever on September 10, 2017, 06:58:08 AM
It is too early to tell.   I think we can't really gauge who won it until we see what the draft pick was folks. 
Title: Re: Why the Celtics won the Kyrie Irving trade
Post by: 2short on September 10, 2017, 07:33:34 AM
Is IT going to stay with the cavs at a fair value or look for big paycheck, also obviously is he going to come back to all star level
If he stays with them for HALF season rental then check mark to Celtics

Crowder becomes a sub, maybe good for him, unknown.  On a great contract
Zizic unless he really improves I don't see him getting much pt at all this year.  So he and pick are big ifs
Lebron leaves, IT leaves, draft pick doesn't pan out its the cavs of old


Title: Re: Why the Celtics won the Kyrie Irving trade
Post by: Darío SpanishFan on September 10, 2017, 07:41:02 AM
The Celts got an all-star and the Cavs potentially got two all-stars.

And potentially none.
No, IT is an all star, thats a fact.
yet he isn't able to run and is rumored to have a degenerative hip condition
But is he an all star though?

What matters for the trade (and the thread) is the future, not technical terms. We all know about his career so far.

In fact, he HAS BEEN an all-star. Maybe he comes back in November in good shape and is an all-star again or maybe he never plays a minute with the Cavaliers because he misses the season and signs with another team. Will he be an all-star for the Cavs if he never plays for them?

Anyway, reading the last posts it's you against the world. And in those cases the wrong part is usually the YOU, and not the rest of the people. So...that's it.
And will Kyrie be an all star for the celtics if he never makes it? The simple fact is that since IT has been an all star for the past 2 years, he is an all star. Until he misses one, he will be an all star, just like all the other all stars.

And, no just since other people or posters don’t agree with you doesn’t mean you’re wrong or “that’s it”. This isn’t an oppressive society or forum.

It's not oppression, it's just common sense.
Title: Re: Why the Celtics won the Kyrie Irving trade
Post by: vjcsmoke on September 10, 2017, 10:21:40 AM
The Celts got an all-star and the Cavs potentially got two all-stars.

I take it you don't like the deal?   ;)

Look I wasn't sure if I liked the trade when it first got announced but now that the news of IT's hip got out the deal made sense.

IT4 may never return to his former level.  Kyrie is a 4 time all-star and he's only 25.  He can help us compete right now and into the future.

That Nets pick is a lottery ticket but sometimes you don't hit the lottery.  As long as the Lakers pick conveys we are in good shape there.
Title: Re: Why the Celtics won the Kyrie Irving trade
Post by: Celtics4ever on September 10, 2017, 11:30:05 AM
Quote
Cavs potentially got two all-stars.

We are talking about the team that drafted Anthony Bennett right?  Because IT could be an All Star if he returns to form, but that is a big if?   Crowder is not nor will he be an All Star.   A lot of rookies bust out or don't make the team.   

Once LeBron leaves all the attention CLE players get will dwindle and he will do what he can to poison the owner to other players.   Now he may not leave but he may well.

Quote
And will Kyrie be an all star for the celtics if he never makes it? The simple fact is that since IT has been an all star for the past 2 years, he is an all star. Until he misses one, he will be an all star, just like all the other all stars.

Do you think that he will make the All Star Game if he is injured and I mean IT here?   I say no, he does not have the league wide star power across the country.   Here, in Boston, yes he will get votes.   I doubt he gets many in CLE, who will want results.   Nationwide, I doubt it.

So I think much depends on if IT plays and if he can play like himself or a shell of himself.  I am not wishing ill on the guy.
Title: Re: Why the Celtics won the Kyrie Irving trade
Post by: bellerephon on September 10, 2017, 11:56:39 AM
I'm not particularly interested in whether or not a guy makes an all star team or not. It only matters how he plays. IT could play very well and fail to make the all star team if some other guards have great seasons. I would not consider that a failure on his part.

I think of the situation this way, it is fair to assume that Kyrie will play at a high level. He has been consistently excellent as an offensive player (and bad defensively) and I see no compelling reason to think that will change. He is also younger, taller, and has a better contract situation than IT.

IT played at that very high level last year, but has not done so consistently. It is of course true that teams were reluctant to give him the opportunity he needed to excel, and once he got a chance in Boston he took it. It is a fact, however, that he has not played at the highest level throughout his career. I'm not saying he was trash, he was good his first full year in Boston and he played well his last year in Sac, but he has only reached Kyrie's level once in his career. Couple that with the injury and there is legitimate reason to wonder how good he will be going forward. If healthy I'm sure he will play well, but how well we don't know.

The pick could end up being a great player, or it could end up being a bust, there's too much uncertainly surrounding that to know for sure. The Cavs have added pieces that could potentially have much more value than Kyrie, but could also leave them will not much.
Title: Re: Why the Celtics won the Kyrie Irving trade
Post by: Bucketgetter on September 11, 2017, 03:10:55 AM
The Celts got an all-star and the Cavs potentially got two all-stars.

And potentially none.
No, IT is an all star, thats a fact.
yet he isn't able to run and is rumored to have a degenerative hip condition
But is he an all star though?

What matters for the trade (and the thread) is the future, not technical terms. We all know about his career so far.

In fact, he HAS BEEN an all-star. Maybe he comes back in November in good shape and is an all-star again or maybe he never plays a minute with the Cavaliers because he misses the season and signs with another team. Will he be an all-star for the Cavs if he never plays for them?

Anyway, reading the last posts it's you against the world. And in those cases the wrong part is usually the YOU, and not the rest of the people. So...that's it.
And will Kyrie be an all star for the celtics if he never makes it? The simple fact is that since IT has been an all star for the past 2 years, he is an all star. Until he misses one, he will be an all star, just like all the other all stars.

And, no just since other people or posters don’t agree with you doesn’t mean you’re wrong or “that’s it”. This isn’t an oppressive society or forum.

It's not oppression, it's just common sense.
Common sense would be articulating your argument and using some facts. Telling people they’re wrong because you and others say so is just being a bully.
Title: Re: Why the Celtics won the Kyrie Irving trade
Post by: Darío SpanishFan on September 11, 2017, 04:05:05 AM
The Celts got an all-star and the Cavs potentially got two all-stars.

And potentially none.
No, IT is an all star, thats a fact.
yet he isn't able to run and is rumored to have a degenerative hip condition
But is he an all star though?

What matters for the trade (and the thread) is the future, not technical terms. We all know about his career so far.

In fact, he HAS BEEN an all-star. Maybe he comes back in November in good shape and is an all-star again or maybe he never plays a minute with the Cavaliers because he misses the season and signs with another team. Will he be an all-star for the Cavs if he never plays for them?

Anyway, reading the last posts it's you against the world. And in those cases the wrong part is usually the YOU, and not the rest of the people. So...that's it.
And will Kyrie be an all star for the celtics if he never makes it? The simple fact is that since IT has been an all star for the past 2 years, he is an all star. Until he misses one, he will be an all star, just like all the other all stars.

And, no just since other people or posters don’t agree with you doesn’t mean you’re wrong or “that’s it”. This isn’t an oppressive society or forum.

It's not oppression, it's just common sense.
Common sense would be articulating your argument and using some facts. Telling people they’re wrong because you and others say so is just being a bully.

You should have read like 15 arguments (mine and from others) well articulated. A lost cause.
Title: Re: Why the Celtics won the Kyrie Irving trade
Post by: Bucketgetter on September 11, 2017, 06:49:15 AM
The Celts got an all-star and the Cavs potentially got two all-stars.

And potentially none.
No, IT is an all star, thats a fact.
yet he isn't able to run and is rumored to have a degenerative hip condition
But is he an all star though?

What matters for the trade (and the thread) is the future, not technical terms. We all know about his career so far.

In fact, he HAS BEEN an all-star. Maybe he comes back in November in good shape and is an all-star again or maybe he never plays a minute with the Cavaliers because he misses the season and signs with another team. Will he be an all-star for the Cavs if he never plays for them?

Anyway, reading the last posts it's you against the world. And in those cases the wrong part is usually the YOU, and not the rest of the people. So...that's it.
And will Kyrie be an all star for the celtics if he never makes it? The simple fact is that since IT has been an all star for the past 2 years, he is an all star. Until he misses one, he will be an all star, just like all the other all stars.

And, no just since other people or posters don’t agree with you doesn’t mean you’re wrong or “that’s it”. This isn’t an oppressive society or forum.

It's not oppression, it's just common sense.
Common sense would be articulating your argument and using some facts. Telling people they’re wrong because you and others say so is just being a bully.

You should have read like 15 arguments (mine and from others) well articulated. A lost cause.
Weird, because I only count 6 posters who responded to my post saying IT isn’t an all star, and some who responded thinking he is. So where’d you get 15? Probably just another made up statement or statistic on your end. It’s pretty difficult to argue with someone who clearly doesn’t know the difference between fact and fiction lol!
Title: Re: Why the Celtics won the Kyrie Irving trade
Post by: Chris22 on September 11, 2017, 08:37:05 AM
We won the trade because we got a player who is younger and better.

I really don't understand the logic that the team that gets the best player automatically wins the trade (any trade for that matter). And I've heard it from NUMEROUS people and media reporters/experts too.

So if say, the Pelicans traded Anthony Davis, DeMarcus Cousins, most of their bench and 2 future 1st rounders for Lebron James, does that mean Pelicans win the trade because they got back the best player in the entire thing?

It's not like the Celtics JUST gave up Isaiah in the trade (who is injured, yes, but good chance he'll return when it matters - 2nd half and playoffs).

Strawman argument.
The Celtics won the trade, big time.
Title: Re: Why the Celtics won the Kyrie Irving trade
Post by: Roy H. on September 11, 2017, 09:04:59 AM
I'm not particularly interested in whether or not a guy makes an all star team or not. It only matters how he plays. IT could play very well and fail to make the all star team if some other guards have great seasons. I would not consider that a failure on his part.

I think of the situation this way, it is fair to assume that Kyrie will play at a high level. He has been consistently excellent as an offensive player (and bad defensively) and I see no compelling reason to think that will change. He is also younger, taller, and has a better contract situation than IT.

IT played at that very high level last year, but has not done so consistently. It is of course true that teams were reluctant to give him the opportunity he needed to excel, and once he got a chance in Boston he took it. It is a fact, however, that he has not played at the highest level throughout his career. I'm not saying he was trash, he was good his first full year in Boston and he played well his last year in Sac, but he has only reached Kyrie's level once in his career. Couple that with the injury and there is legitimate reason to wonder how good he will be going forward. If healthy I'm sure he will play well, but how well we don't know.

The pick could end up being a great player, or it could end up being a bust, there's too much uncertainly surrounding that to know for sure. The Cavs have added pieces that could potentially have much more value than Kyrie, but could also leave them will not much.

I'm not sure there has been that much separation between the two.

According to basketball-reference, guess which player - out of every player in NBA history - Kyrie's career tracks most closely with? Yep: Isaiah Thomas.

https://www.basketball-reference.com/players/i/irvinky01.html
Title: Re: Why the Celtics won the Kyrie Irving trade
Post by: spikelovetheCelts on September 11, 2017, 10:05:47 AM
We would suck without IT this year. This is a win for us. KI will stay a celtic just like KG.
Title: Re: Why the Celtics won the Kyrie Irving trade
Post by: Roy H. on September 11, 2017, 10:07:56 AM
We would suck without IT this year. This is a win for us. KI will stay a celtic just like KG.

This regular season doesn't mean too much to me.  Moreso, it's about whether IT is himself in the playoffs and beyond.
Title: Re: Why the Celtics won the Kyrie Irving trade
Post by: td450 on September 11, 2017, 11:00:56 AM
The C's made the trade to offload major risks. The Cav's took on major risks because that gave them the highest potential value.

No one knows who won the trade until the risks play out. We may very well not know for a few years.

The worst case scenario for Cleveland isn't IT being unable to play. The worst case scenario is that Brooklyn rises to mediocrity and the pick ends up being outside the top 10. IT plays pretty well, but not well enough for the Cav's to win the title. LeBron surveys his chances and decides to leave. The Cav's sign IT and then a year later, the hip deteriorates again. That is the worst case possible for the Cav's, and it is gruesome. 
Title: Re: Why the Celtics won the Kyrie Irving trade
Post by: smokeablount on September 11, 2017, 12:58:43 PM
We would suck without IT this year. This is a win for us. KI will stay a celtic just like KG.

This regular season doesn't mean too much to me.  Moreso, it's about whether IT is himself in the playoffs and beyond.

If the regular season didn't mean much to you, you would probably be a lot happier switching IT for Kyrie. Kyrie is a stone cold postseason killer and aside from this one past year, IT doesn't have that resume.
Title: Re: Why the Celtics won the Kyrie Irving trade
Post by: The One on September 11, 2017, 01:25:10 PM
Why the did Celtics win the Kyrie Irving trade?

Because in Brad's system (similar to GSW), he is going to make the Curry leap!

How does 28 ppg and 8 apg sound?




Title: Re: Why the Celtics won the Kyrie Irving trade
Post by: Roy H. on September 11, 2017, 01:29:35 PM
We would suck without IT this year. This is a win for us. KI will stay a celtic just like KG.

This regular season doesn't mean too much to me.  Moreso, it's about whether IT is himself in the playoffs and beyond.

If the regular season didn't mean much to you, you would probably be a lot happier switching IT for Kyrie. Kyrie is a stone cold postseason killer and aside from this one past year, IT doesn't have that resume.

We'll see? IT has proven he can be the best player on a ECF team. We'll see if Kyrie looks better or worse without Lebron drawing defensive focus. I suspect it's easier to play well when teams don't make stopping you the entire focus of their defensive game plan, but time will tell.

Title: Re: Why the Celtics won the Kyrie Irving trade
Post by: smokeablount on September 11, 2017, 01:37:25 PM
We would suck without IT this year. This is a win for us. KI will stay a celtic just like KG.

This regular season doesn't mean too much to me.  Moreso, it's about whether IT is himself in the playoffs and beyond.

If the regular season didn't mean much to you, you would probably be a lot happier switching IT for Kyrie. Kyrie is a stone cold postseason killer and aside from this one past year, IT doesn't have that resume.

We'll see? IT has proven he can be the best player on a ECF team. We'll see if Kyrie looks better or worse without Lebron drawing defensive focus. I suspect it's easier to play well when teams don't make stopping you the entire focus of their defensive game plan, but time will tell.

IT has proven that, but Kyrie has proven he can shred that ECF team, which only won in the ECF when IT wasn't playing, as well as put the nail in the coffin of the winningest team ever. I'm also not sure every team game plans to just stop Lebron. He clearly helped Kyrie, but I'd imagine that some teams are content for LBJ to get his and to focus on stopping "the other guys."

I agree that time will tell, but without seeing Kyrie in our offense it's a lot of speculation either way, and basing ITs argument on a single dominant season when he was 28 and before a major injury seems shaky.
Title: Re: Why the Celtics won the Kyrie Irving trade
Post by: mmmmm on September 11, 2017, 04:38:52 PM
Why the did Celtics win the Kyrie Irving trade?

Because in Brad's system (similar to GSW), he is going to make the Curry leap!

How does 28 ppg and 8 apg sound?

That sounds great!

Question:  Will Kyrie be increasing his scoring through increased shots per game?  Or improved efficiency?

In order to get 8 assists per game, he'll also need to increase his touch & pass volume by about 25% or his teammates will need to convert their shots off his passes a lot more efficiently.   


Title: Re: Why the Celtics won the Kyrie Irving trade
Post by: Dino Pitino on September 11, 2017, 05:36:27 PM
Why the did Celtics win the Kyrie Irving trade?

Because in Brad's system (similar to GSW), he is going to make the Curry leap!

How does 28 ppg and 8 apg sound?

That sounds great!

Question:  Will Kyrie be increasing his scoring through increased shots per game?  Or improved efficiency?

Both. He'll take and make more threes.

Quote
In order to get 8 assists per game, he'll also need to increase his touch & pass volume by about 25% or his teammates will need to convert their shots off his passes a lot more efficiently.

The former. He'll get an extra assist per game just by not having to share passing duties with LeBron. The extra ball movement prescribed by Stevens will account for another assist per game.
Title: Re: Why the Celtics won the Kyrie Irving trade
Post by: mmmmm on September 12, 2017, 10:08:17 AM
Why the did Celtics win the Kyrie Irving trade?

Because in Brad's system (similar to GSW), he is going to make the Curry leap!

How does 28 ppg and 8 apg sound?

That sounds great!

Question:  Will Kyrie be increasing his scoring through increased shots per game?  Or improved efficiency?

Both. He'll take and make more threes.
Kyrie was 6th in the NBA in FGA per game last year.  Are you saying that will go up?  Or just that the percentage of them that are threes will go up?  Or that he will both take more shots AND more of them as threes?   He lead CLE with a 30.8% USG rating.  That's lower than Isaiah's 34% last year, but Isaiah really didn't have any other high USG player on the team with him.

Is Gordon Hayward going to take as many shots as he took last year for UTAH?  More?  Less?  He was a 28.7% USG player.   Do you think that will go down in order for Kyrie to take more shots?

Quote

Quote
In order to get 8 assists per game, he'll also need to increase his touch & pass volume by about 25% or his teammates will need to convert their shots off his passes a lot more efficiently.

The former. He'll get an extra assist per game just by not having to share passing duties with LeBron. The extra ball movement prescribed by Stevens will account for another assist per game.

Well, even though he was sharing passing duties with Lebron, Kyrie still passed the ball 52.2 times per game, just barely behind Thomas' 55.7 times per game.   The Celtics weren't all THAT different from CLE because Al Horford actually shared a huge chunk of the passing duties (51.0 passes per game).  Lebron did lead all those guys at 59.5 passes per game but it's not like he was Ricky Rubio with the ball.  And as noted, we've also added Gordon Hayward to the mix and he's a pretty adept passer as well (40.1 passes per game in the really slow UTAH offense).

Are you envisioning that Horford and Hayward will play a reduced role in the passing duties from who they have been?
Title: Re: Why the Celtics won the Kyrie Irving trade
Post by: smokeablount on September 12, 2017, 10:35:23 AM
Why the did Celtics win the Kyrie Irving trade?

Because in Brad's system (similar to GSW), he is going to make the Curry leap!

How does 28 ppg and 8 apg sound?

That sounds great!

Question:  Will Kyrie be increasing his scoring through increased shots per game?  Or improved efficiency?

Both. He'll take and make more threes.
Kyrie was 6th in the NBA in FGA per game last year.  Are you saying that will go up?  Or just that the percentage of them that are threes will go up?  Or that he will both take more shots AND more of them as threes?   He lead CLE with a 30.8% USG rating.  That's lower than Isaiah's 34% last year, but Isaiah really didn't have any other high USG player on the team with him.

Is Gordon Hayward going to take as many shots as he took last year for UTAH?  More?  Less?  He was a 28.7% USG player.   Do you think that will go down in order for Kyrie to take more shots?

Quote

Quote
In order to get 8 assists per game, he'll also need to increase his touch & pass volume by about 25% or his teammates will need to convert their shots off his passes a lot more efficiently.

The former. He'll get an extra assist per game just by not having to share passing duties with LeBron. The extra ball movement prescribed by Stevens will account for another assist per game.

Well, even though he was sharing passing duties with Lebron, Kyrie still passed the ball 52.2 times per game, just barely behind Thomas' 55.7 times per game.   The Celtics weren't all THAT different from CLE because Al Horford actually shared a huge chunk of the passing duties (51.0 passes per game).  Lebron did lead all those guys at 59.5 passes per game but it's not like he was Ricky Rubio with the ball.  And as noted, we've also added Gordon Hayward to the mix and he's a pretty adept passer as well (40.1 passes per game in the really slow UTAH offense).

Are you envisioning that Horford and Hayward will play a reduced role in the passing duties from who they have been?

As someone that interviewed at McKinsey and Bain many years ago, I genuinely appreciate how you are using a marriage of the Socratic method and Ace Your Case follow up questions to peel back Dino Pitino's post, but I think the analysis of this trade has been really, really over-reliant on stats.  'IT had better stats than Kyrie last year' or 'If Kyrie was in IT's role last year he would have done x...' or 'Kyrie needs to put up x,y,z stats for the Celtics to not lose the trade', etc. 

I'm guilty of this as well.  I think last year Kyrie would've put up stats as good as IT if he was on the Celtics in every area except efficiency.  But I also think it's incredibly biased to cherry pick a guy's best year (by far) at the age of 28 on a team with no other scorers before he suffered a major injury, and then say a guy who's 3 years away from being 28 and who's made twice as many all star teams needs to put up the same numbers on a totally different team... or else.

I'm confident that 1) Kyrie has a bigger advantage over IT than those who are bearish on the trade think.  If you put a 25 year old IT or a 25 year old Kyrie on a team like Denver or Utah last year, I think Kyrie makes the team better and is clearly the individual player.  I also believe that 2) Kyrie hasn't reached his full potential, nor has he played for a coach or a team who gets as much out of their players as CBS and the Celtics.  It's still on Kyrie to work to improve, especially defensively, and this is speculation, but it's no less nutty than comparing IT's best season on last year's Celtics team to Kyrie last year on the Cavs, or 21 year old Kyrie. 

I think for now the Celtics won the trade because Kyrie is the best player, and because before the trade IT was the bridge between the gap of Horford as a 30 year old and Hayward as a 27 year old, which overlaps with the ages of Golden State's stars.  Now, Kyrie bridges the age gap between Hayward at 28 and Brown/Tatum at age 20 or so.  The team can improve in the next 2-3 years, after which time Golden State should be broken up or bankrupt due to repeater tax violations, and still have its best 2 players and 2-3 grade A prospects in or entering their prime.

If the Nets pick lands at #1 or #2 that could affect my decision.  Maybe even if it lands #3-4.  But for now, I'm very pleased with the trade other than feeling bad for a great Celtic in IT.
Title: Re: Why the Celtics won the Kyrie Irving trade
Post by: mmmmm on September 12, 2017, 11:51:41 AM
Why the did Celtics win the Kyrie Irving trade?

Because in Brad's system (similar to GSW), he is going to make the Curry leap!

How does 28 ppg and 8 apg sound?

That sounds great!

Question:  Will Kyrie be increasing his scoring through increased shots per game?  Or improved efficiency?

Both. He'll take and make more threes.
Kyrie was 6th in the NBA in FGA per game last year.  Are you saying that will go up?  Or just that the percentage of them that are threes will go up?  Or that he will both take more shots AND more of them as threes?   He lead CLE with a 30.8% USG rating.  That's lower than Isaiah's 34% last year, but Isaiah really didn't have any other high USG player on the team with him.

Is Gordon Hayward going to take as many shots as he took last year for UTAH?  More?  Less?  He was a 28.7% USG player.   Do you think that will go down in order for Kyrie to take more shots?

Quote

Quote
In order to get 8 assists per game, he'll also need to increase his touch & pass volume by about 25% or his teammates will need to convert their shots off his passes a lot more efficiently.

The former. He'll get an extra assist per game just by not having to share passing duties with LeBron. The extra ball movement prescribed by Stevens will account for another assist per game.

Well, even though he was sharing passing duties with Lebron, Kyrie still passed the ball 52.2 times per game, just barely behind Thomas' 55.7 times per game.   The Celtics weren't all THAT different from CLE because Al Horford actually shared a huge chunk of the passing duties (51.0 passes per game).  Lebron did lead all those guys at 59.5 passes per game but it's not like he was Ricky Rubio with the ball.  And as noted, we've also added Gordon Hayward to the mix and he's a pretty adept passer as well (40.1 passes per game in the really slow UTAH offense).

Are you envisioning that Horford and Hayward will play a reduced role in the passing duties from who they have been?

As someone that interviewed at McKinsey and Bain many years ago, I genuinely appreciate how you are using a marriage of the Socratic method and Ace Your Case follow up questions to peel back Dino Pitino's post, but I think the analysis of this trade has been really, really over-reliant on stats.  'IT had better stats than Kyrie last year' or 'If Kyrie was in IT's role last year he would have done x...' or 'Kyrie needs to put up x,y,z stats for the Celtics to not lose the trade', etc. 

I'm guilty of this as well.  I think last year Kyrie would've put up stats as good as IT if he was on the Celtics in every area except efficiency.  But I also think it's incredibly biased to cherry pick a guy's best year (by far) at the age of 28 on a team with no other scorers before he suffered a major injury, and then say a guy who's 3 years away from being 28 and who's made twice as many all star teams needs to put up the same numbers on a totally different team... or else.

I'm confident that 1) Kyrie has a bigger advantage over IT than those who are bearish on the trade think.  If you put a 25 year old IT or a 25 year old Kyrie on a team like Denver or Utah last year, I think Kyrie makes the team better and is clearly the individual player.  I also believe that 2) Kyrie hasn't reached his full potential, nor has he played for a coach or a team who gets as much out of their players as CBS and the Celtics.  It's still on Kyrie to work to improve, especially defensively, and this is speculation, but it's no less nutty than comparing IT's best season on last year's Celtics team to Kyrie last year on the Cavs, or 21 year old Kyrie. 

I think for now the Celtics won the trade because Kyrie is the best player, and because before the trade IT was the bridge between the gap of Horford as a 30 year old and Hayward as a 27 year old, which overlaps with the ages of Golden State's stars.  Now, Kyrie bridges the age gap between Hayward at 28 and Brown/Tatum at age 20 or so.  The team can improve in the next 2-3 years, after which time Golden State should be broken up or bankrupt due to repeater tax violations, and still have its best 2 players and 2-3 grade A prospects in or entering their prime.

If the Nets pick lands at #1 or #2 that could affect my decision.  Maybe even if it lands #3-4.  But for now, I'm very pleased with the trade other than feeling bad for a great Celtic in IT.

As debating techniques go, yours here falls under a couple of well known techniques as well:

Unsupported assertion / begged question:  "the analysis of this trade has been really, really over-reliant on stats."   Maybe it has, maybe it hasn't.  But you have not really shown that it has.

Red herring:  You proceed to make it a debate about KI vs last year's IT and over the trade and you bring in age as an additional factor for supporting the trade.   That's fine.  If I were debating the merits of the trade I would bring in age as a factor as well.  Of course, I would also bring in the value of Jae, Zizic and the two draft picks.  But I was not debating the merits of the trade.

My comments in response to "The One" were not about the trade.   My comments were purely about the question of whether KI could average 28 points per game and 8 assists per game in "Brad's system".

Title: Re: Why the Celtics won the Kyrie Irving trade
Post by: Vermont Green on September 12, 2017, 12:31:59 PM
I will chime in with some thoughts also not stat based.  I don't think Kyrie will increase both points and assists under Stevens or any other coach.  One or the other, sure, but not both.  Further, I don't think that would be good for the team.

Assists are a funny stat.  A team like San Antonio (a few years ago but still to some degree) would not have anyone over 5 or 6 assists but they would have a lot of total team assists.  Why?  Because they keep the ball moving, they don't worry about who makes the last pass.  The best ball movement is the result of 2 or 3 passes, not one pass.

So I don't care how many assists Kyrie gets.  I just want to the the ball moving when he is on the court.  Get the ball the the open man and don't worry who gets the assist (ahem, cough cough Rondo).
Title: Re: Why the Celtics won the Kyrie Irving trade
Post by: smokeablount on September 12, 2017, 12:43:06 PM
Why the did Celtics win the Kyrie Irving trade?

Because in Brad's system (similar to GSW), he is going to make the Curry leap!

How does 28 ppg and 8 apg sound?

That sounds great!

Question:  Will Kyrie be increasing his scoring through increased shots per game?  Or improved efficiency?

Both. He'll take and make more threes.
Kyrie was 6th in the NBA in FGA per game last year.  Are you saying that will go up?  Or just that the percentage of them that are threes will go up?  Or that he will both take more shots AND more of them as threes?   He lead CLE with a 30.8% USG rating.  That's lower than Isaiah's 34% last year, but Isaiah really didn't have any other high USG player on the team with him.

Is Gordon Hayward going to take as many shots as he took last year for UTAH?  More?  Less?  He was a 28.7% USG player.   Do you think that will go down in order for Kyrie to take more shots?

Quote

Quote
In order to get 8 assists per game, he'll also need to increase his touch & pass volume by about 25% or his teammates will need to convert their shots off his passes a lot more efficiently.

The former. He'll get an extra assist per game just by not having to share passing duties with LeBron. The extra ball movement prescribed by Stevens will account for another assist per game.

Well, even though he was sharing passing duties with Lebron, Kyrie still passed the ball 52.2 times per game, just barely behind Thomas' 55.7 times per game.   The Celtics weren't all THAT different from CLE because Al Horford actually shared a huge chunk of the passing duties (51.0 passes per game).  Lebron did lead all those guys at 59.5 passes per game but it's not like he was Ricky Rubio with the ball.  And as noted, we've also added Gordon Hayward to the mix and he's a pretty adept passer as well (40.1 passes per game in the really slow UTAH offense).

Are you envisioning that Horford and Hayward will play a reduced role in the passing duties from who they have been?

As someone that interviewed at McKinsey and Bain many years ago, I genuinely appreciate how you are using a marriage of the Socratic method and Ace Your Case follow up questions to peel back Dino Pitino's post, but I think the analysis of this trade has been really, really over-reliant on stats.  'IT had better stats than Kyrie last year' or 'If Kyrie was in IT's role last year he would have done x...' or 'Kyrie needs to put up x,y,z stats for the Celtics to not lose the trade', etc. 

I'm guilty of this as well.  I think last year Kyrie would've put up stats as good as IT if he was on the Celtics in every area except efficiency.  But I also think it's incredibly biased to cherry pick a guy's best year (by far) at the age of 28 on a team with no other scorers before he suffered a major injury, and then say a guy who's 3 years away from being 28 and who's made twice as many all star teams needs to put up the same numbers on a totally different team... or else.

I'm confident that 1) Kyrie has a bigger advantage over IT than those who are bearish on the trade think.  If you put a 25 year old IT or a 25 year old Kyrie on a team like Denver or Utah last year, I think Kyrie makes the team better and is clearly the individual player.  I also believe that 2) Kyrie hasn't reached his full potential, nor has he played for a coach or a team who gets as much out of their players as CBS and the Celtics.  It's still on Kyrie to work to improve, especially defensively, and this is speculation, but it's no less nutty than comparing IT's best season on last year's Celtics team to Kyrie last year on the Cavs, or 21 year old Kyrie. 

I think for now the Celtics won the trade because Kyrie is the best player, and because before the trade IT was the bridge between the gap of Horford as a 30 year old and Hayward as a 27 year old, which overlaps with the ages of Golden State's stars.  Now, Kyrie bridges the age gap between Hayward at 28 and Brown/Tatum at age 20 or so.  The team can improve in the next 2-3 years, after which time Golden State should be broken up or bankrupt due to repeater tax violations, and still have its best 2 players and 2-3 grade A prospects in or entering their prime.

If the Nets pick lands at #1 or #2 that could affect my decision.  Maybe even if it lands #3-4.  But for now, I'm very pleased with the trade other than feeling bad for a great Celtic in IT.

As debating techniques go, yours here falls under a couple of well known techniques as well:

Unsupported assertion / begged question:  "the analysis of this trade has been really, really over-reliant on stats."   Maybe it has, maybe it hasn't.  But you have not really shown that it has.

Red herring:  You proceed to make it a debate about KI vs last year's IT and over the trade and you bring in age as an additional factor for supporting the trade.   That's fine.  If I were debating the merits of the trade I would bring in age as a factor as well.  Of course, I would also bring in the value of Jae, Zizic and the two draft picks.  But I was not debating the merits of the trade.

My comments in response to "The One" were not about the trade.   My comments were purely about the question of whether KI could average 28 points per game and 8 assists per game in "Brad's system".

I mean, have you visited Celticsblog in the past few weeks and seen the arguments against the trade?  Rather than ask someone at work to find a bunch of sources for you, maybe you should strike out on your own and do some digging.  If you disagree with my assertion that's fine by me, but I don't write Celtics dissertations while on the job.  Do you? 

And if you weren't debating the merits of the trade, why were you posting in a thread called "Why the Celtics won the Kyrie Irving trade?"  You expect others to cite and prove what's been pretty apparent all across the board, but don't hold yourself accountable for even staying on topic.  That's weird. 
Title: Re: Why the Celtics won the Kyrie Irving trade
Post by: Dino Pitino on September 12, 2017, 01:09:13 PM
Quote
Kyrie was 6th in the NBA in FGA per game last year.  Are you saying that will go up?  Or just that the percentage of them that are threes will go up?  Or that he will both take more shots AND more of them as threes?

I predict he will take two more shots a game and they'll be threes, and he'll finish 2nd in the league in FGA/G.

Quote
Are you envisioning that Horford and Hayward will play a reduced role in the passing duties from who they have been?

Why would they need to? Look at your own stats:

Quote
Well, even though he was sharing passing duties with Lebron, Kyrie still passed the ball 52.2 times per game, just barely behind Thomas' 55.7 times per game.   The Celtics weren't all THAT different from CLE because Al Horford actually shared a huge chunk of the passing duties (51.0 passes per game).  Lebron did lead all those guys at 59.5 passes per game but it's not like he was Ricky Rubio with the ball.

If Isaiah averaged 6 assists with that many passes, on a team where the other most prolific passer averaged 51, how is Kyrie NOT going to up his own 6 assists a game if he's getting an extra 3.5 passes just by inheriting Isaiah's role, on a team where the other most prolific passer averages 8.5 fewer passes than the one he had to share passing duties with before?

Anyway, yes, I suspect Horford and Hayward will average fewer passes and assists this year.
Title: Re: Why the Celtics won the Kyrie Irving trade
Post by: The One on September 12, 2017, 01:16:51 PM
Why the did Celtics win the Kyrie Irving trade?

Because in Brad's system (similar to GSW), he is going to make the Curry leap!

How does 28 ppg and 8 apg sound?

That sounds great!

Question:  Will Kyrie be increasing his scoring through increased shots per game?  Or improved efficiency?

Both. He'll take and make more threes.

Quote
In order to get 8 assists per game, he'll also need to increase his touch & pass volume by about 25% or his teammates will need to convert their shots off his passes a lot more efficiently.

The former. He'll get an extra assist per game just by not having to share passing duties with LeBron. The extra ball movement prescribed by Stevens will account for another assist per game.

I agree with Dino Pitino!

Plus, as a wise man once said..."speak it into existence".

28 & 8...can't fail...

 ;) ;) ;)
Title: Re: Why the Celtics won the Kyrie Irving trade
Post by: mmmmm on September 12, 2017, 02:30:01 PM
Quote
Kyrie was 6th in the NBA in FGA per game last year.  Are you saying that will go up?  Or just that the percentage of them that are threes will go up?  Or that he will both take more shots AND more of them as threes?

I predict he will take two more shots a game and they'll be threes, and he'll finish 2nd in the league in FGA/G.

Quote
Are you envisioning that Horford and Hayward will play a reduced role in the passing duties from who they have been?

Why would they need to? Look at your own stats:

Quote
Well, even though he was sharing passing duties with Lebron, Kyrie still passed the ball 52.2 times per game, just barely behind Thomas' 55.7 times per game.   The Celtics weren't all THAT different from CLE because Al Horford actually shared a huge chunk of the passing duties (51.0 passes per game).  Lebron did lead all those guys at 59.5 passes per game but it's not like he was Ricky Rubio with the ball.

If Isaiah averaged 6 assists with that many passes, on a team where the other most prolific passer averaged 51, how is Kyrie NOT going to up his own 6 assists a game if he's getting an extra 3.5 passes just by inheriting Isaiah's role, on a team where the other most prolific passer averages 8.5 fewer passes than the one he had to share passing duties with before?

Anyway, yes, I suspect Horford and Hayward will average fewer passes and assists this year.

Two factors here:

1) A straight replacement of KI's passing totals with IT's is less than a 7% increase in passes.   

2) For that to result in over a 25% increase in assists, his teammates shooting off those passes would have to have a gigantic increase in efficiency over last year.   Do you think Horford, Hayward, Brown, et al, will shoot that much more efficiently than Lebron, Love, et al?

Look - all I'm trying to do here is to manage expectations.   What can we _realistically_ expect from Kyrie in this offense?
Title: Re: Why the Celtics won the Kyrie Irving trade
Post by: biggs on September 12, 2017, 02:53:42 PM
The Celts got an all-star and the Cavs potentially got two all-stars.

And potentially none.
No, IT is an all star, thats a fact.
yet he isn't able to run and is rumored to have a degenerative hip condition

It could just be me, but it seems like Celtics fans were all "Isaiah's fine" pre-trade, and "He's toast" post-trade. ;)
Title: Re: Why the Celtics won the Kyrie Irving trade
Post by: Dino Pitino on September 12, 2017, 03:05:16 PM

Two factors here:

1) A straight replacement of KI's passing totals with IT's is less than a 7% increase in passes.   

But it's not just a straight replacement, he's also sharing the passes less, and the Celtics outpace the Cavs a little.

Quote
2) For that to result in over a 25% increase in assists, his teammates shooting off those passes would have to have a gigantic increase in efficiency over last year.   Do you think Horford, Hayward, Brown, et al, will shoot that much more efficiently than Lebron, Love, et al?

Not a whole lot, but they could shoot a little more efficiently.

Quote
Look - all I'm trying to do here is to manage expectations.   What can we _realistically_ expect from Kyrie in this offense?

What do you think is realistic, 7 assists?
Title: Re: Why the Celtics won the Kyrie Irving trade
Post by: mmmmm on September 12, 2017, 04:20:31 PM

Two factors here:

1) A straight replacement of KI's passing totals with IT's is less than a 7% increase in passes.   

But it's not just a straight replacement, he's also sharing the passes less, and the Celtics outpace the Cavs a little.

Quote
2) For that to result in over a 25% increase in assists, his teammates shooting off those passes would have to have a gigantic increase in efficiency over last year.   Do you think Horford, Hayward, Brown, et al, will shoot that much more efficiently than Lebron, Love, et al?

Not a whole lot, but they could shoot a little more efficiently.

Quote
Look - all I'm trying to do here is to manage expectations.   What can we _realistically_ expect from Kyrie in this offense?

What do you think is realistic, 7 assists?

I honestly don't expect his assists to go up.  I think they'll end up about the same.  On the other hand, I expect him to get a bump in efficiency based on shifting his shooting profile slightly more outside the arc and because he should shoot a larger percentage of assisted shots in this system, so I see him increasing his scoring just slightly.   I think a 26/6 line is realistic.

If he improves his scoring efficiency on a personal skill level (growth) on top of the change in system, then maybe that gets up to 27/6.
Title: Re: Why the Celtics won the Kyrie Irving trade
Post by: Casperian on September 12, 2017, 04:29:27 PM
It really doesn't matter who "won" the trade. Success is measured individually and in comparison to expectations.

The real question is "Are we good enough to win a championship?".

SPOILER: no
Title: Re: Why the Celtics won the Kyrie Irving trade
Post by: Celtics4ever on September 12, 2017, 04:56:55 PM
Quote
The real question is "Are we good enough to win a championship?".

SPOILER: no

Are we closer

SPOILER:   Yes
Title: Re: Why the Celtics won the Kyrie Irving trade
Post by: SHAQATTACK on September 12, 2017, 05:01:28 PM
Quote
The real question is "Are we good enough to win a championship?".

SPOILER: no

Are we closer

SPOILER:   Yes

TP
Title: Re: Why the Celtics won the Kyrie Irving trade
Post by: jambr380 on September 12, 2017, 07:36:59 PM
The Celts got an all-star and the Cavs potentially got two all-stars.

And potentially none.
No, IT is an all star, thats a fact.
yet he isn't able to run and is rumored to have a degenerative hip condition

It could just be me, but it seems like Celtics fans were all "Isaiah's fine" pre-trade, and "He's toast" post-trade. ;)

Not untrue.

But, during trade negotiations, we also went from thinking IT would be available for the start of the season to possibly not playing until March (or even longer!).

I think all of us are thankful for what IT has done for the franchise the last couple of years, but many are also happy we have a younger, (hopefully) healthier version of his best [season] in Kyrie for the next 7+ years. The BKN pick is a tough pill to swallow, but if IT turns out to not even be an asset, then I think we made out pretty well.
Title: Re: Why the Celtics won the Kyrie Irving trade
Post by: Quetzalcoatl on September 12, 2017, 08:14:17 PM
The Celts got an all-star and the Cavs potentially got two all-stars.

And potentially none.
No, IT is an all star, thats a fact.
yet he isn't able to run and is rumored to have a degenerative hip condition

It could just be me, but it seems like Celtics fans were all "Isaiah's fine" pre-trade, and "He's toast" post-trade. ;)

Not untrue.

But, during trade negotiations, we also went from thinking IT would be available for the start of the season to possibly not playing until March (or even longer!).

I think all of us are thankful for what IT has done for the franchise the last couple of years, but many are also happy we have a younger, (hopefully) healthier version of his best [season] in Kyrie for the next 7+ years. The BKN pick is a tough pill to swallow, but if turns out to not even be an asset, then I think we made out pretty well.

TP.  Plus, the fact that Celtics fans "were all "Isaiah's fine" pre-trade, and "He's toast" post-trade" is more of just proof that Danny is a great GM.  Most other FOs would have had a leak
Title: Re: Why the Celtics won the Kyrie Irving trade
Post by: tarheelsxxiii on September 12, 2017, 08:20:58 PM
The Celts got an all-star and the Cavs potentially got two all-stars.

And potentially none.
No, IT is an all star, thats a fact.
yet he isn't able to run and is rumored to have a degenerative hip condition

It could just be me, but it seems like Celtics fans were all "Isaiah's fine" pre-trade, and "He's toast" post-trade. ;)

Not untrue.

But, during trade negotiations, we also went from thinking IT would be available for the start of the season to possibly not playing until March (or even longer!).

I think all of us are thankful for what IT has done for the franchise the last couple of years, but many are also happy we have a younger, (hopefully) healthier version of his best [season] in Kyrie for the next 7+ years. The BKN pick is a tough pill to swallow, but if turns out to not even be an asset, then I think we made out pretty well.

TP.  Plus, the fact that Celtics fans "were all "Isaiah's fine" pre-trade, and "He's toast" post-trade" is more of just proof that Danny is a great GM.  Most other FOs would have had a leak

Or, respectfully, it's just a collective cognitive dissonance.  If your GM can do no wrong, it's pretty easy to shape your perspective to align with his decisions.  I imagine quite a few Celtics fans fall into this camp.
Title: Re: Why the Celtics won the Kyrie Irving trade
Post by: mr. dee on September 12, 2017, 08:57:01 PM
The Celts got an all-star and the Cavs potentially got two all-stars.

And potentially none.
No, IT is an all star, thats a fact.
yet he isn't able to run and is rumored to have a degenerative hip condition

It could just be me, but it seems like Celtics fans were all "Isaiah's fine" pre-trade, and "He's toast" post-trade. ;)

Not untrue.

But, during trade negotiations, we also went from thinking IT would be available for the start of the season to possibly not playing until March (or even longer!).

I think all of us are thankful for what IT has done for the franchise the last couple of years, but many are also happy we have a younger, (hopefully) healthier version of his best [season] in Kyrie for the next 7+ years. The BKN pick is a tough pill to swallow, but if turns out to not even be an asset, then I think we made out pretty well.

TP.  Plus, the fact that Celtics fans "were all "Isaiah's fine" pre-trade, and "He's toast" post-trade" is more of just proof that Danny is a great GM.  Most other FOs would have had a leak

Or, respectfully, it's just a collective cognitive dissonance.  If your GM can do no wrong, it's pretty easy to shape your perspective to align with his decisions.  I imagine quite a few Celtics fans fall into this camp.

Prior to trade, sources are telling that Isaiah will be able to play earlier this year. But once the deal was done, Cavs asked for a compensation because they predicted he will be out maybe until the all-star break which means the injury might be more serious than we initially thought.
Title: Re: Why the Celtics won the Kyrie Irving trade
Post by: tarheelsxxiii on September 12, 2017, 09:04:41 PM
The Celts got an all-star and the Cavs potentially got two all-stars.

And potentially none.
No, IT is an all star, thats a fact.
yet he isn't able to run and is rumored to have a degenerative hip condition

It could just be me, but it seems like Celtics fans were all "Isaiah's fine" pre-trade, and "He's toast" post-trade. ;)

Not untrue.

But, during trade negotiations, we also went from thinking IT would be available for the start of the season to possibly not playing until March (or even longer!).

I think all of us are thankful for what IT has done for the franchise the last couple of years, but many are also happy we have a younger, (hopefully) healthier version of his best [season] in Kyrie for the next 7+ years. The BKN pick is a tough pill to swallow, but if turns out to not even be an asset, then I think we made out pretty well.

TP.  Plus, the fact that Celtics fans "were all "Isaiah's fine" pre-trade, and "He's toast" post-trade" is more of just proof that Danny is a great GM.  Most other FOs would have had a leak

Or, respectfully, it's just a collective cognitive dissonance.  If your GM can do no wrong, it's pretty easy to shape your perspective to align with his decisions.  I imagine quite a few Celtics fans fall into this camp.

Prior to trade, sources are telling that Isaiah will be able to play earlier this year. But once the deal was done, Cavs asked for a compensation because they predicted he will be out maybe until the all-star break which means the injury might be more serious than we initially thought.

Yeah, it's certainly possible.  But, I think it's also possible that CLE was negotiating to squeeze more assets out of the BOS, and in that case, his medical status may or may not have had anything to do with it. 
Title: Re: Why the Celtics won the Kyrie Irving trade
Post by: obnoxiousmime on September 12, 2017, 09:16:58 PM
It really doesn't matter who "won" the trade. Success is measured individually and in comparison to expectations.

The real question is "Are we good enough to win a championship?".

SPOILER: no

If you measure the success of trades based on whether it makes you a true contender, you're going to be disappointed 99% of the time. We were never one move away from being as good as Golden State, which is the same situation almost all the teams in the league find themselves right now. Golden State has raised the bar so high that teams with three stars aren't even competitive with them. That's not a typical situation when you look at history and what it usually takes talent-wise to have a shot at a title.

Ainge basically kicked the can down the road slightly while still making the team better for this season so they will still be competitive in case something unexpected happens (a star becomes available, injuries to other teams, etc.).
Title: Re: Why the Celtics won the Kyrie Irving trade
Post by: Phantom255x on September 12, 2017, 11:08:49 PM
Quote
The real question is "Are we good enough to win a championship?".

SPOILER: no

Are we closer

SPOILER:   Yes

(https://i.imgflip.com/1dxet4.jpg)

We're about the same. We were 1 star away from legitimately competing for Banner 18 before the trade and we are still 1 star away after the trade. Plus Kyrie is going to have to do a ton to replicate what Isaiah did for us last season (including distributing the ball better and limiting turnovers).

I'm rooting for Irving to take that leap with CBS as his coach (leap to the likes of Harden/Westbrook, even Curry), but I do have some doubts.

Plus we overpayed by including Nets Pick and Zizic (who many experts said would have been Top-10 in the most previous Draft 3 months ago).
Title: Re: Why the Celtics won the Kyrie Irving trade
Post by: droopdog7 on September 12, 2017, 11:09:17 PM
The Celts got an all-star and the Cavs potentially got two all-stars.

And potentially none.
No, IT is an all star, thats a fact.
yet he isn't able to run and is rumored to have a degenerative hip condition

It could just be me, but it seems like Celtics fans were all "Isaiah's fine" pre-trade, and "He's toast" post-trade. ;)
I don't think I gave much thought at all about his health.  I guess I wasn't really paying attention.  But even if healthy, there was certainly a healthy debate about paying IT max money long term.  I certainly was not convinced about paying him.  I have no such doubts about paying kyrie.
Title: Re: Why the Celtics won the Kyrie Irving trade
Post by: Casperian on September 13, 2017, 06:27:25 AM
It really doesn't matter who "won" the trade. Success is measured individually and in comparison to expectations.

The real question is "Are we good enough to win a championship?".

SPOILER: no

If you measure the success of trades based on whether it makes you a true contender, you're going to be disappointed 99% of the time. We were never one move away from being as good as Golden State, which is the same situation almost all the teams in the league find themselves right now. Golden State has raised the bar so high that teams with three stars aren't even competitive with them. That's not a typical situation when you look at history and what it usually takes talent-wise to have a shot at a title.

Ainge basically kicked the can down the road slightly while still making the team better for this season so they will still be competitive in case something unexpected happens (a star becomes available, injuries to other teams, etc.).

Oh, excuse me, but if you finished last season with the best record in the east, trade away your all-star PG, hold the #1 pick in a supposedly loaded draft, and invest another pick (potential value: sky high, estimated value: sky high, real value: TBD), then yes, I expect you to be a contender.

Losing to the Cavs in the ECF again, or getting swept by whoever comes out of the west is 100%, definitely, unequivocally not a success, it's a failure of the highest magnitude.

Fingers crossed, eh?

Title: Re: Why the Celtics won the Kyrie Irving trade
Post by: Celtics4ever on September 13, 2017, 08:02:10 AM
It is too early to tell until we see the season unfold.

All this talk is nothing once the games starts then we can see.
Title: Re: Why the Celtics won the Kyrie Irving trade
Post by: smokeablount on September 13, 2017, 08:51:46 AM
It really doesn't matter who "won" the trade. Success is measured individually and in comparison to expectations.

The real question is "Are we good enough to win a championship?".

SPOILER: no

If you measure the success of trades based on whether it makes you a true contender, you're going to be disappointed 99% of the time. We were never one move away from being as good as Golden State, which is the same situation almost all the teams in the league find themselves right now. Golden State has raised the bar so high that teams with three stars aren't even competitive with them. That's not a typical situation when you look at history and what it usually takes talent-wise to have a shot at a title.

Ainge basically kicked the can down the road slightly while still making the team better for this season so they will still be competitive in case something unexpected happens (a star becomes available, injuries to other teams, etc.).

That's an astute point, because this poster does seem disappointed 99% of the time.
Title: Re: Why the Celtics won the Kyrie Irving trade
Post by: smokeablount on September 13, 2017, 09:17:38 AM
It really doesn't matter who "won" the trade. Success is measured individually and in comparison to expectations.

The real question is "Are we good enough to win a championship?".

SPOILER: no

If you measure the success of trades based on whether it makes you a true contender, you're going to be disappointed 99% of the time. We were never one move away from being as good as Golden State, which is the same situation almost all the teams in the league find themselves right now. Golden State has raised the bar so high that teams with three stars aren't even competitive with them. That's not a typical situation when you look at history and what it usually takes talent-wise to have a shot at a title.

Ainge basically kicked the can down the road slightly while still making the team better for this season so they will still be competitive in case something unexpected happens (a star becomes available, injuries to other teams, etc.).

Oh, excuse me, but if you finished last season with the best record in the east, trade away your all-star PG, hold the #1 pick in a supposedly loaded draft, and invest another pick (potential value: sky high, estimated value: sky high, real value: TBD), then yes, I expect you to be a contender.

Losing to the Cavs in the ECF again, or getting swept by whoever comes out of the west is 100%, definitely, unequivocally not a success, it's a failure of the highest magnitude.

Fingers crossed, eh?

Really? So what one move would you have made to make us a contender if you were GM?