Starting to understand this trade more and more. Had to give up the Brooklyn pick because IT may just turn out to be salary filler because he might not play this year or ever again.
Yes, it's not a certainty, but based on the assets in the trade, the seasons both players had last year, and the information we've been receiving so far, I haven't understood why this wasn't viewed as a stronger possibility from the get-go. And yet, we've had people going to the mats on how, as of right now, IT is a superior player to Kyrie. Or that he'll certainly have a better next couple of years than Kyrie.
Those arguments don't make sense to me. Everyone knows how good IT was last year, and everyone knows Kyrie's limitations (and advantages). I think the argument about who would be better "when healthy" is one where reasonable people can disagree.
But the framework of the trade suggests that both parties view the two players as anything but equal as of today. There are age and contract issues, but those don't seem enough to cause Danny Ainge to add that incredibly valuable BKN pick. He's not stupid and he's been super-protective of his picks to this point.
Now, IT might come back this year and be a lot better than Irving. He might not. But I think a reasonable view of the trade would suggest that option #2 is, and always was, viewed as a significantly likely outcome by the people who know more about the situation than anyone else.