Poll

Ultimately would you trade 2018 8th pick for 2 seasons of Irving?

Yes
44 (74.6%)
No
10 (16.9%)
Only if Irving signs an extension
5 (8.5%)

Total Members Voted: 59

Author Topic: Ultimately would you trade 2018 8th pick for 2 seasons of Irving? (poll)  (Read 6159 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Casperian

  • Ray Allen
  • ***
  • Posts: 3501
  • Tommy Points: 545
Man, some of the mental gymnastics in this thread to justify that mess of a trade...

We're binding ressources, from assets over cap space to chances for young players to grow (among many, many other things) for two years of non-contention, only to let the center piece of that trade walk away for nothing, hurting team continuity in the process. Kyrie Irving is not that much better than Isaiah Thomas.

Green goggles off, that trade had nothing but downside. But hey, at least Pags got his wish of building a team full of former Duke players, so there's that.
In the summer of 2017, I predicted this team would not win a championship for the next 10 years.

3 down, 7 to go.

Offline Beat LA

  • NCE
  • Don Nelson
  • ********
  • Posts: 8338
  • Tommy Points: 896
  • Mr. Emoji
At some point the Celtics need a culture change within the organization .... from mercenary and cold hearted and only $$$ matters to getting back to Celtics Tradition and pride, where guys maybe give a hometown discount to remain a Celtics.   In the "Trader Danny" Era this is impossible. They have the coach for it. Can the GM reign in his ego for being in the headlines with every trade rumor, and instead take a more behind the scenes approach more focused on continuity rather than block buster deals.

As to Kyrie, I have posted elsewhere his heart is with the Knicks and he will be there once his contract expires if not sooner.

Wow !!  I could not have said it any better. As much as Danny wants to prove himself superior in the front office to Red, he does need to cultivate some of Red's humanity and loyalty to his players. We have fortunately become a franchise with a very good culture again, but Danny needs to treat his players a little better to make the Celtics that special franchise once again.

Like the Olive Garden ;) ::) ;D.

Offline Vermont Green

  • Ed Macauley
  • ***********
  • Posts: 11225
  • Tommy Points: 860
This tread is really confusing.  There is clearly some point or agenda behind it but I don't get it.

The hypothetical in this is that you are trading for a player that you know will not resign with you after his contract is up.  That is not a real hypothetical but, OK.  Also part of the hypothetical is that you know in advance that he is going to be unavailable at the end of the first of his two seasons and that he is only available for one play off run of the two seasons that you have the player.  I just don't even know what to do with that one.  Maybe you could say that you know in advance that he is going to have to go to jail or something so he was not available for the playoffs.

To me, that is just too much twisting of reality in order to make up a scenario where you can say "see, it wasn't good to trade for him".

I will spin this another way.  Say that on July 1, Kyrie picks up his option so he is under contract for two years and we offer him to Cleveland for the #8 (I know the salaries don't work but this is a fantasy thread so I am playing along).  There is still the chance that he will have knee problems (perhaps high likelihood).  It is unlikely that he will resign with Cleveland after the two seasons.  This is not exactly the same but close.  Does anyone really think that Cleveland doesn't do this trade in a second?  Or that we would be worse off for it if we made this trade?

I guess some people value the #8 pick much more than I do.

Offline gouki88

  • NCE
  • Red Auerbach
  • *******************************
  • Posts: 31552
  • Tommy Points: 3141
  • 2019 & 2021 CS Historical Draft Champion
Man, some of the mental gymnastics in this thread to justify that mess of a trade...

We're binding ressources, from assets over cap space to chances for young players to grow (among many, many other things) for two years of non-contention, only to let the center piece of that trade walk away for nothing, hurting team continuity in the process. Kyrie Irving is not that much better than Isaiah Thomas.

Green goggles off, that trade had nothing but downside. But hey, at least Pags got his wish of building a team full of former Duke players, so there's that.
I think by now I’ve realised that your posts are just bait
'23 Historical Draft: Orlando Magic.

PG: Terry Porter (90-91) / Steve Francis (00-01)
SG: Joe Dumars (92-93) / Jeff Hornacek (91-92) / Jerry Stackhouse (00-01)
SF: Brandon Roy (08-09) / Walter Davis (78-79)
PF: Terry Cummings (84-85) / Paul Millsap (15-16)
C: Chris Webber (00-01) / Ralph Sampson (83-84) / Andrew Bogut (09-10)

Offline dreamgreen

  • NCE
  • Ray Allen
  • ***
  • Posts: 3558
  • Tommy Points: 182
Doesn't work like that. You really believe if Irving wont resign with us Danny wont turn it into something good, he's just going to let him walk without getting anything out of it? ::)

Offline Chris22

  • Rajon Rondo
  • *****
  • Posts: 5081
  • Tommy Points: 460
It was an awesome trade. It gives a real shot at a championship next year.

Offline celticsclay

  • Reggie Lewis
  • ***************
  • Posts: 15739
  • Tommy Points: 1386
Man, some of the mental gymnastics in this thread to justify that mess of a trade...

We're binding ressources, from assets over cap space to chances for young players to grow (among many, many other things) for two years of non-contention, only to let the center piece of that trade walk away for nothing, hurting team continuity in the process. Kyrie Irving is not that much better than Isaiah Thomas.

Green goggles off, that trade had nothing but downside. But hey, at least Pags got his wish of building a team full of former Duke players, so there's that.

If you are going to try and bait people with this kind of stuff at least keep it grounded in reality. The Celtics will enter the season as a top 4 favorite to win it all and quite possibly favorites to win the east. Nobody is going to call a team with a healthy Irving, Hayward, Tatum, Brown and Horford with Smart, Morris, Rozier a non-contender. Get serious. 

Offline celticsclay

  • Reggie Lewis
  • ***************
  • Posts: 15739
  • Tommy Points: 1386
This tread is really confusing.  There is clearly some point or agenda behind it but I don't get it.

The hypothetical in this is that you are trading for a player that you know will not resign with you after his contract is up.  That is not a real hypothetical but, OK.  Also part of the hypothetical is that you know in advance that he is going to be unavailable at the end of the first of his two seasons and that he is only available for one play off run of the two seasons that you have the player.  I just don't even know what to do with that one.  Maybe you could say that you know in advance that he is going to have to go to jail or something so he was not available for the playoffs.

To me, that is just too much twisting of reality in order to make up a scenario where you can say "see, it wasn't good to trade for him".

I will spin this another way.  Say that on July 1, Kyrie picks up his option so he is under contract for two years and we offer him to Cleveland for the #8 (I know the salaries don't work but this is a fantasy thread so I am playing along).  There is still the chance that he will have knee problems (perhaps high likelihood).  It is unlikely that he will resign with Cleveland after the two seasons.  This is not exactly the same but close.  Does anyone really think that Cleveland doesn't do this trade in a second?  Or that we would be worse off for it if we made this trade?

I guess some people value the #8 pick much more than I do.

You have it a hundred percent right. This is what is happening in this thread. I posted the same point a page ago.

Offline Big333223

  • NCE
  • Tiny Archibald
  • *******
  • Posts: 7489
  • Tommy Points: 741
This tread is really confusing.  There is clearly some point or agenda behind it but I don't get it.

The hypothetical in this is that you are trading for a player that you know will not resign with you after his contract is up.  That is not a real hypothetical but, OK.  Also part of the hypothetical is that you know in advance that he is going to be unavailable at the end of the first of his two seasons and that he is only available for one play off run of the two seasons that you have the player.  I just don't even know what to do with that one.  Maybe you could say that you know in advance that he is going to have to go to jail or something so he was not available for the playoffs.

To me, that is just too much twisting of reality in order to make up a scenario where you can say "see, it wasn't good to trade for him".

I will spin this another way.  Say that on July 1, Kyrie picks up his option so he is under contract for two years and we offer him to Cleveland for the #8 (I know the salaries don't work but this is a fantasy thread so I am playing along).  There is still the chance that he will have knee problems (perhaps high likelihood).  It is unlikely that he will resign with Cleveland after the two seasons.  This is not exactly the same but close.  Does anyone really think that Cleveland doesn't do this trade in a second?  Or that we would be worse off for it if we made this trade?

I guess some people value the #8 pick much more than I do.

You have it a hundred percent right. This is what is happening in this thread. I posted the same point a page ago.

I saw the point of the thread as being to gauge just how valuable people saw the 8th pick versus two years of an all star.

I don't think you can use this hypothetical as any kind of reasoning as being for or against the Kyrie trade.
1957, 1959, 1960, 1961, 1962, 1963, 1964, 1965, 1966, 1968, 1969, 1974, 1976, 1981, 1984, 1986, 2008