CelticsStrong
Celtics Basketball => Celtics Talk => Topic started by: incoherent on October 11, 2017, 10:02:11 AM
-
Crowder
One thing that stands out to me in a big way is how frustrating it would be if we still had Crowder. I think trading Crowder (Despite being good and on a good contract) is one of the most important parts of the trade.
It's obvious we have something Brown and Tatum, and can you imagine fitting in 30 minutes a night for Crowder? I can't. Also it would hurt Rozier/Smart's minutes as well whom both have much higher ceilings than Crowder.
It's obvious now to me, and it was probably obvious to Danny/Brad, that Crowder simply HAD to go... I for one am super thankful he's gone. I'm not cool with Tatum/Brown getting 10 minutes a night.
Zizic
Seeing that Horford will likely start at the 5, our need for big-depth isn't as stark. Baynes can replace Horford, Theis can be the third-string center. Ziczic just wasn't important at all. Third-string centers in a small ball NBA are probably the least important part of a team. Not worried about him being gone at all.
The Pick
Hey has anyone watched the Nets basketball this pre-season? They are running people out of the gym. They are crushing people. The Nets are winning 30+ games with zero incentive to tank and a roster of players that need to prove themselves. This pick is going to end up 8-12 IMO. Combined with the fact that we have the LA pick still... Not gonna miss this pick one bit.
IT4
Injured, older, slower. Will only play about 50 games in his contract year. We wont miss him one bit, glad to get out from underneath his brinks trucks.
Celtics won this trade hands down. I Feel bad for the Cavs having their cornerstone demand a trade, but thats what happens when you have a dysfunctional front office and ownership.
-
I used to get real excited watching pre-season.
Until Orien Greene, circa 2005 I think.
Others will know what I mean.
Don't take too much stock on what we see so far. It is nice that the young bench is playing well, I've enjoyed every minute of it.
But remember the Sixers not only haven't been playing Embiid, but that Embiid is really there whole team's future. If he plays, they are tough. If he doesn't, they are a lottery team.
So let's hold our horses until the real games are played.
I agree with you about Crowder, though.
-
While I'm okay with the deal, I'm still not 100% sold.
Crowder: was a very good player. Not great but steady. Played good D, could hit 3's, and played hard all the time. While I wish he didn't settle for 3's so much, I still think he's an addition to the deal. We will have to wait and see weather Brown and Tatum are ready this year, but it's a lot of pressure on young guys.
Zizic: Don't have a clue, but with Baynes hurt, it shows Celts could use some depth at center.
Pick: certainly not a believer that Nets are going to make that great a jump. Possible they could, I guess, but don't see how you can make that determination from 3 pre-season games. I still see them as a top 5 pick.
IT: Really?? The guy was in the MVP battle. You have no idea how he will be when he comes back. Maybe, do to the fact he was apparently injured a fair amount of last season, he will come back faster and better. Who knows, but I will say, I'll miss what he brought to the team and how hard he played.
Listen, I like Irving and think he could be a top 10 player, but I'm going to wait a while before I can truly access the trade one way or the other.
-
I rarely revise my feelings based on preseason. Even 3 regular season games where players actually care would be a small sample size to generalize from.
-
I’ve now accepted the trade. It’s done and it’s time to root for Irving and this current version of the team. It’s sad to see IT and Crowder on another team and I think Crowder was extremely underrated here and now people are also minimizing Isaiah’s talent and assuming the worst health wise. Zizic is pretty insignificant.
I was always on board with giving up the players that we did but the trading the Nets pick was a tough pill to swallow for me. People who are trying to justify the trade like the OP will say the Nets will win over 30 games. This is insane to me. The Nets haven’t had insentive to tank in years. They will be as bad as they were last year. They will be a bottom 3 team and that draft pick will be excellent.
-
TP incoherent, all good points.
At the time it felt like we overpaid, especially extracting that last 2nd rounder out of us. That whole thing really is what dragged IT through the mud.
But I do feel we got the best player in the deal, and honestly the Sac/LA pick is already looking better than the BK18'. Parlaying both moves together was clutch by Ainge. Him calling Tatum over Fultz from the get-go a la Larry legend trash talk of course, the best part!
Brown/Tatum or Avery/Jae --- tough call here.
Hard not to like the youth, but those two vets were the core of an elite defense. Hopefully Tatum can still hit shots in the playoffs, when we'll need him or Jae might get the last laugh this season. Looking forward to seeing them matchup against one another.
-
Preseason shouldn't change anybody's assessment, for better or worse.
We probably can't fully assess this one at least until this year's draft lottery.
-
I'm probably in the minority of Celtics fans here but I loved the trade when it happened and I love it even more seeing the pre-season.
I was far more upset about losing Avery and Kelly than I was about Isaiah or Jae. I liked all of them but the brinks truck talk and the deleted trade me tweet were off-putting. So I guess i got over the team getting blown up when Avery got traded, because I was more attached to him than anyone, and was waiting for the other shoe to drop.
I knew Kyrie mostly from watching us play the cavs and the Uncle Drew videos, and thought he was good and likable. I was pumped when we got him, pumped we didn't lose Smart or Brown or Tatum, and felt it was a fair trade. Now I think we may have gotten the better end of the trade.
-
Semi is a very nice replacement for crowder.
Brown, rozier , smart and tatum can play more min with Crowder and AB traded
Things had to change
-
I was fine with the personnel moves in trade. The BKN pick going was the one thing that made me apprehensive. Once we see where that lands/pans out (as well as LAL '18), then I'll either feel much better or possibly much worse about this trade.
Pre-season won't move the needle for me.
-
Much will depend on just how good Kyrie demonstrates he can be now that he's out of LeBron's shadow, and just how good Isaiah looks coming off his injury.
Crowder was expendable given Tatum + Brown.
Zizic, I agree, is replaceable. Teams seem to find productive traditional big men in the 20-45 range every year.
The pick was a major piece to give up, but I'm kind of relieved to not have to follow the Nets all year for the 3rd year in a row. We've got enough young pieces anyway.
The real kicker here is that Danny ripped out of the heart of the franchise in the hopes that the beating heart he'd put in place of the previous one will be stronger and last longer.
-
In the beginning I hated the trade. Now, I don't like it, but can see the benefit of having Irving on the team.
At first what bothered me the most was giving away a top pick for next year. Now, I feel that with the addition of Crowder, Zizic and IT (later in the season) we simply made Cleveland that much stronger. Thus, we essentially screwed ourselves.
A few days ago I watched the opening few minutes of a Cleveland preseason game. Their defense, with Crowder in the lineup, looked awesome. Maybe it was just a preseason game and didn't mean much, but I have a feeling they are going to be even better than last season.
So, as much as we may benefit with Irving in the lineup, we made it much more difficult to beat Cleveland. Plus, we may end up helping them become contenders for years if the pick turns out to be a beast.
-
I was happy when I heard about the trade, and I'm happy about it now.
IT was a good Celtic while he was here, and gave some great efforts and exciting times. But I think the continual Brinks Truck message had a negative effect.
When talking about an NBA championship, IT was fools gold, great scorer, made nobody better, and was the least valuable defender in the NBA. Teams actually planned their attack with IT in mind. Not to mention his time bomb hip injury.
After watching how Irving defends...at least he's visible. He's somewhat able to defend straight-up.
Crowder is a good player, a nice 3 and D player, but he's more talk than anything else. Jae Crowder isn't gonna lead your team anywhere. Brown and Tatum need to develop, both will surpass Crowder shortly.
I'm looking forward to seeing the new blood develop. I understand it will take some time, especially with the short preseason, but IMO we're on the right track.
-
The trade has gotten better for me.
In no real order...
Tatum and Jaylen look more ready than I feared
Kyrie looks a little better than I thought
With the Nets getting more talent and other teams losing All Stars to out west the pick doesn't look as good as I hoped
I didn't expect IT to be out so long and that's huge
The money and age difference involved might make a big difference too.
With Baynes and Theis playing well losing Zizic doesn't hurt as much
Cleveland losing Kyrie could really hurt them.
In a worst case scenario (pick is good, IT is great, Kyrie isn't as great as hoped, either Tatum or Brown don't really get it going) things still look quite survivable and in a best case scenario we look really good
-
IT was fools gold, great scorer, made nobody better
It's comments like this that make me wonder what I missed. IT sure seemed to have a noticeable effect on his team and his teammates from where I was watching.
-
IT was fools gold, great scorer, made nobody better
It's comments like this that make me wonder what I missed. IT sure seemed to have a noticeable effect on his team and his teammates from where I was watching.
It was a necessary deal to upgrade the team - but posters here still continue to sell IT short. He's a terrific player.
-
I'm probably in the minority of Celtics fans here but I loved the trade when it happened and I love it even more seeing the pre-season.
I was far more upset about losing Avery and Kelly than I was about Isaiah or Jae. I liked all of them but the brinks truck talk and the deleted trade me tweet were off-putting. So I guess i got over the team getting blown up when Avery got traded, because I was more attached to him than anyone, and was waiting for the other shoe to drop.
I knew Kyrie mostly from watching us play the cavs and the Uncle Drew videos, and thought he was good and likable. I was pumped when we got him, pumped we didn't lose Smart or Brown or Tatum, and felt it was a fair trade. Now I think we may have gotten the better end of the trade.
TP. You express the same thoughts as I have. I'm also gonna miss Bradley and Olynyk more than Thomas and Crowder. Though pre-season play by Smart and Rozier makes me confident that we'll be allright in redistributing the minutes of Bradley.
Thomas did great things for the Celtics, but I always felt it was more about him than about the team. I can't blame Thomas for never wanting to speak to Ainge again, but I fully support Ainge in making this trade. Most GM's shy away from making these tough decisions and Ainge does not. That approach may lead us to a championship. On the other hand, the Warriors are still out there...
-
Didn't like the trade and nothing has changed. Cavs were in a tough bind and we gave them an out.
-
Zizic is so young,not a sniff of a outside game and is a foul magnet -he had 3 fouls in six minutes in a pre season game.He could not play for us.
Crowder would have not accepted Hayward as a golden boy and fan darling.Avery went for Hayward an all star from West is versatile and can play defense and we got tough guy morris a Lebron stopper and along with morris came came Baynes.
If Isaiah had been talking home team discount and cut the brinks truck posturing but it was the shoes that pushed me away the most-
Injured till January and when he returns every time he hit the deck would be a nightmare of
emotions
Fultz is a disaster now-nobody would change a foul shot to that-he has to be masking a shoulder problem-if not he has a screw loose
So we got the guy and a pick
I have never seen potential stars that can't shoot foul shots or don't have outside game or mid range and can't get off a good look when contested.Simmons ,Ball and Fultz its crazy
-
I didn't like the trade, but I hate it less now than I did when it happened.
At the time of the trade I didn't expect IT to be out so long. Him being out half the season has to factor into things.
Last year IT posted the best offensive season I've witnessed since following the team. He probably regresses due to injury in the future but the enjoyment he brought me watching this team last year makes me with we had kept him.
-
Yeah , knowing Thomas is out till Jan 2018 .....that would have been really tuff on the team without his scoring . Clear DAnny did not want to waste a year trying to win tue East, and little chance of beating Cavs without a fully fit and 100 %ready to rock IT at the helm. Its a bad injury , im not sure playing professinal ball he can keep from messing it up again at somepoint. Then the opportunity to sign a player like Irving to replace him is vanished . Irving skill set /talent is rare.
Been for the trade all,along , based on IT health concerns for now and future of that hip.
-
Loved it every minute of it. The more I heard about IT bringing up max contract, and then complaining and whining about getting traded from his ego to bashing at Danny Ainge, the more I loved the trade.
Never heard PP34 and KG complained about getting traded. NBA is a business.
-
I was 'okay' with it when it happened and am now ready to move forward with the season just around the corner. Like Donoghus said, I don't think we can truly assess the trade until we know the results of the lottery next year. If that pick falls outside of the top 5, then I will consider this a very good trade considering Kyrie's age/contract and IT's age/upcoming contract.
-
IT was fools gold, great scorer, made nobody better
It's comments like this that make me wonder what I missed. IT sure seemed to have a noticeable effect on his team and his teammates from where I was watching.
He was the heart and soul of this team; he had one of the greatest individual seasons in Celtics history; the Celts would have been a 40-45 win team last year without him.
Anybody who doesn't appreciate that is falling into the trap of so many others over Isaiah's career, focusing way too much on his stature to the point they can't appreciate the impact he has.
-
Much will depend on just how good Kyrie demonstrates he can be now that he's out of LeBron's shadow, and just how good Isaiah looks coming off his injury.
Crowder was expendable given Tatum + Brown.
Zizic, I agree, is replaceable. Teams seem to find productive traditional big men in the 20-45 range every year.
The pick was a major piece to give up, but I'm kind of relieved to not have to follow the Nets all year for the 3rd year in a row. We've got enough young pieces anyway.
The real kicker here is that Danny ripped out of the heart of the franchise in the hopes that the beating heart he'd put in place of the previous one will be stronger and last longer.
I'm following more than ever. That could be because I enjoy bashing Danny-doubters more than I enjoy any good work that Danny actually does..
GET BANK ON THE NETSMOBILE PHO!
-
I really liked the trade then and I love it even more now.
1. Last years team wasnt very dynamic. You had alot of good players but with limitations. IT had trouble playing on the ball so you played AB there who was great on ball but IT wasnt that good off ball. AB wasnt as good off ball as on and both gave up real height and length. Crowder couldnt put the ball on the deck all that often but was a good shooter with only one guy who could get him the ball IT. The entire starting lineup minus was system dependent to get shots. It worked against most teams but most of them didnt have a higher level they could take their games.
2. People talk about how much they will miss AB and Crowder and they will but I think its mostly from a leadership standpoint. This was not an elite defensive team. I believe Hayward's D is just as good as Crowders. AB will be missed for his shot making and D but in reality I didnt have any expectation that the team could sign him after this year.
3. Last year's team needed more dynamic players that's why I loved the addition of Brown and really didnt like the idea of Hield like many people wanted. You have to be able to defend the wing and the 15/16 team never never had plus athletes there.
4. Right from the jump I could tell this years line up addressed some of the primary issues that last years team faced. They were no longer super small 1 - 4 and could now switch just about every matchup using their length. They were able to challenge more shots and make passes more difficult.
5. They dont seem as vulnerable on the boards due to their overall length and athleticism. Horford in particular seems freed up to chase balls and seems to be much more active on the boards this year although its early.
6. Ultimately I like that this team has a quality top 9 without playing guys like Smart at the 3 or even the 4. I like the balance of the team and the overall size and length added to this team making it more competitive.
7. Lastly, when I look at the Cavs roster I have to say to myself who is going to guard Kyrie? We know IT and Crowder cant. Can Wade, Smith, or Shumpert? If IT isnt right do you really fear a closing lineup of Rose, LeBron Crowder, Love, and Wade when 2 of those guys cant shoot the 3 ball? It makes the Horford vs Love matchup easier to handle.
Oh one other thing. Going into that series with the Cavs, how many people said the Cs have one of the top 2 players? Or check that top 3 players in the series. I dont recall anyone saying the Cs had a top 2 player in the series but maybe top 3. Those things matter in a series therefore I have and will continue to love this trade.
-
TP. I think Incoherent captured the thoughts of DA BEFORE he made the trade. He absolutely traded Crowder in large part of open up minutes for Tatum and Brown. Zizic was a throw in, and deservedly so. He'll have to transform his game entirely if he is to become anything at all in the league. Would not be surprised if he was back in Europe in three years. Agree with sentiments for the pick, which I predict to land anywhere from 5 - 8. But either way, given IT's health situation, something else of value had to be thrown in no matter what. As for IT, I don't think DA ever wanted to pay him long term.
-
Hopefully Tatum can still hit shots in the playoffs, when we'll need him or Jae might get the last laugh this season. Looking forward to seeing them matchup against one another.
Jae is gonna try and put a beat down on Tatum. I hope we sick Semi on him though. That would be a fun battle to watch: Semi vs Crowder
-
The trade has gotten better for me.
In no real order...
Tatum and Jaylen look more ready than I feared
Kyrie looks a little better than I thought
With the Nets getting more talent and other teams losing All Stars to out west the pick doesn't look as good as I hoped
I didn't expect IT to be out so long and that's huge
The money and age difference involved might make a big difference too.
With Baynes and Theis playing well losing Zizic doesn't hurt as much
Cleveland losing Kyrie could really hurt them.
In a worst case scenario (pick is good, IT is great, Kyrie isn't as great as hoped, either Tatum or Brown don't really get it going) things still look quite survivable and in a best case scenario we look really good
This is how I feel except I do wish Zizic was still around. With Baynes hurt there is literally no one else with center size on the team.
-
Hopefully Tatum can still hit shots in the playoffs, when we'll need him or Jae might get the last laugh this season. Looking forward to seeing them matchup against one another.
Jae is gonna try and put a beat down on Tatum. I hope we sick Semi on him though. That would be a fun battle to watch: Semi vs Crowder
First off, let’s stop talking like this. These are people, not dogs. We’re not sicking anyone on anyone, and Crowder isn’t going to beat down anyone either. Stop treating the game like it’s an illegal underground dog fighting match.
Second, Semi vs Crowder would be a terrible matchup to watch. Neither would do anything on offense, they would just stand beyond the arc to space the court.
-
I will hate this trade unless and until the Celtics win a championship with Kyrie. That’s what this trade was about — winning titles soon. If we don’t, I would have rather kept the guy that embodied what it meant to be a star on the Celtics.
We could win 70 games this year, but without a title it will have been the wrong trade in my book.
-
I will hate this trade unless and until the Celtics win a championship with Kyrie. That’s what this trade was about — winning titles soon. If we don’t, I would have rather kept the guy that embodied what it meant to be a star on the Celtics.
We could win 70 games this year, but without a title it will have been the wrong trade in my book.
What if Kyrie gets us to the Finals passed the Cavs, but we lose the Warriors?
Would that not be good enough? It's not like IT was going to get us there.
-
I will hate this trade unless and until the Celtics win a championship with Kyrie. That’s what this trade was about — winning titles soon. If we don’t, I would have rather kept the guy that embodied what it meant to be a star on the Celtics.
We could win 70 games this year, but without a title it will have been the wrong trade in my book.
What if Kyrie gets us to the Finals passed the Cavs, but we lose the Warriors?
Would that not be good enough? It's not like IT was going to get us there.
For me, that would not be good enough. I think the Celtics were set to pass the Cavs next year anyway, and had a good chance of doing so this year given that Irving was forcing a trade. IT may very well have gotten us there.
-
I will hate this trade unless and until the Celtics win a championship with Kyrie. That’s what this trade was about — winning titles soon. If we don’t, I would have rather kept the guy that embodied what it meant to be a star on the Celtics.
We could win 70 games this year, but without a title it will have been the wrong trade in my book.
What if Kyrie gets us to the Finals passed the Cavs, but we lose the Warriors?
Would that not be good enough? It's not like IT was going to get us there.
For me, that would not be good enough. I think the Celtics were set to pass the Cavs next year anyway, and had a good chance of doing so this year given that Irving was forcing a trade. IT may very well have gotten us there.
assuming IT is at what % of last years level? and based on that % that we would have been able to/and willing to retain him (with him performing that high)
If IT's contract had an extra year on it, even at a much higher $ , I would agree with you (unless he is too damaged to play)
-
I will hate this trade unless and until the Celtics win a championship with Kyrie. That’s what this trade was about — winning titles soon. If we don’t, I would have rather kept the guy that embodied what it meant to be a star on the Celtics.
We could win 70 games this year, but without a title it will have been the wrong trade in my book.
What if Kyrie gets us to the Finals passed the Cavs, but we lose the Warriors?
Would that not be good enough? It's not like IT was going to get us there.
For me, that would not be good enough. I think the Celtics were set to pass the Cavs next year anyway, and had a good chance of doing so this year given that Irving was forcing a trade. IT may very well have gotten us there.
I think your valuation for a successful trade is pretty unfair given that its based on IT Celtics making it to the Finals. A scenario that seems to me would have been highly unlikely considering how the Cavs swallowed up and dominated the 5'9 IT.
-
I will hate this trade unless and until the Celtics win a championship with Kyrie. That’s what this trade was about — winning titles soon. If we don’t, I would have rather kept the guy that embodied what it meant to be a star on the Celtics.
We could win 70 games this year, but without a title it will have been the wrong trade in my book.
So if the Celtics win the east and go to the finals for the next 3-4 years, but fail to get over the Warriors, you will still hate this trade?
-
I will hate this trade unless and until the Celtics win a championship with Kyrie. That’s what this trade was about — winning titles soon. If we don’t, I would have rather kept the guy that embodied what it meant to be a star on the Celtics.
We could win 70 games this year, but without a title it will have been the wrong trade in my book.
I'm all the way with you here. Ironically just expressed the same sentiment in the other IT thread.
-
I will hate this trade unless and until the Celtics win a championship with Kyrie. That’s what this trade was about — winning titles soon. If we don’t, I would have rather kept the guy that embodied what it meant to be a star on the Celtics.
We could win 70 games this year, but without a title it will have been the wrong trade in my book.
So if the Celtics win the east and go to the finals for the next 3-4 years, but fail to get over the Warriors, you will still hate this trade?
Yes. As I said earlier, I think the Celtics were in line to take over from the Cavs next year, and maybe even this year, pre-trade. LeBron was likely walking away next summer. Irving was trying to force a trade — the next-best offers were coming from Western Conference teams. The Cavs were done after this year, and depending on the return they got for Kyrie from someone other than the Celtics, they might have been done this year.
It’s about titles in Boston. Coming in second won’t be worth trading a guy like IT, especially when we probably were going to finish second with him anyway. This was a championship move by Ainge, and that’s the scale it gets graded on.
-
Trade only I think as others have put moving crowder was a good thing. I like Jae and he was solid, on a better club he's a very good sub. As a started limited, his defense last year WASN'T as good as previous year. I can't see him happy about sharing minutes with Haywood, Tatum or brown (or Morris for that matter). I really don't see where he could get his minutes???
-
For what it's worth, Boson are 3-0 in the preseason so far (despite resting their stars in one game) and have one most games figures against mostly garbage teams...
Meanwhile Cleveland has gone 0-4 in the preseason so far, with three of those four losses coming to teams (Hawks, Bulls, Pacers) who will likely be lottery teams this year. Yet they lost those games by average margin of 10 PPG, all while giving up an average of 106 PPG.
They have been so terrible that I actually went way against the odds and put a bet on the Bulls yesterday to beat the Cavs - AND WON!!!
The Cavs defence has been predictably woeful, and they lost those games despite the fact hat four of their starting five (Rose, Wade, Love and Crowder) played in the games against the Hawks and Pacers, while their entire starting lineup (Rose, Wade, Love, James, Crowder) played against Chicago. The only justifiable loss was the one to the Wizards, as not only are the Wizards a strong team, but the Cavs also rested their starters.
Again, it's just the preseason - but I really do hope the Cavs disgraceful defence continues and they continue to struggle with that starting five.
I think a it's going to be tough for Cleveland to be honest. Even last season they were a pretty mediocre defensive team, but they were able to remain dominant through elite scoring (Lebron + Kyrie + Love) and rebounding (Love + Thompson).
Now their defence has arguably gotten even worse (with Crowder/Love replacing Love/Thompson up front) their scoring likely remains the same at best, while their rebounding has dropped off just as hard (with Crowder replacing Thompson). You're now looking at a team who can't defend, cant really rebound very well, and (until It returns) probably isn't able of putting points on the board at nearly the same rate anymore. They could potentially struggle more than people think.
-
For what it's worth, Boson are 3-0 in the preseason so far (despite resting their stars in one game) and have one most games figures against mostly garbage teams...
Meanwhile Cleveland has gone 0-4 in the preseason so far, with three of those four losses coming to teams (Hawks, Bulls, Pacers) who will likely be lottery teams this year. Yet they lost those games by average margin of 10 PPG, all while giving up an average of 106 PPG.
They have been so terrible that I actually went way against the odds and put a bet on the Bulls yesterday to beat the Cavs - AND WON!!!
The Cavs defence has been predictably woeful, and they lost those games despite the fact hat four of their starting five (Rose, Wade, Love and Crowder) played in the games against the Hawks and Pacers, while their entire starting lineup (Rose, Wade, Love, James, Crowder) played against Chicago. The only justifiable loss was the one to the Wizards, as not only are the Wizards a strong team, but the Cavs also rested their starters.
Again, it's just the preseason - but I really do hope the Cavs disgraceful defence continues and they continue to struggle with that starting five.
There's betting action on preseason games? That seems ridiculous. You may as well bet on a coin toss.
Preseason means zero.
-
I will hate this trade unless and until the Celtics win a championship with Kyrie. That’s what this trade was about — winning titles soon. If we don’t, I would have rather kept the guy that embodied what it meant to be a star on the Celtics.
We could win 70 games this year, but without a title it will have been the wrong trade in my book.
So if the Celtics win the east and go to the finals for the next 3-4 years, but fail to get over the Warriors, you will still hate this trade?
Yes. As I said earlier, I think the Celtics were in line to take over from the Cavs next year, and maybe even this year, pre-trade. LeBron was likely walking away next summer. Irving was trying to force a trade — the next-best offers were coming from Western Conference teams. The Cavs were done after this year, and depending on the return they got for Kyrie from someone other than the Celtics, they might have been done this year.
It’s about titles in Boston. Coming in second won’t be worth trading a guy like IT, especially when we probably were going to finish second with him anyway. This was a championship move by Ainge, and that’s the scale it gets graded on.
This seems a little unfair.
What if IT never makes another all star team, the Brooklyn pick winds up #8 and is used to select a journeyman, and Zizic never becomes a full time starter in the NBA? Meanwhile, let's say Kyrie spends the rest of his career with the Celtics, makes 7 more all star teams and the Celtics stay competetive for that whole time but never win it all.
-
I will hate this trade unless and until the Celtics win a championship with Kyrie. That’s what this trade was about — winning titles soon. If we don’t, I would have rather kept the guy that embodied what it meant to be a star on the Celtics.
We could win 70 games this year, but without a title it will have been the wrong trade in my book.
So if the Celtics win the east and go to the finals for the next 3-4 years, but fail to get over the Warriors, you will still hate this trade?
Yes. As I said earlier, I think the Celtics were in line to take over from the Cavs next year, and maybe even this year, pre-trade. LeBron was likely walking away next summer. Irving was trying to force a trade — the next-best offers were coming from Western Conference teams. The Cavs were done after this year, and depending on the return they got for Kyrie from someone other than the Celtics, they might have been done this year.
It’s about titles in Boston. Coming in second won’t be worth trading a guy like IT, especially when we probably were going to finish second with him anyway. This was a championship move by Ainge, and that’s the scale it gets graded on.
This seems a little unfair.
What if IT never makes another all star team, the Brooklyn pick winds up #8 and is used to select a journeyman, and Zizic never becomes a full time starter in the NBA? Meanwhile, let's say Kyrie spends the rest of his career with the Celtics, makes 7 more all star teams and the Celtics stay competetive for that whole time but never win it all.
What if Kyrie walks in two seasons, and the Brooklyn pick is number 1? In my mind, that’s as equally probable as your scenario, but also largely irrelevant.
Ainge traded an All-NBA, heart and soul of the team player, who gave everything he had both physically and emotionally to lead the team to the conference finals, and who played a significant role in recruiting two star players to join him in Boston. That is a trade with one purpose only — to win a championship, and soon. And that’s how I’m judging it. IT can have five more All-NBA seasons, and the Brooklyn pick can be number 1 overall, providing the Cavs with Luka Doncic, whom I’ve coveted for over a year, and I’ll think the trade was a good one if we win a title with Kyrie. If that happens in three years, I’ll like the trade then. Or in five years. Hopefully it’s this year, but regardless, the Celtics just need to win. That’s what this trade was about — Ainge thinks Kyrie is a championship-level star player, and that IT wasn’t. I hope Kyrie proves him right — but unless and until he does, I won’t like this trade.
-
For what it's worth, Boson are 3-0 in the preseason so far (despite resting their stars in one game) and have one most games figures against mostly garbage teams...
Meanwhile Cleveland has gone 0-4 in the preseason so far, with three of those four losses coming to teams (Hawks, Bulls, Pacers) who will likely be lottery teams this year. Yet they lost those games by average margin of 10 PPG, all while giving up an average of 106 PPG.
They have been so terrible that I actually went way against the odds and put a bet on the Bulls yesterday to beat the Cavs - AND WON!!!
The Cavs defence has been predictably woeful, and they lost those games despite the fact hat four of their starting five (Rose, Wade, Love and Crowder) played in the games against the Hawks and Pacers, while their entire starting lineup (Rose, Wade, Love, James, Crowder) played against Chicago. The only justifiable loss was the one to the Wizards, as not only are the Wizards a strong team, but the Cavs also rested their starters.
Again, it's just the preseason - but I really do hope the Cavs disgraceful defence continues and they continue to struggle with that starting five.
There's betting action on preseason games? That seems ridiculous. You may as well bet on a coin toss.
Preseason means zero.
I know, I was actually quite surprised to be honest. Half of the teams rest their star players, so half of the odds are just plain irrational. I've done quite well on the action so far already, and these terrible Cavs have only helped haha
Also, I wouldn't go so far as to say the preseason means zero. Obviously it's not the be-all-end-all reflection of how the regular season will go, but I've found that often the surprise teams who come out and do really well in the preseason, tend to have good seasons as well. E.g. I remember Toronto sweeping the preseason one year following a really mediocre year, and everybody was saying "its just preseason" - then they went on to have a really strong season pretty much out of nowhere and finished in the top 4.
Likewise I tend to find that often Boston's preseason success tends to be consistent with how they end up going in the regular season.
Certainly not a 1:1 comparison here, but I wouldn't go do far as to say it's entirely meaningless. Often teams can show unexpected strengths/weaknesses in the preseason that do project through to the following season.
-
Yes I do have revised feelings: I no longer care if the guy thinks the Earth is flat.
-
I will hate this trade unless and until the Celtics win a championship with Kyrie. That’s what this trade was about — winning titles soon. If we don’t, I would have rather kept the guy that embodied what it meant to be a star on the Celtics.
We could win 70 games this year, but without a title it will have been the wrong trade in my book.
What if Kyrie gets us to the Finals passed the Cavs, but we lose the Warriors?
Would that not be good enough? It's not like IT was going to get us there.
I understand that championships are where it's at. But this is a pretty warped view of being a fan. To me, it's about the experience, the hope, and the result. IT was a great story but we were not close to actually having the hope to win it all. That's changing, and a lot of it has to do with Kyrie.
-
For what it's worth, Boson are 3-0 in the preseason so far (despite resting their stars in one game) and have one most games figures against mostly garbage teams...
Meanwhile Cleveland has gone 0-4 in the preseason so far, with three of those four losses coming to teams (Hawks, Bulls, Pacers) who will likely be lottery teams this year. Yet they lost those games by average margin of 10 PPG, all while giving up an average of 106 PPG.
They have been so terrible that I actually went way against the odds and put a bet on the Bulls yesterday to beat the Cavs - AND WON!!!
The Cavs defence has been predictably woeful, and they lost those games despite the fact hat four of their starting five (Rose, Wade, Love and Crowder) played in the games against the Hawks and Pacers, while their entire starting lineup (Rose, Wade, Love, James, Crowder) played against Chicago. The only justifiable loss was the one to the Wizards, as not only are the Wizards a strong team, but the Cavs also rested their starters.
Again, it's just the preseason - but I really do hope the Cavs disgraceful defence continues and they continue to struggle with that starting five.
There's betting action on preseason games? That seems ridiculous. You may as well bet on a coin toss.
Preseason means zero.
The idea that the preseason means zero is inaccurate. There was a recent stat that showed over 65% of teams with a winning record in the preseason made the playoffs.
You also learn some things in preseason if you are careful. Unlike say MLB in spring training, a lot of what you see in the NBA does translate to the regular season. For instance, the whispers about the Brooklyn Nets actually being not sucking as much looks to be justified. You can just see that watching D'Angleo Russell, Hollis-Jefferson, LaVert, ect. You can also see the Knicks will remain a trainwreck.
-
I will hate this trade unless and until the Celtics win a championship with Kyrie. That’s what this trade was about — winning titles soon. If we don’t, I would have rather kept the guy that embodied what it meant to be a star on the Celtics.
We could win 70 games this year, but without a title it will have been the wrong trade in my book.
Bottom line is, the C's are one star away from a championship (an Anthony Davis, for example).
OR you can hope Tatum and/or Brown grow into stars, but honestly that's still 2 years away at best (or maybe Brown surprises us all and becomes an all-star THIS year..)
The Isaiah-Irving trade wasn't a huge upgrade for us (just a marginal upgrade) and it was primarily Ainge finding stability at the position long term I guess due to Isaiah's injury, age, and the fact that he would command a max next summer.
Before/After the trade, we weren't winning a Finals this year, and it still remains the same that we are 1 star away from Banner 18. IMHO.
-
I will hate this trade unless and until the Celtics win a championship with Kyrie. That’s what this trade was about — winning titles soon. If we don’t, I would have rather kept the guy that embodied what it meant to be a star on the Celtics.
We could win 70 games this year, but without a title it will have been the wrong trade in my book.
What if Kyrie gets us to the Finals passed the Cavs, but we lose the Warriors?
Would that not be good enough? It's not like IT was going to get us there.
For me, that would not be good enough. I think the Celtics were set to pass the Cavs next year anyway, and had a good chance of doing so this year given that Irving was forcing a trade. IT may very well have gotten us there.
I think your valuation for a successful trade is pretty unfair given that its based on IT Celtics making it to the Finals. A scenario that seems to me would have been highly unlikely considering how the Cavs swallowed up and dominated the 5'9 IT.
No, his trade success criteria isn't based on "IT Celtics" making it to the Finals. It's based on Kyrie Celtics have to win a title or we are no better off (at winning titles) than we were with IT.
-
Just because the value of the assets may not be as valuable as most assumed doesn't mean that it justifies the trade.
Let's say you have a lucky coin that isn't worth much but most everyone seems to think it is. Should you deal the coin for its actual value, or its perceived value? Obviously you would derive the most return for dealing the coin for its perceived value.
Now, we'll never know what other possibilities were out there at the time or in the alternate future where the deal never happened. It's possible that was the best deal we could have gotten and the assets would have depreciated over the course of the season or no stars would become available. What we do think we know is that the BKN pick, at the time of the deal, was considered one of the better draft pick assets out there at the time.
I'm not saying the deal was bad, mind you. I'm just saying that it's faulty logic to justify trades based on what the actual value may be/turn out to be. They should be judged based on what the perceived value is, or what the best possible outcome value is.
-
I will hate this trade unless and until the Celtics win a championship with Kyrie. That’s what this trade was about — winning titles soon. If we don’t, I would have rather kept the guy that embodied what it meant to be a star on the Celtics.
We could win 70 games this year, but without a title it will have been the wrong trade in my book.
So if the Celtics win the east and go to the finals for the next 3-4 years, but fail to get over the Warriors, you will still hate this trade?
Yes. As I said earlier, I think the Celtics were in line to take over from the Cavs next year, and maybe even this year, pre-trade. LeBron was likely walking away next summer. Irving was trying to force a trade — the next-best offers were coming from Western Conference teams. The Cavs were done after this year, and depending on the return they got for Kyrie from someone other than the Celtics, they might have been done this year.
It’s about titles in Boston. Coming in second won’t be worth trading a guy like IT, especially when we probably were going to finish second with him anyway. This was a championship move by Ainge, and that’s the scale it gets graded on.
This seems a little unfair.
What if IT never makes another all star team, the Brooklyn pick winds up #8 and is used to select a journeyman, and Zizic never becomes a full time starter in the NBA? Meanwhile, let's say Kyrie spends the rest of his career with the Celtics, makes 7 more all star teams and the Celtics stay competetive for that whole time but never win it all.
What if Kyrie walks in two seasons, and the Brooklyn pick is number 1? In my mind, that’s as equally probable as your scenario, but also largely irrelevant.
Ainge traded an All-NBA, heart and soul of the team player, who gave everything he had both physically and emotionally to lead the team to the conference finals, and who played a significant role in recruiting two star players to join him in Boston. That is a trade with one purpose only — to win a championship, and soon. And that’s how I’m judging it. IT can have five more All-NBA seasons, and the Brooklyn pick can be number 1 overall, providing the Cavs with Luka Doncic, whom I’ve coveted for over a year, and I’ll think the trade was a good one if we win a title with Kyrie. If that happens in three years, I’ll like the trade then. Or in five years. Hopefully it’s this year, but regardless, the Celtics just need to win. That’s what this trade was about — Ainge thinks Kyrie is a championship-level star player, and that IT wasn’t. I hope Kyrie proves him right — but unless and until he does, I won’t like this trade.
Well stated.
-
Just because the value of the assets may not be as valuable as most assumed doesn't mean that it justifies the trade.
Let's say you have a lucky coin that isn't worth much but most everyone seems to think it is. Should you deal the coin for its actual value, or its perceived value? Obviously you would derive the most return for dealing the coin for its perceived value.
Now, we'll never know what other possibilities were out there at the time or in the alternate future where the deal never happened. It's possible that was the best deal we could have gotten and the assets would have depreciated over the course of the season or no stars would become available. What we do think we know is that the BKN pick, at the time of the deal, was considered one of the better draft pick assets out there at the time.
I'm not saying the deal was bad, mind you. I'm just saying that it's faulty logic to justify trades based on what the actual value may be/turn out to be. They should be judged based on what the perceived value is, or what the best possible outcome value is.
-
I will hate this trade unless and until the Celtics win a championship with Kyrie. That’s what this trade was about — winning titles soon. If we don’t, I would have rather kept the guy that embodied what it meant to be a star on the Celtics.
We could win 70 games this year, but without a title it will have been the wrong trade in my book.
What if Kyrie gets us to the Finals passed the Cavs, but we lose the Warriors?
Would that not be good enough? It's not like IT was going to get us there.
For me, that would not be good enough. I think the Celtics were set to pass the Cavs next year anyway, and had a good chance of doing so this year given that Irving was forcing a trade. IT may very well have gotten us there.
I think your valuation for a successful trade is pretty unfair given that its based on IT Celtics making it to the Finals. A scenario that seems to me would have been highly unlikely considering how the Cavs swallowed up and dominated the 5'9 IT.
No, his trade success criteria isn't based on "IT Celtics" making it to the Finals. It's based on Kyrie Celtics have to win a title or we are no better off (at winning titles) than we were with IT.
I think you should re-read what saltover said. When I further asked him he clearly said it's because he believes the IT Celtics would have made it to the Finals.
So if Kyrie and the Celtics make it to the Finals thats not good enough because in his mind IT already got us there.
Sounds a little absurd now that Im typing it out myself.
-
I will hate this trade unless and until the Celtics win a championship with Kyrie. That’s what this trade was about — winning titles soon. If we don’t, I would have rather kept the guy that embodied what it meant to be a star on the Celtics.
We could win 70 games this year, but without a title it will have been the wrong trade in my book.
What if Kyrie gets us to the Finals passed the Cavs, but we lose the Warriors?
Would that not be good enough? It's not like IT was going to get us there.
For me, that would not be good enough. I think the Celtics were set to pass the Cavs next year anyway, and had a good chance of doing so this year given that Irving was forcing a trade. IT may very well have gotten us there.
I think your valuation for a successful trade is pretty unfair given that its based on IT Celtics making it to the Finals. A scenario that seems to me would have been highly unlikely considering how the Cavs swallowed up and dominated the 5'9 IT.
No, his trade success criteria isn't based on "IT Celtics" making it to the Finals. It's based on Kyrie Celtics have to win a title or we are no better off (at winning titles) than we were with IT.
I think you should re-read what saltover said. When I further asked him he clearly said it's because he believes the IT Celtics would have made it to the Finals.
So if Kyrie and the Celtics make it to the Finals thats not good enough because in his mind IT already got us there.
Sounds a little absurd now that Im typing it out myself.
I don't think it's absurd to think that IT would have lead us to the Finals. That assumes that Lebron would have left Cleveland, but that seems likely.
-
I will hate this trade unless and until the Celtics win a championship with Kyrie. That’s what this trade was about — winning titles soon. If we don’t, I would have rather kept the guy that embodied what it meant to be a star on the Celtics.
We could win 70 games this year, but without a title it will have been the wrong trade in my book.
So if the Celtics win the east and go to the finals for the next 3-4 years, but fail to get over the Warriors, you will still hate this trade?
Yes. As I said earlier, I think the Celtics were in line to take over from the Cavs next year, and maybe even this year, pre-trade. LeBron was likely walking away next summer. Irving was trying to force a trade — the next-best offers were coming from Western Conference teams. The Cavs were done after this year, and depending on the return they got for Kyrie from someone other than the Celtics, they might have been done this year.
It’s about titles in Boston. Coming in second won’t be worth trading a guy like IT, especially when we probably were going to finish second with him anyway. This was a championship move by Ainge, and that’s the scale it gets graded on.
This seems a little unfair.
What if IT never makes another all star team, the Brooklyn pick winds up #8 and is used to select a journeyman, and Zizic never becomes a full time starter in the NBA? Meanwhile, let's say Kyrie spends the rest of his career with the Celtics, makes 7 more all star teams and the Celtics stay competetive for that whole time but never win it all.
What if Kyrie walks in two seasons, and the Brooklyn pick is number 1? In my mind, that’s as equally probable as your scenario, but also largely irrelevant.
Ainge traded an All-NBA, heart and soul of the team player, who gave everything he had both physically and emotionally to lead the team to the conference finals, and who played a significant role in recruiting two star players to join him in Boston. That is a trade with one purpose only — to win a championship, and soon. And that’s how I’m judging it. IT can have five more All-NBA seasons, and the Brooklyn pick can be number 1 overall, providing the Cavs with Luka Doncic, whom I’ve coveted for over a year, and I’ll think the trade was a good one if we win a title with Kyrie. If that happens in three years, I’ll like the trade then. Or in five years. Hopefully it’s this year, but regardless, the Celtics just need to win. That’s what this trade was about — Ainge thinks Kyrie is a championship-level star player, and that IT wasn’t. I hope Kyrie proves him right — but unless and until he does, I won’t like this trade.
To me its not. He did the trade for a better financial situation. IT was due for big bucks going in on his 30s. Would I have given him max? Yes. Do I think Kyrie on max is better? Based on their age, probably.
He also defined the target window better with the trade. So no, this isnt a championship/bust move, its a move to get better short term and long term. We probably have a worst record with IT this year due to him missing games earlier in the season. Integrating IT back in the middle of the year while not rushing him back with all the turnover we had might also give us additional losses.
-
I will hate this trade unless and until the Celtics win a championship with Kyrie. That’s what this trade was about — winning titles soon. If we don’t, I would have rather kept the guy that embodied what it meant to be a star on the Celtics.
We could win 70 games this year, but without a title it will have been the wrong trade in my book.
So if the Celtics win the east and go to the finals for the next 3-4 years, but fail to get over the Warriors, you will still hate this trade?
Yes. As I said earlier, I think the Celtics were in line to take over from the Cavs next year, and maybe even this year, pre-trade. LeBron was likely walking away next summer. Irving was trying to force a trade — the next-best offers were coming from Western Conference teams. The Cavs were done after this year, and depending on the return they got for Kyrie from someone other than the Celtics, they might have been done this year.
It’s about titles in Boston. Coming in second won’t be worth trading a guy like IT, especially when we probably were going to finish second with him anyway. This was a championship move by Ainge, and that’s the scale it gets graded on.
This seems a little unfair.
What if IT never makes another all star team, the Brooklyn pick winds up #8 and is used to select a journeyman, and Zizic never becomes a full time starter in the NBA? Meanwhile, let's say Kyrie spends the rest of his career with the Celtics, makes 7 more all star teams and the Celtics stay competetive for that whole time but never win it all.
What if Kyrie walks in two seasons, and the Brooklyn pick is number 1? In my mind, that’s as equally probable as your scenario, but also largely irrelevant.
Ainge traded an All-NBA, heart and soul of the team player, who gave everything he had both physically and emotionally to lead the team to the conference finals, and who played a significant role in recruiting two star players to join him in Boston. That is a trade with one purpose only — to win a championship, and soon. And that’s how I’m judging it. IT can have five more All-NBA seasons, and the Brooklyn pick can be number 1 overall, providing the Cavs with Luka Doncic, whom I’ve coveted for over a year, and I’ll think the trade was a good one if we win a title with Kyrie. If that happens in three years, I’ll like the trade then. Or in five years. Hopefully it’s this year, but regardless, the Celtics just need to win. That’s what this trade was about — Ainge thinks Kyrie is a championship-level star player, and that IT wasn’t. I hope Kyrie proves him right — but unless and until he does, I won’t like this trade.
I agree that this could all go bad. The assets Cleveland got could turn out to be much more valuable than Kyrie winds up being to the Celtics. I don't deny in the least that that could happen.
But you didn't really answer the question. To me, this trade is not different than any other trade where both teams are gambling a little by saying, "I think this will turn out better for me than for you." If the assets Ainge traded to get Kyrie all under-perform and Kryie plays great but the team is just short of a championship, I don't understand how you can call that a bad deal for the Celtics.
-
After the initial shock (gulp! IT is gone), an hour or so later, I was optimistic about the trade.
I always thought we got a dollar for 4 quarters.
Since then this happened:
1) ITs hip is even more of a question mark. January? February? Is that the time when they allow him to practice? What about the unexpected complications? Tricky business. Imagine us limping without our primary ballhandler till February. I would, unfortunately, have to avoid CB from time to time to escape all the negative posts/threads.
2) Wade signing was apparently necessary due to 1) But it made Cavs weaker defensively and offensively while sapping their chemistry. JR surely isn't happy about his demotion, even more since he is a better fit/player at this stage of their careers. This elephant in the room will get even bigger when IT returns (if they don't trade him once again).
3) Kyrie is fully committed and loves it here (since he came). Many fans were initially skeptical about his heart being in Boston. I was never in that group (explanation is long (thrilling even!) and for another thread)
4) Recent lottery reform favors us, it boosted the value of the potential Kings and Memphis picks.
I like the trade more by each of the 4 mentioned factors. When I see them run out on Tuesday I'll go crazy in 2 in the morning :)
-
Again last night showed my why I love this trade and frankly wont miss either player traded.
1. Kyrie does not have to work as hard for his shot. It was fun watching IT get his but part of the fun was the effort that he put into getting his. Dont have to worry about that anymore.
2. Jaylen's defense will be better that Crowder's by the end of the year. Overall he brings much more to the table than Crowder on O and more versatile on D. Dont have to worry about Crowder taking minutes for Brown to develop.
3. Speaking of developing you dont have to worry about Crowder taking minutes from Tatum either.
4. The size and athletisim of Tatum, Brown, and Hayward has had a great deal of impact on Horford. Horford has been much better on the boards and he doesnt have to create as often for teams who couldnt create Crowder and to a much lesser extent AB.
Big takeaways are that Brown and Tatum get to impact the game much more than they would have with Crowder here. Everyone wants to focus on Kyrie and IT and rightfully so but I think the bigger change is going to be getting rid of Crowder and freeing up those minutes.
-
The eye test is telling me that the competition between Kyrie and IT isn't as close as some would say.
Sure the stats last season compare them favorably. But the eye test is telling me Kyrie is a couple notches better then IT on offense.
-
The eye test is telling me that the competition between Kyrie and IT isn't as close as some would say.
Sure the stats last season compare them favorably. But the eye test is telling me Kyrie is a couple notches better then IT on offense.
And defensively too. Having Kyrie switch on taller players and not have the other 4 guys frantically worrying about who's going to be the help defender is a welcomed sight.
-
I will hate this trade unless and until the Celtics win a championship with Kyrie. That’s what this trade was about — winning titles soon. If we don’t, I would have rather kept the guy that embodied what it meant to be a star on the Celtics.
We could win 70 games this year, but without a title it will have been the wrong trade in my book.
So if the Celtics win the east and go to the finals for the next 3-4 years, but fail to get over the Warriors, you will still hate this trade?
Yes. As I said earlier, I think the Celtics were in line to take over from the Cavs next year, and maybe even this year, pre-trade. LeBron was likely walking away next summer. Irving was trying to force a trade — the next-best offers were coming from Western Conference teams. The Cavs were done after this year, and depending on the return they got for Kyrie from someone other than the Celtics, they might have been done this year.
It’s about titles in Boston. Coming in second won’t be worth trading a guy like IT, especially when we probably were going to finish second with him anyway. This was a championship move by Ainge, and that’s the scale it gets graded on.
This seems a little unfair.
What if IT never makes another all star team, the Brooklyn pick winds up #8 and is used to select a journeyman, and Zizic never becomes a full time starter in the NBA? Meanwhile, let's say Kyrie spends the rest of his career with the Celtics, makes 7 more all star teams and the Celtics stay competetive for that whole time but never win it all.
What if Kyrie walks in two seasons, and the Brooklyn pick is number 1? In my mind, that’s as equally probable as your scenario, but also largely irrelevant.
Ainge traded an All-NBA, heart and soul of the team player, who gave everything he had both physically and emotionally to lead the team to the conference finals, and who played a significant role in recruiting two star players to join him in Boston. That is a trade with one purpose only — to win a championship, and soon. And that’s how I’m judging it. IT can have five more All-NBA seasons, and the Brooklyn pick can be number 1 overall, providing the Cavs with Luka Doncic, whom I’ve coveted for over a year, and I’ll think the trade was a good one if we win a title with Kyrie. If that happens in three years, I’ll like the trade then. Or in five years. Hopefully it’s this year, but regardless, the Celtics just need to win. That’s what this trade was about — Ainge thinks Kyrie is a championship-level star player, and that IT wasn’t. I hope Kyrie proves him right — but unless and until he does, I won’t like this trade.
Well stated.
SL's emotional connection to IT is clouding his judgment. I think that Danny's ability to set his emotions aside in deciding what is best for the future of the team is what makes him such a great GM.
-
TP. for Footey post .
-
I will hate this trade unless and until the Celtics win a championship with Kyrie. That’s what this trade was about — winning titles soon. If we don’t, I would have rather kept the guy that embodied what it meant to be a star on the Celtics.
We could win 70 games this year, but without a title it will have been the wrong trade in my book.
So if the Celtics win the east and go to the finals for the next 3-4 years, but fail to get over the Warriors, you will still hate this trade?
Yes. As I said earlier, I think the Celtics were in line to take over from the Cavs next year, and maybe even this year, pre-trade. LeBron was likely walking away next summer. Irving was trying to force a trade — the next-best offers were coming from Western Conference teams. The Cavs were done after this year, and depending on the return they got for Kyrie from someone other than the Celtics, they might have been done this year.
It’s about titles in Boston. Coming in second won’t be worth trading a guy like IT, especially when we probably were going to finish second with him anyway. This was a championship move by Ainge, and that’s the scale it gets graded on.
This seems a little unfair.
What if IT never makes another all star team, the Brooklyn pick winds up #8 and is used to select a journeyman, and Zizic never becomes a full time starter in the NBA? Meanwhile, let's say Kyrie spends the rest of his career with the Celtics, makes 7 more all star teams and the Celtics stay competetive for that whole time but never win it all.
What if Kyrie walks in two seasons, and the Brooklyn pick is number 1? In my mind, that’s as equally probable as your scenario, but also largely irrelevant.
Ainge traded an All-NBA, heart and soul of the team player, who gave everything he had both physically and emotionally to lead the team to the conference finals, and who played a significant role in recruiting two star players to join him in Boston. That is a trade with one purpose only — to win a championship, and soon. And that’s how I’m judging it. IT can have five more All-NBA seasons, and the Brooklyn pick can be number 1 overall, providing the Cavs with Luka Doncic, whom I’ve coveted for over a year, and I’ll think the trade was a good one if we win a title with Kyrie. If that happens in three years, I’ll like the trade then. Or in five years. Hopefully it’s this year, but regardless, the Celtics just need to win. That’s what this trade was about — Ainge thinks Kyrie is a championship-level star player, and that IT wasn’t. I hope Kyrie proves him right — but unless and until he does, I won’t like this trade.
Well stated.
SL's emotional connection to IT is clouding his judgment. I think that Danny's ability to set his emotions aside in deciding what is best for the future of the team is what makes him such a great GM.
Fans become enamored with players and lose sight of what really matters - The Celtics. To me it's always about the Celtics, players come secondary.
-
I will hate this trade unless and until the Celtics win a championship with Kyrie. That’s what this trade was about — winning titles soon. If we don’t, I would have rather kept the guy that embodied what it meant to be a star on the Celtics.
We could win 70 games this year, but without a title it will have been the wrong trade in my book.
What if Kyrie gets us to the Finals passed the Cavs, but we lose the Warriors?
Would that not be good enough? It's not like IT was going to get us there.
For me, that would not be good enough. I think the Celtics were set to pass the Cavs next year anyway, and had a good chance of doing so this year given that Irving was forcing a trade. IT may very well have gotten us there.
I think your valuation for a successful trade is pretty unfair given that its based on IT Celtics making it to the Finals. A scenario that seems to me would have been highly unlikely considering how the Cavs swallowed up and dominated the 5'9 IT.
No, his trade success criteria isn't based on "IT Celtics" making it to the Finals. It's based on Kyrie Celtics have to win a title or we are no better off (at winning titles) than we were with IT.
I think you should re-read what saltover said. When I further asked him he clearly said it's because he believes the IT Celtics would have made it to the Finals.
So if Kyrie and the Celtics make it to the Finals thats not good enough because in his mind IT already got us there.
Sounds a little absurd now that Im typing it out myself.
No, even if he believed that the pre-trade Celtics were good enough to get to the Finals, that's not the basis for what he stated as the criteria for success. He clearly states it as, unless the Kyrie trade gets us a title, then it isn't worth it, regardless of how good IT might end up (or might be if he had stayed with us). Because the nature of the trade is a 'go for the banner' type of trade.
This:
It’s about titles in Boston. Coming in second won’t be worth trading a guy like IT, especially when we probably were going to finish second with him anyway. This was a championship move by Ainge, and that’s the scale it gets graded on.
and this:
IT can have five more All-NBA seasons, and the Brooklyn pick can be number 1 overall, providing the Cavs with Luka Doncic, whom I’ve coveted for over a year, and I’ll think the trade was a good one if we win a title with Kyrie. If that happens in three years, I’ll like the trade then. Or in five years.
make it very clear that his success criteria for the trade isn't about how well IT plays or how we might have finished if not for the trade. It's about whether the trade leads us to a banner.
-
I will hate this trade unless and until the Celtics win a championship with Kyrie. That’s what this trade was about — winning titles soon. If we don’t, I would have rather kept the guy that embodied what it meant to be a star on the Celtics.
We could win 70 games this year, but without a title it will have been the wrong trade in my book.
What if Kyrie gets us to the Finals passed the Cavs, but we lose the Warriors?
Would that not be good enough? It's not like IT was going to get us there.
For me, that would not be good enough. I think the Celtics were set to pass the Cavs next year anyway, and had a good chance of doing so this year given that Irving was forcing a trade. IT may very well have gotten us there.
I think your valuation for a successful trade is pretty unfair given that its based on IT Celtics making it to the Finals. A scenario that seems to me would have been highly unlikely considering how the Cavs swallowed up and dominated the 5'9 IT.
No, his trade success criteria isn't based on "IT Celtics" making it to the Finals. It's based on Kyrie Celtics have to win a title or we are no better off (at winning titles) than we were with IT.
I think you should re-read what saltover said. When I further asked him he clearly said it's because he believes the IT Celtics would have made it to the Finals.
So if Kyrie and the Celtics make it to the Finals thats not good enough because in his mind IT already got us there.
Sounds a little absurd now that Im typing it out myself.
No, even if he believed that the pre-trade Celtics were good enough to get to the Finals, that's not the basis for what he stated as the criteria for success. He clearly states it as, unless the Kyrie trade gets us a title, then it isn't worth it, regardless of how good IT might end up (or might be if he had stayed with us). Because the nature of the trade is a 'go for the banner' type of trade.
This:
It’s about titles in Boston. Coming in second won’t be worth trading a guy like IT, especially when we probably were going to finish second with him anyway. This was a championship move by Ainge, and that’s the scale it gets graded on.
and this:
IT can have five more All-NBA seasons, and the Brooklyn pick can be number 1 overall, providing the Cavs with Luka Doncic, whom I’ve coveted for over a year, and I’ll think the trade was a good one if we win a title with Kyrie. If that happens in three years, I’ll like the trade then. Or in five years.
make it very clear that his success criteria for the trade isn't about how well IT plays or how we might have finished if not for the trade. It's about whether the trade leads us to a banner.
mmmmm loook at it this way
His criteria for a successful trade: Celtics win a championship
This criteria is based on: He believed IT would have gotten us to the Finals this season
Not sure why you are trying to mix words so much.
He's using a unlikely scenario to stretch his criteria for success.
The true definition of a successful trade would be one that betters the team in short term, or long term. Right? Looks like this trade did both. We got a better younger PG for more years AND we opened up 30 minutes of playing time for our 2 #3 picks on the perimeter by dealing away Crowder.
-
I will hate this trade unless and until the Celtics win a championship with Kyrie. That’s what this trade was about — winning titles soon. If we don’t, I would have rather kept the guy that embodied what it meant to be a star on the Celtics.
We could win 70 games this year, but without a title it will have been the wrong trade in my book.
What if Kyrie gets us to the Finals passed the Cavs, but we lose the Warriors?
Would that not be good enough? It's not like IT was going to get us there.
For me, that would not be good enough. I think the Celtics were set to pass the Cavs next year anyway, and had a good chance of doing so this year given that Irving was forcing a trade. IT may very well have gotten us there.
I think your valuation for a successful trade is pretty unfair given that its based on IT Celtics making it to the Finals. A scenario that seems to me would have been highly unlikely considering how the Cavs swallowed up and dominated the 5'9 IT.
No, his trade success criteria isn't based on "IT Celtics" making it to the Finals. It's based on Kyrie Celtics have to win a title or we are no better off (at winning titles) than we were with IT.
I think you should re-read what saltover said. When I further asked him he clearly said it's because he believes the IT Celtics would have made it to the Finals.
So if Kyrie and the Celtics make it to the Finals thats not good enough because in his mind IT already got us there.
Sounds a little absurd now that Im typing it out myself.
No, even if he believed that the pre-trade Celtics were good enough to get to the Finals, that's not the basis for what he stated as the criteria for success. He clearly states it as, unless the Kyrie trade gets us a title, then it isn't worth it, regardless of how good IT might end up (or might be if he had stayed with us). Because the nature of the trade is a 'go for the banner' type of trade.
This:
It’s about titles in Boston. Coming in second won’t be worth trading a guy like IT, especially when we probably were going to finish second with him anyway. This was a championship move by Ainge, and that’s the scale it gets graded on.
and this:
IT can have five more All-NBA seasons, and the Brooklyn pick can be number 1 overall, providing the Cavs with Luka Doncic, whom I’ve coveted for over a year, and I’ll think the trade was a good one if we win a title with Kyrie. If that happens in three years, I’ll like the trade then. Or in five years.
make it very clear that his success criteria for the trade isn't about how well IT plays or how we might have finished if not for the trade. It's about whether the trade leads us to a banner.
mmmmm loook at it this way
His criteria for a successful trade: Celtics win a championship
This criteria is based on: He believed IT would have gotten us to the Finals this season
Not sure why you are trying to mix words so much.
He's using a unlikely scenario to stretch his criteria for success.
The true definition of a successful trade would be one that betters the team in short term, or long term. Right? Looks like this trade did both. We got a better younger PG for more years AND we opened up 30 minutes of playing time for our 2 #3 picks on the perimeter by dealing away Crowder.
Both those things remain to be seen. If Thomas and/or Crowder contribute to CLE returning to the Finals this coming year, then it will not have helped us in the short term. If the trade leads to a scenario where Lebron (and maybe even Thomas) stay in CLE for the next 2-3 years and continue to block us from the Finals, then it will not have helped us in the near-mid term. And if the BKN18 & Zizic become valuable things that extend CLE's competitive window then that will not have helped us long term.
There are many possible ways for this to play out, some that make us look like easy winners and some that make us look like big losers of this trade. We won't know for sure for a while.
-
I will hate this trade unless and until the Celtics win a championship with Kyrie. That’s what this trade was about — winning titles soon. If we don’t, I would have rather kept the guy that embodied what it meant to be a star on the Celtics.
We could win 70 games this year, but without a title it will have been the wrong trade in my book.
What if Kyrie gets us to the Finals passed the Cavs, but we lose the Warriors?
Would that not be good enough? It's not like IT was going to get us there.
For me, that would not be good enough. I think the Celtics were set to pass the Cavs next year anyway, and had a good chance of doing so this year given that Irving was forcing a trade. IT may very well have gotten us there.
I think your valuation for a successful trade is pretty unfair given that its based on IT Celtics making it to the Finals. A scenario that seems to me would have been highly unlikely considering how the Cavs swallowed up and dominated the 5'9 IT.
No, his trade success criteria isn't based on "IT Celtics" making it to the Finals. It's based on Kyrie Celtics have to win a title or we are no better off (at winning titles) than we were with IT.
I think you should re-read what saltover said. When I further asked him he clearly said it's because he believes the IT Celtics would have made it to the Finals.
So if Kyrie and the Celtics make it to the Finals thats not good enough because in his mind IT already got us there.
Sounds a little absurd now that Im typing it out myself.
No, even if he believed that the pre-trade Celtics were good enough to get to the Finals, that's not the basis for what he stated as the criteria for success. He clearly states it as, unless the Kyrie trade gets us a title, then it isn't worth it, regardless of how good IT might end up (or might be if he had stayed with us). Because the nature of the trade is a 'go for the banner' type of trade.
This:
It’s about titles in Boston. Coming in second won’t be worth trading a guy like IT, especially when we probably were going to finish second with him anyway. This was a championship move by Ainge, and that’s the scale it gets graded on.
and this:
IT can have five more All-NBA seasons, and the Brooklyn pick can be number 1 overall, providing the Cavs with Luka Doncic, whom I’ve coveted for over a year, and I’ll think the trade was a good one if we win a title with Kyrie. If that happens in three years, I’ll like the trade then. Or in five years.
make it very clear that his success criteria for the trade isn't about how well IT plays or how we might have finished if not for the trade. It's about whether the trade leads us to a banner.
mmmmm loook at it this way
His criteria for a successful trade: Celtics win a championship
This criteria is based on: He believed IT would have gotten us to the Finals this season
Not sure why you are trying to mix words so much.
He's using a unlikely scenario to stretch his criteria for success.
The true definition of a successful trade would be one that betters the team in short term, or long term. Right? Looks like this trade did both. We got a better younger PG for more years AND we opened up 30 minutes of playing time for our 2 #3 picks on the perimeter by dealing away Crowder.
Both those things remain to be seen. If Thomas and/or Crowder contribute to CLE returning to the Finals this coming year, then it will not have helped us in the short term. If the trade leads to a scenario where Lebron (and maybe even Thomas) stay in CLE for the next 2-3 years and continue to block us from the Finals, then it will not have helped us in the near-mid term. And if the BKN18 & Zizic become valuable things that extend CLE's competitive window then that will not have helped us long term.
There are many possible ways for this to play out, some that make us look like easy winners and some that make us look like big losers of this trade. We won't know for sure for a while.
James is turing 33 this season, so I'm not too worried about him "blocking us from the Finals for the next 2-3 years".
Thomas still can't move laterally, so his rumored January return seems doubtful
-
Flawed logic to call this a championship-or-bust type of trade. That would imply we now have a narrow window for contention and few options beyond the next couple years. In reality, that situation is what we had with IT - except not even that, since IT was an aging, undersized, injured PG who looks unlikely to return to All-NBA form and who wanted a fat contract.
What part of that is desirable?
-
I enjoyed watching the four preseason games and very much look forward to the real games starting. This year's team seems deep with talent even though some it -- quite a bit -- is NBA green (pun intended).
I'm glad the team is no longer IT dependent. He was a superb bench scorer thrust into a starring role. By all accounts a fine fellow and competitor, but I never felt he was going to lead us to #18. The IT Era was reminding me of the Antoine Walker Years (which was so aesthetically unpleasing as to cause me cancel the NBA League Pass -- I live out of state).
Did anyone notice the defensive energy Kyrie Irving was playing with last night? Wouldn't that be something if he were to become competent, or better, on that end?
All in all, I've liked the trade from the go. Sorry to see the pick go, sorry to see the Euro go, not really sorry to see Jae or IT go.
-
The Celtics have dominated preseason several years in a row. The Cavs have stunk in preseason over the same time period.
Way too early to change a verdict.
-
I still have little to know opinion on this trade as there are so many factors involved, a few of which won't be known about for 1-3 years. I loved IT and would loved to have seen him lead this team to a title. But I am sure there are a lot of posters here who felt the same way about Antoine Walker 15 years ago.
I love the Celtics and will cheer for this team no less because of this trade. In a couple years I will be able to look back and say "we won that trade" or "we lost that trade". But in the here and now, I am just happy with the team we have.