Author Topic: Revised feelings on the trade since watching pre-season?  (Read 3374 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: Revised feelings on the trade since watching pre-season?
« Reply #60 on: October 12, 2017, 01:15:03 PM »

Offline footey

  • Paul Silas
  • ******
  • Posts: 6713
  • Tommy Points: 782
I will hate this trade unless and until the Celtics win a championship with Kyrie.  Thatís what this trade was about ó winning titles soon.  If we donít, 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 ó 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.

Itís about titles in Boston.  Coming in second wonít 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 thatís 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, thatís 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 ó to win a championship, and soon.  And thatís how Iím 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 Iíve coveted for over a year, and Iíll think the trade was a good one if we win a title with Kyrie.  If that happens in three years, Iíll like the trade then.  Or in five years.  Hopefully itís this year, but regardless, the Celtics just need to win.  Thatís what this trade was about ó Ainge thinks Kyrie is a championship-level star player, and that IT wasnít.  I hope Kyrie proves him right ó but unless and until he does, I wonít 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.

Re: Revised feelings on the trade since watching pre-season?
« Reply #61 on: October 12, 2017, 01:37:59 PM »

Offline SHAQATTACK

  • NCE
  • Tommy Heinsohn
  • *************************
  • Posts: 25524
  • Tommy Points: 1945
TP. for Footey post . 

Re: Revised feelings on the trade since watching pre-season?
« Reply #62 on: October 12, 2017, 03:54:08 PM »

Offline Eddie20

  • Tiny Archibald
  • *******
  • Posts: 7479
  • Tommy Points: 794
I will hate this trade unless and until the Celtics win a championship with Kyrie.  Thatís what this trade was about ó winning titles soon.  If we donít, 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 ó 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.

Itís about titles in Boston.  Coming in second wonít 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 thatís 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, thatís 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 ó to win a championship, and soon.  And thatís how Iím 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 Iíve coveted for over a year, and Iíll think the trade was a good one if we win a title with Kyrie.  If that happens in three years, Iíll like the trade then.  Or in five years.  Hopefully itís this year, but regardless, the Celtics just need to win.  Thatís what this trade was about ó Ainge thinks Kyrie is a championship-level star player, and that IT wasnít.  I hope Kyrie proves him right ó but unless and until he does, I wonít 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.

Re: Revised feelings on the trade since watching pre-season?
« Reply #63 on: October 12, 2017, 04:29:24 PM »

Offline mmmmm

  • Ray Allen
  • ***
  • Posts: 3085
  • Tommy Points: 461
I will hate this trade unless and until the Celtics win a championship with Kyrie.  Thatís what this trade was about ó winning titles soon.  If we donít, 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:

Quote
Itís about titles in Boston.  Coming in second wonít 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 thatís the scale it gets graded on.

and this:

Quote
IT can have five more All-NBA seasons, and the Brooklyn pick can be number 1 overall, providing the Cavs with Luka Doncic, whom Iíve coveted for over a year, and Iíll think the trade was a good one if we win a title with Kyrie.  If that happens in three years, Iíll 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.

NBA Officiating - Corrupt?  Incompetent?  Which is worse?  Does it matter?  It sucks.
#OneCitizenOneVote - True Election Reform:  Eliminate the anti-democratic Electoral College farce now.

Re: Revised feelings on the trade since watching pre-season?
« Reply #64 on: October 12, 2017, 04:51:06 PM »

Offline incoherent

  • Don Chaney
  • *
  • Posts: 1811
  • Tommy Points: 267
  • 7 + 11 = 18
I will hate this trade unless and until the Celtics win a championship with Kyrie.  Thatís what this trade was about ó winning titles soon.  If we donít, 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:

Quote
Itís about titles in Boston.  Coming in second wonít 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 thatís the scale it gets graded on.

and this:

Quote
IT can have five more All-NBA seasons, and the Brooklyn pick can be number 1 overall, providing the Cavs with Luka Doncic, whom Iíve coveted for over a year, and Iíll think the trade was a good one if we win a title with Kyrie.  If that happens in three years, Iíll 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.


Re: Revised feelings on the trade since watching pre-season?
« Reply #65 on: October 12, 2017, 05:11:41 PM »

Offline mmmmm

  • Ray Allen
  • ***
  • Posts: 3085
  • Tommy Points: 461
I will hate this trade unless and until the Celtics win a championship with Kyrie.  Thatís what this trade was about ó winning titles soon.  If we donít, 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:

Quote
Itís about titles in Boston.  Coming in second wonít 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 thatís the scale it gets graded on.

and this:

Quote
IT can have five more All-NBA seasons, and the Brooklyn pick can be number 1 overall, providing the Cavs with Luka Doncic, whom Iíve coveted for over a year, and Iíll think the trade was a good one if we win a title with Kyrie.  If that happens in three years, Iíll 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.
NBA Officiating - Corrupt?  Incompetent?  Which is worse?  Does it matter?  It sucks.
#OneCitizenOneVote - True Election Reform:  Eliminate the anti-democratic Electoral College farce now.

Re: Revised feelings on the trade since watching pre-season?
« Reply #66 on: October 12, 2017, 05:39:26 PM »

Offline Eddie20

  • Tiny Archibald
  • *******
  • Posts: 7479
  • Tommy Points: 794
I will hate this trade unless and until the Celtics win a championship with Kyrie.  Thatís what this trade was about ó winning titles soon.  If we donít, 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:

Quote
Itís about titles in Boston.  Coming in second wonít 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 thatís the scale it gets graded on.

and this:

Quote
IT can have five more All-NBA seasons, and the Brooklyn pick can be number 1 overall, providing the Cavs with Luka Doncic, whom Iíve coveted for over a year, and Iíll think the trade was a good one if we win a title with Kyrie.  If that happens in three years, Iíll 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

Re: Revised feelings on the trade since watching pre-season?
« Reply #67 on: October 12, 2017, 05:44:58 PM »

Offline seancally

  • Aron Baynes
  • Posts: 136
  • Tommy Points: 15
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?
"The game honors toughness." - President Stevens

Re: Revised feelings on the trade since watching pre-season?
« Reply #68 on: October 12, 2017, 06:01:33 PM »

Offline Jarrin John

  • Terry Rozier
  • Posts: 71
  • Tommy Points: 41
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.
« Last Edit: October 13, 2017, 01:07:08 PM by Jarrin John »

Re: Revised feelings on the trade since watching pre-season?
« Reply #69 on: October 12, 2017, 06:12:23 PM »

Offline snively

  • Rajon Rondo
  • *****
  • Posts: 5855
  • Tommy Points: 448
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.
2016 CelticsBlog Draft: Chicago Bulls

Head Coach: Fred Hoiberg

Starters: Rubio, Danny Green, Durant, Markieff Morris, Capela
Bench: Sessions, Shumpert, G. Green, T. Booker, Frye
Deep Bench: CJ Watson, H. Thompson, P. Zipser, Papagiannis, Mejri

Re: Revised feelings on the trade since watching pre-season?
« Reply #70 on: October 12, 2017, 07:41:21 PM »

Online nickagneta

  • Global Moderator
  • Bill Russell
  • ******************************
  • Posts: 30993
  • Tommy Points: 5166
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.