Author Topic: Woj: Boston has interest in Irving, no formal offer made yet. Cavs like Tatum  (Read 18156 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline GreenEnvy

  • Antoine Walker
  • ****
  • Posts: 4551
  • Tommy Points: 1031
I've been saying since his demand broke that Thomas, Crowder, Rozier, and Boston's 1st for Irving makes a lot of sense for both teams.  I doubt it happens but would be reasonable

I'd do that, even though it might hurt this year.

The idea of moving both IT and Tatum is a non-starter though.
Talent-wise, we're on top in this deal. Will be a tough sell though.

However, I don't think we can put a credible starting lineup with Thomas, Irving AND Hayward. Someone has to play defense.

Are you insinuating Hayward can't play D?

Please elaborate.
CELTICS 2024

Offline jambr380

  • K.C. Jones
  • *************
  • Posts: 13002
  • Tommy Points: 1756
  • Everybody knows what's best for you
I suspect any Celtics interest in Irving would be connected with their ability to sign IT long term to a max. Or their inability, I should say. They will have a tough time adding a 3rd star to a max contract. Irving has a friendlier contract. What is it? $18-20M per for the next 2 or 3 years.They would have an easier time fitting Irving under or near the cap than IT.


Let's be clear, even if we give IT an absolute max-value, full 5-year contract, Irving will cost more over the next 6 years.

In fact, he will cost more in 5 of the 6 years.   And he will cost more in total just to cover the next two years.

Irving would be only be cheaper in year 2 from now (the year IT would be in the first year of his new contract).   Because after that, then Irving would jump back up above him in cost with his _own_ new max contract.

So can we please stop with the "friendlier contract" mythology?   Irving's contract doesn't present any real-world advantage over Thomas'.   In either case, we will be over the cap from now on.  In either case we will go over the tax in year 2.   The only difference is that we'd be over by a lesser amount in year 2 but then over by a lot more in subsequent years.

I think people see Irving as a more legitimate max-level player than IT due to his age and height advantage. The team-friendly terminology also refers to next year when we are going to plow through the tax penalty by a wide margin. Having Irving instead of a $30M+ IT would allow an extra year to work through the logistics. Heck, even Horford will be eligible to opt out of his contract after that year. It also may allow us to keep Smart.

Offline CelticsElite

  • NCE
  • Danny Ainge
  • **********
  • Posts: 10774
  • Tommy Points: 789
I've been saying since his demand broke that Thomas, Crowder, Rozier, and Boston's 1st for Irving makes a lot of sense for both teams.  I doubt it happens but would be reasonable

I'd do that, even though it might hurt this year.

The idea of moving both IT and Tatum is a non-starter though.
Talent-wise, we're on top in this deal. Will be a tough sell though.

However, I don't think we can put a credible starting lineup with Thomas, Irving AND Hayward. Someone has to play defense.

Are you insinuating Hayward can't play D?

Please elaborate.
he is lol

Offline Birdman

  • Satch Sanders
  • *********
  • Posts: 9170
  • Tommy Points: 412
No way Cleveland trading Irving to Boston
C/PF-Horford, Baynes, Noel, Theis, Morris,
SF/SG- Tatum, Brown, Hayward, Smart, Semi, Clark
PG- Irving, Rozier, Larkin

Offline GreenEnvy

  • Antoine Walker
  • ****
  • Posts: 4551
  • Tommy Points: 1031
I suspect any Celtics interest in Irving would be connected with their ability to sign IT long term to a max. Or their inability, I should say. They will have a tough time adding a 3rd star to a max contract. Irving has a friendlier contract. What is it? $18-20M per for the next 2 or 3 years.They would have an easier time fitting Irving under or near the cap than IT.


Let's be clear, even if we give IT an absolute max-value, full 5-year contract, Irving will cost more over the next 6 years.

In fact, he will cost more in 5 of the 6 years.   And he will cost more in total just to cover the next two years.

Irving would be only be cheaper in year 2 from now (the year IT would be in the first year of his new contract).   Because after that, then Irving would jump back up above him in cost with his _own_ new max contract.

So can we please stop with the "friendlier contract" mythology?   Irving's contract doesn't present any real-world advantage over Thomas'.   In either case, we will be over the cap from now on.  In either case we will go over the tax in year 2.   The only difference is that we'd be over by a lesser amount in year 2 but then over by a lot more in subsequent years.

I think people see Irving as a more legitimate max-level player than IT due to his age and height advantage. The team-friendly terminology also refers to next year when we are going to plow through the tax penalty by a wide margin. Having Irving instead of a $30M+ IT would allow an extra year to work through the logistics. Heck, even Horford will be eligible to opt out of his contract after that year. It also may allow us to keep Smart.

Are you sure about that? We have to match salaries, and since we don't have any bad contracts, we are giving away good players on good deals. Unless we are gonna fill the roster with even more rookies, we aren't saving all that much. Lose Crowder in the deal, who replaces him? Vet min has-been? Two-way player?

Also, Brad is big on character and sometimes personalities just matter. IT is a perfect fit for this team and Irving is a questionable teammate, at best.

I will not endorse a trade for Kyrie unless it's part of a three-team deal in which we get someone to play alongside IT. You guys can harp on years and inches and dollars all you want, but when it comes to wins and losses, IT is right there with Kyrie (and some stats would suggest he is better). Many like to irgnore the LBJ factor and how much pressure he takes off Irving. When LeBron DNP's, the Cavs are terrible.
CELTICS 2024

Offline IDreamCeltics

  • NCE
  • Bill Walton
  • *
  • Posts: 1401
  • Tommy Points: 140
Woj stopped dropping truth-bombs and settled for dropping Woj-bombs a long time ago...

Offline RJ87

  • NCE
  • Ed Macauley
  • ***********
  • Posts: 11685
  • Tommy Points: 1406
  • Let's Go Celtics!
I've been saying since his demand broke that Thomas, Crowder, Rozier, and Boston's 1st for Irving makes a lot of sense for both teams.  I doubt it happens but would be reasonable

That's because you're Moranis. Others would prefer to not have a brain dead, locker room cancer loser on the team.

It's hard to take some you seriously when you make comments like this. Irving is a lot things, but he's a 4-time All-Star who's still just 25 years old. Is it questionable he wants to leave a winner? Possibly, but we don't know all of the behind the scenes machinations at work in Cleveland. Or maybe - just maybe - he's tired of being at the mercy of Lebron's whims. Right now, Cleveland is a winner but Lebron can torpedo that in a year. He's done it before.
2021 Houston Rockets
PG: Kyrie Irving/Patty Mills/Jalen Brunson
SG: OG Anunoby/Norman Powell/Matisse Thybulle
SF: Gordon Hayward/Demar Derozan
PF: Giannis Antetokounmpo/Robert Covington
C: Kristaps Porzingis/Bobby Portis/James Wiseman

Offline GreenEnvy

  • Antoine Walker
  • ****
  • Posts: 4551
  • Tommy Points: 1031
I've been saying since his demand broke that Thomas, Crowder, Rozier, and Boston's 1st for Irving makes a lot of sense for both teams.  I doubt it happens but would be reasonable

That's because you're Moranis. Others would prefer to not have a brain dead, locker room cancer loser on the team.

It's hard to take some you seriously when you make comments like this. Irving is a lot things, but he's a 4-time All-Star who's still just 25 years old. Is it questionable he wants to leave a winner? Possibly, but we don't know all of the behind the scenes machinations at work in Cleveland. Or maybe - just maybe - he's tired of being at the mercy of Lebron's whims. Right now, Cleveland is a winner but Lebron can torpedo that in a year. He's done it before.

In all fairness, this is the same guy that said the earth is flat and didn't talk to teammates for two straight practices during the playoffs. It may be harsh and hyperbole, but it's not far off.
CELTICS 2024

Offline Moranis

  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 33461
  • Tommy Points: 1533
I've been saying since his demand broke that Thomas, Crowder, Rozier, and Boston's 1st for Irving makes a lot of sense for both teams.  I doubt it happens but would be reasonable

I'd do that, even though it might hurt this year.

The idea of moving both IT and Tatum is a non-starter though.
Talent-wise, we're on top in this deal. Will be a tough sell though.

However, I don't think we can put a credible starting lineup with Thomas, Irving AND Hayward. Someone has to play defense.
what are you talking about Thomas is getting traded in the deal for Irving that I proposed and that Roy commented on.
2023 Historical Draft - Brooklyn Nets - 9th pick

Bigs - Pau, Amar'e, Issel, McGinnis, Roundfield
Wings - Dantley, Bowen, J. Jackson
Guards - Cheeks, Petrovic, Buse, Rip

Offline Moranis

  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 33461
  • Tommy Points: 1533
I suspect any Celtics interest in Irving would be connected with their ability to sign IT long term to a max. Or their inability, I should say. They will have a tough time adding a 3rd star to a max contract. Irving has a friendlier contract. What is it? $18-20M per for the next 2 or 3 years.They would have an easier time fitting Irving under or near the cap than IT.


Let's be clear, even if we give IT an absolute max-value, full 5-year contract, Irving will cost more over the next 6 years.

In fact, he will cost more in 5 of the 6 years.   And he will cost more in total just to cover the next two years.

Irving would be only be cheaper in year 2 from now (the year IT would be in the first year of his new contract).   Because after that, then Irving would jump back up above him in cost with his _own_ new max contract.

So can we please stop with the "friendlier contract" mythology?   Irving's contract doesn't present any real-world advantage over Thomas'.   In either case, we will be over the cap from now on.  In either case we will go over the tax in year 2.   The only difference is that we'd be over by a lesser amount in year 2 but then over by a lot more in subsequent years.

I think people see Irving as a more legitimate max-level player than IT due to his age and height advantage. The team-friendly terminology also refers to next year when we are going to plow through the tax penalty by a wide margin. Having Irving instead of a $30M+ IT would allow an extra year to work through the logistics. Heck, even Horford will be eligible to opt out of his contract after that year. It also may allow us to keep Smart.

Are you sure about that? We have to match salaries, and since we don't have any bad contracts, we are giving away good players on good deals. Unless we are gonna fill the roster with even more rookies, we aren't saving all that much. Lose Crowder in the deal, who replaces him? Vet min has-been? Two-way player?

Also, Brad is big on character and sometimes personalities just matter. IT is a perfect fit for this team and Irving is a questionable teammate, at best.

I will not endorse a trade for Kyrie unless it's part of a three-team deal in which we get someone to play alongside IT. You guys can harp on years and inches and dollars all you want, but when it comes to wins and losses, IT is right there with Kyrie (and some stats would suggest he is better). Many like to irgnore the LBJ factor and how much pressure he takes off Irving. When LeBron DNP's, the Cavs are terrible.
A lot of the Cavs terribleness without James is their general lack of a game plan and a roster constructed around James. 

Swapping Irving for Thomas, Crowder, Rozier, and Boston's 1st (say around pick 25) would save Boston in the neighborhood of 25 million next year, which would allow Boston to keep Smart (who is most definitely gone next year if Thomas is brought back).  It also most likely keeps Boston out of the luxury tax next year.  In addition, Irving is a much better fit with the timeline of Brown, Tatum, BKN, LAL picks as he is a good deal younger than Thomas and most would project him to have a longer prime than Thomas (on account of Thomas' small size).  Irving is also the best player in that trade.  I mean the poll on this blog shows a heavy tilt to Irving and this is the one place that would lean towards Thomas.
2023 Historical Draft - Brooklyn Nets - 9th pick

Bigs - Pau, Amar'e, Issel, McGinnis, Roundfield
Wings - Dantley, Bowen, J. Jackson
Guards - Cheeks, Petrovic, Buse, Rip

Offline mmmmm

  • NCE
  • Rajon Rondo
  • *****
  • Posts: 5308
  • Tommy Points: 862
I suspect any Celtics interest in Irving would be connected with their ability to sign IT long term to a max. Or their inability, I should say. They will have a tough time adding a 3rd star to a max contract. Irving has a friendlier contract. What is it? $18-20M per for the next 2 or 3 years.They would have an easier time fitting Irving under or near the cap than IT.


Let's be clear, even if we give IT an absolute max-value, full 5-year contract, Irving will cost more over the next 6 years.

In fact, he will cost more in 5 of the 6 years.   And he will cost more in total just to cover the next two years.

Irving would be only be cheaper in year 2 from now (the year IT would be in the first year of his new contract).   Because after that, then Irving would jump back up above him in cost with his _own_ new max contract.

So can we please stop with the "friendlier contract" mythology?   Irving's contract doesn't present any real-world advantage over Thomas'.   In either case, we will be over the cap from now on.  In either case we will go over the tax in year 2.   The only difference is that we'd be over by a lesser amount in year 2 but then over by a lot more in subsequent years.

I think people see Irving as a more legitimate max-level player than IT due to his age and height advantage. The team-friendly terminology also refers to next year when we are going to plow through the tax penalty by a wide margin. Having Irving instead of a $30M+ IT would allow an extra year to work through the logistics. Heck, even Horford will be eligible to opt out of his contract after that year. It also may allow us to keep Smart.

Whether Irving is "a more legitimate max-level player than IT" is a completely separate discussion and definitely a debatable assertion.

As I said, the only difference is in how much over the tax threshold we go in 2018-19.  This is _not_ going to effect whether we sign Smart or not.  If Wyc is not willing to go into the tax to sign Smart, then the fact that he'd have less tax penalty for doing so for one year isn't going to affect that decision.  Because he'd still have to pay it on the years going forward.

Horford, at his age is almost certainly not going to opt out of his contract in '19-20.   So we will be over the tax threshold that year whether with IT on the second year of his new contract or with Irving on the first year of an even more expensive new contract.

The first chance to drop back below the tax threshold would be 2020-21, after Horford's contract expires.   But you also have to re-sign Jaylen that year and if you just signed Irving to a new contract your margin is reduced by how much more he makes than Thomas would have been making.    If another team offers Jaylen a max offer sheet, you could be right back over the tax.



NBA Officiating - Corrupt?  Incompetent?  Which is worse?  Does it matter?  It sucks.

Offline GreenEnvy

  • Antoine Walker
  • ****
  • Posts: 4551
  • Tommy Points: 1031
I suspect any Celtics interest in Irving would be connected with their ability to sign IT long term to a max. Or their inability, I should say. They will have a tough time adding a 3rd star to a max contract. Irving has a friendlier contract. What is it? $18-20M per for the next 2 or 3 years.They would have an easier time fitting Irving under or near the cap than IT.


Let's be clear, even if we give IT an absolute max-value, full 5-year contract, Irving will cost more over the next 6 years.

In fact, he will cost more in 5 of the 6 years.   And he will cost more in total just to cover the next two years.

Irving would be only be cheaper in year 2 from now (the year IT would be in the first year of his new contract).   Because after that, then Irving would jump back up above him in cost with his _own_ new max contract.

So can we please stop with the "friendlier contract" mythology?   Irving's contract doesn't present any real-world advantage over Thomas'.   In either case, we will be over the cap from now on.  In either case we will go over the tax in year 2.   The only difference is that we'd be over by a lesser amount in year 2 but then over by a lot more in subsequent years.

I think people see Irving as a more legitimate max-level player than IT due to his age and height advantage. The team-friendly terminology also refers to next year when we are going to plow through the tax penalty by a wide margin. Having Irving instead of a $30M+ IT would allow an extra year to work through the logistics. Heck, even Horford will be eligible to opt out of his contract after that year. It also may allow us to keep Smart.

Are you sure about that? We have to match salaries, and since we don't have any bad contracts, we are giving away good players on good deals. Unless we are gonna fill the roster with even more rookies, we aren't saving all that much. Lose Crowder in the deal, who replaces him? Vet min has-been? Two-way player?

Also, Brad is big on character and sometimes personalities just matter. IT is a perfect fit for this team and Irving is a questionable teammate, at best.

I will not endorse a trade for Kyrie unless it's part of a three-team deal in which we get someone to play alongside IT. You guys can harp on years and inches and dollars all you want, but when it comes to wins and losses, IT is right there with Kyrie (and some stats would suggest he is better). Many like to irgnore the LBJ factor and how much pressure he takes off Irving. When LeBron DNP's, the Cavs are terrible.
A lot of the Cavs terribleness without James is their general lack of a game plan and a roster constructed around James. 

Swapping Irving for Thomas, Crowder, Rozier, and Boston's 1st (say around pick 25) would save Boston in the neighborhood of 25 million next year, which would allow Boston to keep Smart (who is most definitely gone next year if Thomas is brought back).  It also most likely keeps Boston out of the luxury tax next year.  In addition, Irving is a much better fit with the timeline of Brown, Tatum, BKN, LAL picks as he is a good deal younger than Thomas and most would project him to have a longer prime than Thomas (on account of Thomas' small size).  Irving is also the best player in that trade.  I mean the poll on this blog shows a heavy tilt to Irving and this is the one place that would lean towards Thomas.

How are you replacing Crowder? Our biggest asset this year is depth and how we can play big/small depending on what Brad wants to do. Anyone who thinks he is a significant upgrade over IT is wrong. Yes he's younger, but we don't need younger. We needs rookies to learn from quality vets, what team other than GSW grew their young guys together into a dynasty? Every other template mixes all-star vets with talented youth. That's what Ainge is presumably going for.

If Kyrie will be making roughly $23M next year, how much are we paying Smart and who are we replacing Crowder/Rozier with to stay below the tax while staying amongst the elite? We take a giant step back to maybe stay under the tax threshold for another season? Or do you think Kyrie for IT/Crowder/Rozier/pick makes us better?

I'm here to win now. I like our horses. I don't care what the polls say on a site with the most negative fan base there probably is. For every green-glassed fan on here, we have a Debbie Downer who just likes to play devils advocate believing the grass is always greener. IT is too small. Horford's the worst contract in NBA. Hayward can't play D/he's no George. Lakers are gonna win 50. Brad uses too many lineups. Ainge is too gunshy. Wyc & co are too cheap. This site is hardly that biased FOR the Celtics.
CELTICS 2024

Offline chambers

  • Tiny Archibald
  • *******
  • Posts: 7482
  • Tommy Points: 943
  • Boston Celtics= Championships, nothing less.
Unless we flip Irving for someone like AD, it doesn't make any sense. Ainge would never do IT and Tatum for Irving.

There's no way Kyrie and Isaiah could play together.

Unless it was a three-team trade, I don't see it. And I don't believe Cleveland would help facilitate us getting supreme talent in any way.

I'm not completely convinced this is true.  And that's why I'd be very intrigued in Tatum, Smart, and Morris for Kyrie.  I haven't sold myself on it yet, mostly because I don't want to play against Smart in the playoffs.  But that's what I'd look at.
Good back-courts would abuse us on the defensive end, but on the other end of the court what back-court can match the offensive dynamism of IT and Kyrie.

I still don't see any deal that benefits us.

Are Kyrie and IT that much worse defensively than Steph+Klay?
They're worse, but not by much.
"We are lucky we have a very patient GM that isn't willing to settle for being good and coming close. He wants to win a championship and we have the potential to get there still with our roster and assets."

quoting 'Greg B' on RealGM after 2017 trade deadline.
Read that last line again. One more time.

Offline RJ87

  • NCE
  • Ed Macauley
  • ***********
  • Posts: 11685
  • Tommy Points: 1406
  • Let's Go Celtics!
I've been saying since his demand broke that Thomas, Crowder, Rozier, and Boston's 1st for Irving makes a lot of sense for both teams.  I doubt it happens but would be reasonable

That's because you're Moranis. Others would prefer to not have a brain dead, locker room cancer loser on the team.

It's hard to take some you seriously when you make comments like this. Irving is a lot things, but he's a 4-time All-Star who's still just 25 years old. Is it questionable he wants to leave a winner? Possibly, but we don't know all of the behind the scenes machinations at work in Cleveland. Or maybe - just maybe - he's tired of being at the mercy of Lebron's whims. Right now, Cleveland is a winner but Lebron can torpedo that in a year. He's done it before.

In all fairness, this is the same guy that said the earth is flat and didn't talk to teammates for two straight practices during the playoffs. It may be harsh and hyperbole, but it's not far off.
.

1. Irving was trolling with that earth is flat thing. The fact that people still don't see that is hysterical. Alternative facts, indeed.
2. Again, that's one side of the story. Interesting that him not speaking to teammates only came to light after his trade request became public.
2021 Houston Rockets
PG: Kyrie Irving/Patty Mills/Jalen Brunson
SG: OG Anunoby/Norman Powell/Matisse Thybulle
SF: Gordon Hayward/Demar Derozan
PF: Giannis Antetokounmpo/Robert Covington
C: Kristaps Porzingis/Bobby Portis/James Wiseman

Offline tstorey_97

  • Ray Allen
  • ***
  • Posts: 3667
  • Tommy Points: 586
Ceitics with Kyrie at point are better.

Trading Tatum isn't going to happen...is it? Looks like he might be legit.

The Kyrie v IT swap is a Celtics win, but not by much.

I have no idea why Cavs would value IT + Crowder and some non or late lottery first round pick for their starting NBA finals point guard.
They don't have to trade him and they are back in finals next year with him...dumb move.