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

[gouki88]

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 you're answer if the answer is more than 1-3 teams.

Jeez that's a big call. All offseason I had been defending IT and saying that his level of play in 16-17 was equal to Kyrie. But to say that IT, when health, is superior to Kyrie is pretty crazy.

IT is not healthy, so saying "oh but when he's healthy" is useless, because he might never be the same in terms of health that he was with us. Everyone gets that you don't like the trade (hard to avoid you saying something about it), but that's a bit of a silly thing to say.

[crimson_stallion]

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.

While I respect your level of knowledge and your presence on this board (your posts are generally always fair polite and well justified, and I respect that), in this specific case I cannot help but feel that your thoughts on IT vs Kyrie are borderline hysterical.

Not hysterical that you feel IT is a better player - I can fully understand why you might make that argument.  But hysterical that you seem so utterly convinced of IT's superiority, as if it's blatantly obvious and not even close.

Apologies if this sounds disrespectful, as that's not my intention, but I just cannot fathom how you can possibly be so strongly convinced that Isaiah Thomas (who has basically the exact same game as Kyrie, but is 5 inches shorter and 3 years older) is so clearly superior to Kyrie Irving as a player.

You basically have a guy who:
* Is 5'10"
* Is 28 years old
* Was taken 60th in the draft, because everybody knew how huge a liability his height is on D
* Took until his 5th year in the league (at 26 YO) to convince a team he was worthy to start
* Has a career average assist rate of 29.7% / turnover rate of 12.5%
* Has shot > 45% from the field twice in his career
* Has shot > 38% form three once in his career
* Has averaged > 20 PPG three times
* Has shot > 85% from the foul line four times
* Is an excellent ball handler
* Has played in 3 playoffs
* Has played in 0 NBA finals
* Has 0 NBA championships

Versus a guy who is 6'3":
* Is 6'3"
* Is 25 years old
* Was taken 1st overall in the draft, because everybody saw his star potential
* Has started every single game he has played since the day he entered the league
* Has a career assist rate of 30.0% / turnover rate of 12.3%
* Has shot > 45% from the field four times
* Has shot > 38% from three four times
* Has shot > 85% every year in the league
* Has averaged > 20 PPG four times
* Is widely regarded to be the best ball handler in the NBA, possibly the best in NBA history
* Has played in 3 playoffs
* Has played in 2 NBA finals
* Has 1 NBA Championship

Now looking at all the above data, and looking at the overall body of work for both players, I don't see how anybody could come to the conclusion that Thomas is clearly the better player of the two.   Almost every single statistic / fact I can find seems to either be on par, or else leans in Kyrie's favour. 

And this is not even taking in to account the fact that IT is 3 years older and that his game is more heavily dependant on athleticism / quickness (hence suggesting that his longevity and upside are significantly lower). 

About the only argument I can find in ITs favour is that he had a higher scoring average this year (at 29 PPG vs 25 PPG).  But even that is easily countered/justified by the fact that Boston's offense went entirely through IT as Boston's lone All-Star and clear #1 option, while Kyrie always played behind Lebron (who was Cleveland's primary scorer, ball handler and playmaker) and shared the offense with two All-Stars (Lebron and Kevin Love).

Now the whole argument that Clevleand won the trade - that's fair.  You could argue that IT is close enough to Kyrie as a player, that anything extra Cleveland got (Brk pick, Crowder) is gravy.  But to actually argue IT is a better player (and especially to make the argument with such unwavering conviction) is difficult for me to grasp.

[Rosco917]

I feel Danny is a realistically driven GM, with a good idea of what it takes to win a ring.

IMO Danny would have tried to sign a "healthy hipped" IT to a contract that well represented his warts as a player. I don't feel it would have warranted a Max deal. He isn't Harden, Westbrook, P. George or even Kyrie.

Danny would have taken into consideration the strategic effect of having a 5-9" defender at the opposite end of the court, and how IT must be surrounded by much better than average defenders that give him the opportunity to score the way he did.

IMO what this means is we would always need players that "bought in" to continually helping IT on the defensive end, to watch him do his thing on the offensive end. As the Celtics improved and got better scorers, and more two way players, the scoring opportunities for IT would dwindle, and his defensive flaws would become opportunities to be taken advantage of by strong, smart playoff teams.   

[Eddie20]

Irving is easily the superior player. In this system Irving will have a HUGE season. As of now, Vegas has him 8th in MVP odds behind Durant, James, Leonard, Westbrook, Harden, Giannis, and Curry. Some posters are clearly attached to players. Can't wait to see their tune change once Irving goes off under Stevens.

The talent disparity between Irving and Thomas isn't even debatable.

[Roy H.]

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 you're answer if the answer is more than 1-3 teams.

Jeez that's a big call. All offseason I had been defending IT and saying that his level of play in 16-17 was equal to Kyrie. But to say that IT, when health, is superior to Kyrie is pretty crazy.

IT is not healthy, so saying "oh but when he's healthy" is useless, because he might never be the same in terms of health that he was with us. Everyone gets that you don't like the trade (hard to avoid you saying something about it), but that's a bit of a silly thing to say.

This hypothetical presumes a healthy IT.

As for "silly" and "hysterical"...

IT advantages: PPG, APG, 3PT, FTM, eFG%, TS%, ORtg, PER, WS, DWS, OWS, BPM, VORP, clutch shooting and scoring, All-NBA votes, MVP votes, most defensive statistics

Kyrie advantages: FGA, MPG, RPG, SPG, 3PT%, trade demands

Between the two, IT was clearly better last year. That's why when NBA voters looked at the two, IT was All-NBA and 5th in MVP voting.

[Roy H.]

Irving is easily the superior player. In this system Irving will have a HUGE season. As of now, Vegas has him 8th in MVP odds behind Durant, James, Leonard, Westbrook, Harden, Giannis, and Curry. Some posters are clearly attached to players. Can't wait to see their tune change once Irving goes off under Stevens.

The talent disparity between Irving and Thomas isn't even debatable.

Nor is the production disparity.

[jambr380]

Irving is easily the superior player. In this system Irving will have a HUGE season. As of now, Vegas has him 8th in MVP odds behind Durant, James, Leonard, Westbrook, Harden, Giannis, and Curry. Some posters are clearly attached to players. Can't wait to see their tune change once Irving goes off under Stevens.

The talent disparity between Irving and Thomas isn't even debatable.

Sorry, but 8th isn't 5th 

I have maintained all along that Danny never planned to keep IT after the season unless he came at a huge hometown discount. Based on his Brinks Truck comments, that wasn't going to be the case. And, when an inferior team like BKN came knocking with a long-term max, he was going to advantage of that opportunity.

IT was so much fun to watch, but I am glad he got to leave on a good note with DA as the 'bad' guy.

[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.

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.

As business man you manage risks. It was less risky to do this deal than to bet on IT continuing to defy the odds.

[tarheelsxxiii]

Irving is easily the superior player. In this system Irving will have a HUGE season. As of now, Vegas has him 8th in MVP odds behind Durant, James, Leonard, Westbrook, Harden, Giannis, and Curry. Some posters are clearly attached to players. Can't wait to see their tune change once Irving goes off under Stevens.

The talent disparity between Irving and Thomas isn't even debatable.

I think it's a little unusual for some to not be more or less attached to some players or any particular iteration of the team.  There's nothing about my tune to change -- Kyrie is a great one-way basketball player, the trade was better for the future of the team, he's an unlikable guy (for a host of reasons) that has come to Boston on the heels of the most likable little warrior I've ever seen.  That's my position, among the weirdos that experience emotion and/or value character.

[GreenEnvy]

Irving is easily the superior player. In this system Irving will have a HUGE season. As of now, Vegas has him 8th in MVP odds behind Durant, James, Leonard, Westbrook, Harden, Giannis, and Curry. Some posters are clearly attached to players. Can't wait to see their tune change once Irving goes off under Stevens.

The talent disparity between Irving and Thomas isn't even debatable.

So you'll take a guy who is 8th in Vegas odds for MVP over a guy that was voted 5th?


The truth is there is no discernible statistical advantage Kyrie has over IT. Yes, I get it, he's taller. AND he's younger. AND he's leaving LeBron to play under Brad. Kudos for pointing that out, captains of the obvious. BUT, there is no proof that Kyrie does more on the court than Thomas. He's capable, but he really hasn't shown any reason to believe he is the leader we need.

We know what we had in IT. If we get what we know Kyrie to be, we lost this trade. Yes Kyrie can get better, but Isaiah has been getting better each season here as well.

I don't understand why proponents of the trade are so denigrating to IT supporters when a) he's a guy any true Celtic fan should have an emotional attachment to and b) he's had the best season of the two.

It's the off-season, let people vent. People were allowed to criticize the Nets trade in 2013 if they wanted to. There was no way to predict the magnitude of how beneficial that trade became, not at the time. I sincerely hope this trade proves the same, but everyone should understand the doubt some of us have that it will.

[KGs Knee]

If Thomas was healthy I'm not sure if Ainge would have traded him, but he definitely would not have traded that Brooklyn pick.

Kyrie is clearly the better player, but it's a slim margin when Thomas is healthy. But as we all now know, Thomas may never be fully healthy again.

[crimson_stallion]

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 you're answer if the answer is more than 1-3 teams.

Jeez that's a big call. All offseason I had been defending IT and saying that his level of play in 16-17 was equal to Kyrie. But to say that IT, when health, is superior to Kyrie is pretty crazy.

IT is not healthy, so saying "oh but when he's healthy" is useless, because he might never be the same in terms of health that he was with us. Everyone gets that you don't like the trade (hard to avoid you saying something about it), but that's a bit of a silly thing to say.

This hypothetical presumes a healthy IT.

As for "silly" and "hysterical"...

IT advantages: PPG, APG, 3PT, FTM, eFG%, TS%, ORtg, PER, WS, DWS, OWS, BPM, VORP, All-NBA votes, MVP votes, most defensive statistics

Kyrie advantages: FGA, MPG, RPG, SPG, 3PT%, trade demands

Between the two, IT was clearly better last year. That's why when NBA voters looked at the two, IT was All-NBA and 5th in MVP voting.

For somebody who usually makes pretty well thought out arguments, I struggle to identify how you manage to:

1.  Completely ignore the Isaiah Thomas was the primary scorer, primary playmaker, primary ball handler and lone All-Star in Boston...while Kyrie was the secondary scorer, secondary playmaker, secondary ball handler, and one of three All-Stars in Cleveland.  I'm not sure how you can possibly be obviously to (and completely ignore) this fact, and how it impacts individual statistics for a player. 

Every single star player who has ever joined up with Lebron James (Dwyane Wade, Chris Bosh, Kevin Love) has seen their scoring and assist numbers drop significantly as a result.  In addition to that, multiple players (Chris Bosh and Kevin Love, at the very least) have publically made statements about how much they had to sacrifice their own games in order to cater to Lebron. 

It's blatantly obvious that sharing the court with Lebron is going to lead to a major drop off in statistical production for any NBA player, and it's just as blatantly obvious that you cannot directly compare Kyrie's box score output to Isaiah's without factoring this in. PPG and APG, for example, are clearly going to be handicapped by the fact that Kyrie wasn't the primary scorer or playmaker in Cleveland (while IT was in Boston).


2.  Base all of your comparisons on a single season, rather then looking at the entire body of work over these two player's careers.  If you look at their career stats so far (6 seasons in both cases) it goes like this:

* PPG: Kyrie
* APG: Kyrie
* RPG: Kyrie
* SPG: Kyrie
* BLK: Kyrie
* FG%: Kyrie
* 3PT%: Kyrie
* FT%: Tie
* TOV: IT
* PF: Tie
* PER: Tie
* TS% IT
* FTR: IT
* REB%: Kyrie
* AST%: Tie
* TOV%: Tie
* WS/48: IT
* OBPM: IT
* DBPM: Kyrie
* BPM: Kyrie
* VORP: Kyrie

That's a total of 21 categories with the results as follows:
* IT Wins: 5
* Kyrie Wins: 11
* Ties: 5

But you choose to ignore this and instead focus on a single season - I assume you do this because it, conveniently, supports your emotional bias.

Clearly over the duration of their careers Kyrie has had been a better player - this is despite the fact that Kyrie (having just turned 25) hasn't even reached his prime yet, while IT (at 28) is smack-bang in the middle of his prime.

I also love how you list "trade demands" as a disadvantage.  Do you not recall how unsettled IT was when he was playing third fiddle PG in Phoenix?  From memory he got pretty close to requesting a trade himself (he may have even done so, I can't recall).  He also expressed his discontent on multiple occasion when he first came to Boston and Brad had him playing in the 6th man role behind Marcus Smart.  I love IT, but you can't exactly paint the picture of him being that ultimate guy who just happily accepts any situation he's thrown into.  Every player with strive to be put in a situation where they can excel and be the best they can be, and every player will push for that if they have the opportunity to.

[trickybilly]

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.

The second one - arguable.

The first, VERY arguable.

Kyrie's problem with defense is in a large part attitude, Steven-able maybe. IT's problems were never going away. That guy gave 150% on the defensive end 100% of the time.

[crimson_stallion]

Irving is easily the superior player. In this system Irving will have a HUGE season. As of now, Vegas has him 8th in MVP odds behind Durant, James, Leonard, Westbrook, Harden, Giannis, and Curry. Some posters are clearly attached to players. Can't wait to see their tune change once Irving goes off under Stevens.

The talent disparity between Irving and Thomas isn't even debatable.

I think it's a little unusual for some to not be more or less attached to some players or any particular iteration of the team.  There's nothing about my tune to change -- Kyrie is a great one-way basketball player, the trade was better for the future of the team, he's an unlikable guy (for a host of reasons) that has come to Boston on the heels of the most likable little warrior I've ever seen.  That's my position, among the weirdos that experience emotion and/or value character.

I agree with this 100% - all of it. 

That said, there is a different between:

1. Liking a player, being emotionally attached to said player, but still remaining objective towards the ultimate situation

2. Liking a player, being emotionally attached to said player, and allowing that emotional bias to fool you into believing the situation is something it isn't

It's ok to admit that Kyrie is a slightly better player then Thomas, but still hate the trade because of your personal feelings towards those two guys. 

As a Celtics fan, I love IT.  I love him as a player, and as a person.  I love the fact that he's been an underdog his entire career, and somehow defied all odds to become a legitimate game changer and MVP candidate in this league.  I love that he sacrificed so much, and fought through the most unthinkable emotional struggles for this team, it's city, and it's fans.  I love that he's a 5'10" one-dimensional, score first PG who somehow demands nothing but the greatest of respect from every player and coach in this league. My heart sank when I heard news of the trade, initially.

But despite all this:

*I can still put my emotions aside and acknowledge that Kyrie is the better player for winning us games right now. 

* I can still acknowledge that Kyrie (due to his age and lesser dependence on athleticism) is the better piece to build around for the long term. 

* I can still acknowledge that Kyrie has the higher ceiling, and is the more likely of the two to one day develop into a something resembling a respectable defensive (and hence two-way) player. 

* I can still acknowledge that the trade Ainge made was the best move for this team, as it makes us better come opening night (when Thomas will likely be out) as well as in the future.

I don't have to prefer Kyrie as a person in order to acknowledge all of the above.

I hate Lebron James as a person. His personality disgusts me. The mere sight of his face makes me want to cringe.  But I can still admit that he's a better player then Gordon Hayward, and if Danny Ainge traded Hayward for Lebron I couldn't blame him.  I wouldn't like it, but I couldn't blame him, nor could I deny that the move makes Boston better.

[wayupnorth]

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.

While I respect your level of knowledge and your presence on this board (your posts are generally always fair polite and well justified, and I respect that), in this specific case I cannot help but feel that your thoughts on IT vs Kyrie are borderline hysterical.

Not hysterical that you feel IT is a better player - I can fully understand why you might make that argument.  But hysterical that you seem so utterly convinced of IT's superiority, as if it's blatantly obvious and not even close.

Apologies if this sounds disrespectful, as that's not my intention, but I just cannot fathom how you can possibly be so strongly convinced that Isaiah Thomas (who has basically the exact same game as Kyrie, but is 5 inches shorter and 3 years older) is so clearly superior to Kyrie Irving as a player.

You basically have a guy who:
* Is 5'10"
* Is 28 years old
* Was taken 60th in the draft, because everybody knew how huge a liability his height is on D
* Took until his 5th year in the league (at 26 YO) to convince a team he was worthy to start
* Has a career average assist rate of 29.7% / turnover rate of 12.5%
* Has shot > 45% from the field twice in his career
* Has shot > 38% form three once in his career
* Has averaged > 20 PPG three times
* Has shot > 85% from the foul line four times
* Is an excellent ball handler
* Has played in 3 playoffs
* Has played in 0 NBA finals
* Has 0 NBA championships

Versus a guy who is 6'3":
* Is 6'3"
* Is 25 years old
* Was taken 1st overall in the draft, because everybody saw his star potential
* Has started every single game he has played since the day he entered the league
* Has a career assist rate of 30.0% / turnover rate of 12.3%
* Has shot > 45% from the field four times
* Has shot > 38% from three four times
* Has shot > 85% every year in the league
* Has averaged > 20 PPG four times
* Is widely regarded to be the best ball handler in the NBA, possibly the best in NBA history
* Has played in 3 playoffs
* Has played in 2 NBA finals
* Has 1 NBA Championship

Now looking at all the above data, and looking at the overall body of work for both players, I don't see how anybody could come to the conclusion that Thomas is clearly the better player of the two.   Almost every single statistic / fact I can find seems to either be on par, or else leans in Kyrie's favour. 

And this is not even taking in to account the fact that IT is 3 years older and that his game is more heavily dependant on athleticism / quickness (hence suggesting that his longevity and upside are significantly lower). 

About the only argument I can find in ITs favour is that he had a higher scoring average this year (at 29 PPG vs 25 PPG).  But even that is easily countered/justified by the fact that Boston's offense went entirely through IT as Boston's lone All-Star and clear #1 option, while Kyrie always played behind Lebron (who was Cleveland's primary scorer, ball handler and playmaker) and shared the offense with two All-Stars (Lebron and Kevin Love).

Now the whole argument that Clevleand won the trade - that's fair.  You could argue that IT is close enough to Kyrie as a player, that anything extra Cleveland got (Brk pick, Crowder) is gravy.  But to actually argue IT is a better player (and especially to make the argument with such unwavering conviction) is difficult for me to grasp.

Tommy Point!!