If IT4 Was 100% Healthy, Would DA Have Kept Him For LONG Haul?

[ssspence]

If IT was 100% healthy, Danny should have built around him regardless of Kyrie's availability.

Yep. This Right Here.

Y'all are choosing loyalty over banners -- even in the hypothetical, which makes it a little worse. Don't forget it.

Healthy IT > Kyrie

Healthy IT + Crowder + Zizic + BRK #1 >>> Kyrie

Don't forget it.

We know your option about the trade. It's not the topic raised in this thread. It's debating whether the GM of the Cs would have kept and paid IT if he was healthy. I don't think so.

Sure it's the topic of this thread.

If IT was healthy, Danny wouldn't have traded a better player plus a starter, a prospect and a coveted pick for a celebrity point guard.

Oh boy. If a frog had wings. And you skipped the payment part.

[Roy H.]

If IT was 100% healthy, Danny should have built around him regardless of Kyrie's availability.

Yep. This Right Here.

Y'all are choosing loyalty over banners -- even in the hypothetical, which makes it a little worse. Don't forget it.

Healthy IT > Kyrie

Healthy IT + Crowder + Zizic + BRK #1 >>> Kyrie

Don't forget it.

We know your option about the trade. It's not the topic raised in this thread. It's debating whether the GM of the Cs would have kept and paid IT if he was healthy. I don't think so.

Sure it's the topic of this thread.

If IT was healthy, Danny wouldn't have traded a better player plus a starter, a prospect and a coveted pick for a celebrity point guard.

Oh boy. If a frog had wings. And you skipped the payment part.

It's a hypothetical that presumes IT was healthy.

And why wouldn't Danny pay a healthy IT? In two years he'll pay a (hopefully) healthy Kyrie even more, and he's an inferior player.

[nickagneta]

I do think the hip injury played a big part in this. But I also think paying a 29 year old, 5'9" PG a max contract when the heart of the team is much younger played a part as well. Without the injury, IT gets a max. If he comes in and proves he isn't affected by the hip, he will get his Brink's truck.

[Th3M2n]

As i've said multiple times long before the trade Danny was NEVER going to give IT the max...

[Dino Pitino]

We know your opinion about the trade.

It's making this forum annoying to read for a mod to be an Isaiah stan who spams every other thread with negativity about the trade.

[Roy H.]

We know your opinion about the trade.

It's making this forum annoying to read for a mod to be an Isaiah stan who spams every other thread with negativity about the trade.

Please stay on topic. If you don't like my opinion, try another forum.

[Ogaju]

If IT was 100% healthy, Danny should have built around him regardless of Kyrie's availability.

Yep. This Right Here.

Y'all are choosing loyalty over banners -- even in the hypothetical, which makes it a little worse. Don't forget it.

Healthy IT > Kyrie

Healthy IT + Crowder + Zizic + BRK #1 >>> Kyrie

Don't forget it.

We know your option about the trade. It's not the topic raised in this thread. It's debating whether the GM of the Cs would have kept and paid IT if he was healthy. I don't think so.

Sure it's the topic of this thread.

If IT was healthy, Danny wouldn't have traded a better player plus a starter, a prospect and a coveted pick for a celebrity point guard.

Oh boy. If a frog had wings. And you skipped the payment part.

It's a hypothetical that presumes IT was healthy.

And why wouldn't Danny pay a healthy IT? In two years he'll pay a (hopefully) healthy Kyrie even more, and he's an inferior player.

Because Brad is an advanced statistics guy and the most interesting statistic to come out of this whole IT trade is the stat that shows that only two players in the history of the NBA at IT's height have had multiple seasons averaging over 21 points a game. IT is one of them, and they have done it for only 2 seasons. That statistic I believe is probably the single biggest reason Ainge was never going to unload the Brinks Truck for IT.

[Boris Badenov]

If IT was 100% healthy, Danny should have built around him regardless of Kyrie's availability.

Yep. This Right Here.

Y'all are choosing loyalty over banners -- even in the hypothetical, which makes it a little worse. Don't forget it.

Healthy IT > Kyrie

Healthy IT + Crowder + Zizic + BRK #1 >>> Kyrie

Don't forget it.

Do you realize how arrogant this sounds?

We all have our opinions. I for one am in wait and see mode.

But man is it exhausting to see someone lecture the rest of us over and over like we're all a bunch of five year olds who can't see the obvious.

[Roy H.]

If IT was 100% healthy, Danny should have built around him regardless of Kyrie's availability.

Yep. This Right Here.

Y'all are choosing loyalty over banners -- even in the hypothetical, which makes it a little worse. Don't forget it.

Healthy IT > Kyrie

Healthy IT + Crowder + Zizic + BRK #1 >>> Kyrie

Don't forget it.

Do you realize how arrogant this sounds?

We all have our opinions. I for one am in wait and see mode.

But man is it exhausting to see someone lecture the rest of us over and over like we're all a bunch of five year olds who can't see the obvious.

I don't care how arrogant it sounds. Now please, debate the topic, rather than criticizing other members.

[ssspence]

If IT was 100% healthy, Danny should have built around him regardless of Kyrie's availability.

Yep. This Right Here.

Y'all are choosing loyalty over banners -- even in the hypothetical, which makes it a little worse. Don't forget it.

Healthy IT > Kyrie

Healthy IT + Crowder + Zizic + BRK #1 >>> Kyrie

Don't forget it.

We know your option about the trade. It's not the topic raised in this thread. It's debating whether the GM of the Cs would have kept and paid IT if he was healthy. I don't think so.

Sure it's the topic of this thread.

If IT was healthy, Danny wouldn't have traded a better player plus a starter, a prospect and a coveted pick for a celebrity point guard.

Oh boy. If a frog had wings. And you skipped the payment part.

It's a hypothetical that presumes IT was healthy.

And why wouldn't Danny pay a healthy IT? In two years he'll pay a (hopefully) healthy Kyrie even more, and he's an inferior player.

The question of whether IT was a max player long preceded his injury. His style, and the impact on his durability. His height. His ability to manage the micro-planning that goes at that height in a 7 game series. These are not questions of heart. Practically, our chances of winning a title with IT on a max deal were low, even IF healthy. And he's far from it.

And yet no one would ever question Kyrie's status as a max money guy, even despite his injury history.

You can call Kyrie an inferior player, as you have a ridiculous amount of times over the past month. And yet the Celtics org feels differently. They gave up far more valuable pieces to get Kyrie over IT.

In point of fact, Isaiah might actually be the lowest value piece they gave up in the trade, when you factor if he ever really plays a meaningful role on the Cavs in potentially short time there. 

I'm going to miss Isaiah -- truly, as a person who has invested countless hours over 30 ywats of fandom, and found a guy who was pure pleasure to watch amongst a bunch of 3 point chuckers.

But I'm going to keep an open mind to Ainge's decision to add Irving. Because I care about winning first. And I trust his POV more than yours.

[Roy H.]

If IT was 100% healthy, Danny should have built around him regardless of Kyrie's availability.

Yep. This Right Here.

Y'all are choosing loyalty over banners -- even in the hypothetical, which makes it a little worse. Don't forget it.

Healthy IT > Kyrie

Healthy IT + Crowder + Zizic + BRK #1 >>> Kyrie

Don't forget it.

We know your option about the trade. It's not the topic raised in this thread. It's debating whether the GM of the Cs would have kept and paid IT if he was healthy. I don't think so.

Sure it's the topic of this thread.

If IT was healthy, Danny wouldn't have traded a better player plus a starter, a prospect and a coveted pick for a celebrity point guard.

Oh boy. If a frog had wings. And you skipped the payment part.

It's a hypothetical that presumes IT was healthy.

And why wouldn't Danny pay a healthy IT? In two years he'll pay a (hopefully) healthy Kyrie even more, and he's an inferior player.

Because Brad is an advanced statistics guy and the most interesting statistic to come out of this whole IT trade is the stat that shows that only two players in the history of the NBA at IT's height have had multiple seasons averaging over 21 points a game. IT is one of them, and they have done it for only 2 seasons. That statistic I believe is probably the single biggest reason Ainge was never going to unload the Brinks Truck for IT.

It could be, but IT has always been an exception, right? Very few players picked 60th or later are successful. Very few 5'9" guys make the NBA, period, let alone make All-NBA.

His entire career has been an outlier.

[Rakulp]

AND ANOTHER TWIST: Kyrie was NEVER made available in trade talks? Would Ainge keep IT4 long term then?

Lets say Isaiah played the entire ECF and C's lost in 5, but IT was healthy all throughout and was still 100% healthy now.

Seems to me like the hip issues and the likely long term effects of it (possibly even "career threatening", yikes) really pushed Ainge to make this deal, to the point where he even overpaid a bit to ensure he would get back Kyrie Irving.

Ainge acknowledged this was NEVER an easy move and also acknowledged that the hip injury PLAYED A PART in making this deal.

Yeah, Kyrie may be a better playoff performer, but IT had the superior overall season last year, lets be honest. IT is also a more proven alpha than Kyrie.

What do you guys think?

(Yeah yeah, maybe it's "beating a dead horse", but it's an interesting thing to ponder while we wait for C's basketball to return. Ainge couldn't have imagined that Kyrie would become available, but in that case, what would have been the long term plan? Play Isaiah 2nd half this year, then what? Re-sign?).

I'm a "scenario man"...ask my wife   So let's look at the different scenarios available.

If Kyrie did not become available, it seems apparent that Danny was willing to start the year off with a wait and see attitude regarding IT's hip.  Signing Larkin presumably as insurance would seem to indicate that direction.

So say Irving was fat, dumb, and happy in Cleveland, and the year started with IT either sidelined for a while, or playing, but at a drastically reduced capability than we saw last year...then I believe Danny would have explored all options rather than keep IT.  Some kind of midseason trade, dangling the Brooklyn pick to see what trades were possible.

However, if IT proved everybody wrong, was the same IT from last year, and combined with all the new blood meant the Celtics were looking better than ever, then I believe Danny would probably have driven the Brinks truck to IT's door himself.

It's all speculation.  Fun, but still speculation.

Rak

[Greyman]

If IT wasn't the plan then DA took an even bigger gamble not taking Fultz. IT only stopped being the plan when someone a little more special came along. That is not to say that DA didn't have it in his mind to replace IT at some point but I believe, until Kyrie came along, Danny was happy to build towards a more distant future with IT holding the fort.

[ssspence]

Healthy IT > Kyrie

How many posts have you stated this in over the last 3 weeks? It's pretty extreme.  And yet Thomas is not healthy.

Let's clarify this: assuming reasonable health for both, how many NBA teams wouldn't trade IT for Irving straight up on this date / time, IYO? Please explain if the answer is more than 1-3 teams (read: it isn't). 

[Ilikesports17]

If IT was 100% healthy, Danny should have built around him regardless of Kyrie's availability.

Yep. This Right Here.

Y'all are choosing loyalty over banners -- even in the hypothetical, which makes it a little worse. Don't forget it.

Healthy IT > Kyrie

Healthy IT + Crowder + Zizic + BRK #1 >>> Kyrie

Don't forget it.

We know your option about the trade. It's not the topic raised in this thread. It's debating whether the GM of the Cs would have kept and paid IT if he was healthy. I don't think so.

Sure it's the topic of this thread.

If IT was healthy, Danny wouldn't have traded a better player plus a starter, a prospect and a coveted pick for a celebrity point guard.

Oh boy. If a frog had wings. And you skipped the payment part.

It's a hypothetical that presumes IT was healthy.

And why wouldn't Danny pay a healthy IT? In two years he'll pay a (hopefully) healthy Kyrie even more, and he's an inferior player.

Because Brad is an advanced statistics guy and the most interesting statistic to come out of this whole IT trade is the stat that shows that only two players in the history of the NBA at IT's height have had multiple seasons averaging over 21 points a game. IT is one of them, and they have done it for only 2 seasons. That statistic I believe is probably the single biggest reason Ainge was never going to unload the Brinks Truck for IT.

It could be, but IT has always been an exception, right? Very few players picked 60th or later are successful. Very few 5'9" guys make the NBA, period, let alone make All-NBA.

His entire career has been an outlier.

Ive always had a problem with comparing ITs career arc to other short guys. That said, perhaps the lack of data was a spot of concern.

You cant positively conclude that IT will decline faster than other players, but you also cant necessarily feel confident that he would decline at the same rate either. His situation was unprecedented and with that comes a lot of uncertainty.