What If: The Celtics Draft SGA (And Don't Trade For Kyrie)

[Roy H.]

Ex-Celtic Brian Scalabrine revealed during the Celtics’ game against the Oklahoma City Thunder that, had the Celtics kept the Nets pick, they would have used it on Shai Gilgeous-Alexander. Scalabrine’s remarks were later shared by Chad Finn of The Boston Globe.

Scal has indicated on recent Celtics broadcasts that he had intel that they would have selected Shai Gilgeous-Alexander in ‘18 had they not traded the pick in the Kyrie deal. Pretty interesting alternative scenario there.

I'm not sure that this is true.  I think that guys connected to the team like to romanticize what could have been, and it always seems like these after-the-fact "what if" scenarios benefit the Celtics decision makers.  "We would have taken Durant"; "We would have taken SGA", etc.

But, thinking about the fact that we could have SGA now alongside Brown and Tatum -- and not have the memory of the Kyrie era -- is enough to ruin my day.  Haha.

[ETNCeltics]

A bunch of really good players were available with that draft pick: SGA, Sexton, both Bridges, Anfernee Simmons, Huerter, Porter. Even if not a fit, we might have gotten a really nice asset that Ainge would have traded.

[Moranis]

We had debates on this at the time, and I think the general thought was Ainge would have taken Bridges. 

[td450]

Ex-Celtic Brian Scalabrine revealed during the Celtics’ game against the Oklahoma City Thunder that, had the Celtics kept the Nets pick, they would have used it on Shai Gilgeous-Alexander. Scalabrine’s remarks were later shared by Chad Finn of The Boston Globe.

Scal has indicated on recent Celtics broadcasts that he had intel that they would have selected Shai Gilgeous-Alexander in ‘18 had they not traded the pick in the Kyrie deal. Pretty interesting alternative scenario there.

I'm not sure that this is true.  I think that guys connected to the team like to romanticize what could have been, and it always seems like these after-the-fact "what if" scenarios benefit the Celtics decision makers.  "We would have taken Durant"; "We would have taken SGA", etc.

But, thinking about the fact that we could have SGA now alongside Brown and Tatum -- and not have the memory of the Kyrie era -- is enough to ruin my day.  Haha.

That would have still left us with with the impossible Isaiah Thomas situation if that makes you feel any better. Just trading him hurt the C's reputation. Imagine if he stayed on the roster.

I always thought the best alternative universe was where we trade Kyrie after that first offseason.

[gouki88]

We had debates on this at the time, and I think the general thought was Ainge would have taken Bridges.

This is my memory of it. Miles Bridges would obviously have been a terrible result, but pairing Mikal and Smart would have been cool.

[gouki88]

Perhaps not quite the right thread, but this just popped up on my feeds from IT.

“I’ve never been a defensive liability. This is the most frustrating label I get. It’s because of me being 5’9. Nobody has ever taken advantage of me on an NBA court”

- Isaiah Thomas

I really wish he had a successful comeback, because these stories just make me sad.

[Moranis]

We had debates on this at the time, and I think the general thought was Ainge would have taken Bridges.

This is my memory of it. Miles Bridges would obviously have been a terrible result, but pairing Mikal and Smart would have been cool.

Mikal is who he would have taken, though who know what happens with Miles if he is in Boston and not Charlotte. 

I do also think there is a chance he would have taken Sexton.  Remember this was a full year after we made the trade so Thomas wouldn't have been on the team, and Sexton did fit the profile of guys Ainge liked (though we did have Rozier still at that time). 

Either way, Mikal, SGA, or Sexton would have been a much better result.

As I've consistently maintained, it wasn't the trade for Kyrie that was the problem, it was Ainge's inability to pull the trigger on the necessary follow-up trade.  Boston probably has a title if he would have just pulled the trigger on Leonard or Davis, even with the risk they just left in free agency.  And who knows what would have happened in free agency after that. 

Ainge just never fully committed to win now or build for the future.  That was the problem. 

[Celtics2021]

We had debates on this at the time, and I think the general thought was Ainge would have taken Bridges.

This is my memory of it. Miles Bridges would obviously have been a terrible result, but pairing Mikal and Smart would have been cool.

Mikal is who he would have taken, though who know what happens with Miles if he is in Boston and not Charlotte. 

I do also think there is a chance he would have taken Sexton.  Remember this was a full year after we made the trade so Thomas wouldn't have been on the team, and Sexton did fit the profile of guys Ainge liked (though we did have Rozier still at that time). 

Either way, Mikal, SGA, or Sexton would have been a much better result.

As I've consistently maintained, it wasn't the trade for Kyrie that was the problem, it was Ainge's inability to pull the trigger on the necessary follow-up trade.  Boston probably has a title if he would have just pulled the trigger on Leonard or Davis, even with the risk they just left in free agency.  And who knows what would have happened in free agency after that. 

Ainge just never fully committed to win now or build for the future.  That was the problem.

We traded the pick at the same time we traded IT, so in the alternate universe where we have the pick, we have IT's Bird rights.  I don't know what we would have done with him -- it's unclear how cooked the C's thought he was at the time.

[td450]

We had debates on this at the time, and I think the general thought was Ainge would have taken Bridges.

This is my memory of it. Miles Bridges would obviously have been a terrible result, but pairing Mikal and Smart would have been cool.

Mikal is who he would have taken, though who know what happens with Miles if he is in Boston and not Charlotte. 

I do also think there is a chance he would have taken Sexton.  Remember this was a full year after we made the trade so Thomas wouldn't have been on the team, and Sexton did fit the profile of guys Ainge liked (though we did have Rozier still at that time). 

Either way, Mikal, SGA, or Sexton would have been a much better result.

As I've consistently maintained, it wasn't the trade for Kyrie that was the problem, it was Ainge's inability to pull the trigger on the necessary follow-up trade.  Boston probably has a title if he would have just pulled the trigger on Leonard or Davis, even with the risk they just left in free agency.  And who knows what would have happened in free agency after that. 

Ainge just never fully committed to win now or build for the future.  That was the problem.

I get that history shows that both Leonard and Davis improbably managed hold up just long enough for one season and won titles, despite otherwise being mostly broken ex superstars for the last 5 years.

But to still argue doubling down on Kyrie would have worked after all that is happened, well... that is hard to understand.

[Moranis]

We had debates on this at the time, and I think the general thought was Ainge would have taken Bridges.

This is my memory of it. Miles Bridges would obviously have been a terrible result, but pairing Mikal and Smart would have been cool.

Mikal is who he would have taken, though who know what happens with Miles if he is in Boston and not Charlotte. 

I do also think there is a chance he would have taken Sexton.  Remember this was a full year after we made the trade so Thomas wouldn't have been on the team, and Sexton did fit the profile of guys Ainge liked (though we did have Rozier still at that time). 

Either way, Mikal, SGA, or Sexton would have been a much better result.

As I've consistently maintained, it wasn't the trade for Kyrie that was the problem, it was Ainge's inability to pull the trigger on the necessary follow-up trade.  Boston probably has a title if he would have just pulled the trigger on Leonard or Davis, even with the risk they just left in free agency.  And who knows what would have happened in free agency after that. 

Ainge just never fully committed to win now or build for the future.  That was the problem.

We traded the pick at the same time we traded IT, so in the alternate universe where we have the pick, we have IT's Bird rights.  I don't know what we would have done with him -- it's unclear how cooked the C's thought he was at the time.

Thomas was cooked.  He didn't play until January and was a shell of himself.  The C's may have had Bird rights, but they weren't going to keep him. 

[Moranis]

We had debates on this at the time, and I think the general thought was Ainge would have taken Bridges.

This is my memory of it. Miles Bridges would obviously have been a terrible result, but pairing Mikal and Smart would have been cool.

Mikal is who he would have taken, though who know what happens with Miles if he is in Boston and not Charlotte. 

I do also think there is a chance he would have taken Sexton.  Remember this was a full year after we made the trade so Thomas wouldn't have been on the team, and Sexton did fit the profile of guys Ainge liked (though we did have Rozier still at that time). 

Either way, Mikal, SGA, or Sexton would have been a much better result.

As I've consistently maintained, it wasn't the trade for Kyrie that was the problem, it was Ainge's inability to pull the trigger on the necessary follow-up trade.  Boston probably has a title if he would have just pulled the trigger on Leonard or Davis, even with the risk they just left in free agency.  And who knows what would have happened in free agency after that. 

Ainge just never fully committed to win now or build for the future.  That was the problem.

I get that history shows that both Leonard and Davis improbably managed hold up just long enough for one season and won titles, despite otherwise being mostly broken ex superstars for the last 5 years.

But to still argue doubling down on Kyrie would have worked after all that is happened, well... that is hard to understand.

I never would have acquired Irving, I knew exactly who he was as a player.  I took a lot of crap for the 2 years he was here because I was honest about who he was as a player. I was right though.  But, if you acquire Irving, it doesn't make sense to not go all in and actually build a team capable of winning a title.  Ainge pretty clearly was putting all his chips in the Davis basket, only for Davis to not want to come to Boston and have Ainge shy away.  Though who knows, maybe if Ainge actually pulled the trigger at the deadline, giving Boston 1.5 years of Davis it might have really worked out.  You can't acquire a Robin and then not make the effort to acquire Batman.  Didn't need to acquire Robin to begin with, but once you do, you have to go all in.

[slamtheking]

We had debates on this at the time, and I think the general thought was Ainge would have taken Bridges.

This is my memory of it. Miles Bridges would obviously have been a terrible result, but pairing Mikal and Smart would have been cool.

Mikal is who he would have taken, though who know what happens with Miles if he is in Boston and not Charlotte. 

I do also think there is a chance he would have taken Sexton.  Remember this was a full year after we made the trade so Thomas wouldn't have been on the team, and Sexton did fit the profile of guys Ainge liked (though we did have Rozier still at that time). 

Either way, Mikal, SGA, or Sexton would have been a much better result.

As I've consistently maintained, it wasn't the trade for Kyrie that was the problem, it was Ainge's inability to pull the trigger on the necessary follow-up trade.  Boston probably has a title if he would have just pulled the trigger on Leonard or Davis, even with the risk they just left in free agency.  And who knows what would have happened in free agency after that. 

Ainge just never fully committed to win now or build for the future.  That was the problem.

I get that history shows that both Leonard and Davis improbably managed hold up just long enough for one season and won titles, despite otherwise being mostly broken ex superstars for the last 5 years.

But to still argue doubling down on Kyrie would have worked after all that is happened, well... that is hard to understand.

I never would have acquired Irving, I knew exactly who he was as a player.  I took a lot of crap for the 2 years he was here because I was honest about who he was as a player. I was right though.  But, if you acquire Irving, it doesn't make sense to not go all in and actually build a team capable of winning a title.  Ainge pretty clearly was putting all his chips in the Davis basket, only for Davis to not want to come to Boston and have Ainge shy away.  Though who knows, maybe if Ainge actually pulled the trigger at the deadline, giving Boston 1.5 years of Davis it might have really worked out.  You can't acquire a Robin and then not make the effort to acquire Batman.  Didn't need to acquire Robin to begin with, but once you do, you have to go all in.

but is Davis really Batman?  he looked it in NO but not so much after that.  He won a title in LA but he didn't look like the player he was in NO

I was for the Kyrie trade based on the premise that the team getting the better player wins the deal.  Kyrie was and is the superior player to IT even when IT was healthy.  the problem with Kyrie has always been between the ears.  At the time of that trade, IT was cooked, Hayward was fully healthy and joining the team and we had Al just past his prime.  with Tatum and Brown ascending in talent level, that should have been enough for a title run for a few years had Hayward not had that injury. 

we can debate the Kyrie/IT into the ground but depending on IT after his injury was not an option.  he was toast and he has not bounced back to even half the player he was that season.  C's needed to do something to get a top PG because Smart and Rozier certainly weren't ready at that point to run a title team.

[SparzWizard]

Would we still have given IT4 the brinks truck, who blew up his hip at that point and never been the same?

The idea of SGA is nice tho...sigh

[Donoghus]

Would we still have given IT4 the brinks truck, who blew up his hip at that point and never been the same?

The idea of SGA is nice tho...sigh

Ainge was never going to pay IT the farm.

[Moranis]

We had debates on this at the time, and I think the general thought was Ainge would have taken Bridges.

This is my memory of it. Miles Bridges would obviously have been a terrible result, but pairing Mikal and Smart would have been cool.

Mikal is who he would have taken, though who know what happens with Miles if he is in Boston and not Charlotte. 

I do also think there is a chance he would have taken Sexton.  Remember this was a full year after we made the trade so Thomas wouldn't have been on the team, and Sexton did fit the profile of guys Ainge liked (though we did have Rozier still at that time). 

Either way, Mikal, SGA, or Sexton would have been a much better result.

As I've consistently maintained, it wasn't the trade for Kyrie that was the problem, it was Ainge's inability to pull the trigger on the necessary follow-up trade.  Boston probably has a title if he would have just pulled the trigger on Leonard or Davis, even with the risk they just left in free agency.  And who knows what would have happened in free agency after that. 

Ainge just never fully committed to win now or build for the future.  That was the problem.

I get that history shows that both Leonard and Davis improbably managed hold up just long enough for one season and won titles, despite otherwise being mostly broken ex superstars for the last 5 years.

But to still argue doubling down on Kyrie would have worked after all that is happened, well... that is hard to understand.

I never would have acquired Irving, I knew exactly who he was as a player.  I took a lot of crap for the 2 years he was here because I was honest about who he was as a player. I was right though.  But, if you acquire Irving, it doesn't make sense to not go all in and actually build a team capable of winning a title.  Ainge pretty clearly was putting all his chips in the Davis basket, only for Davis to not want to come to Boston and have Ainge shy away.  Though who knows, maybe if Ainge actually pulled the trigger at the deadline, giving Boston 1.5 years of Davis it might have really worked out.  You can't acquire a Robin and then not make the effort to acquire Batman.  Didn't need to acquire Robin to begin with, but once you do, you have to go all in.

but is Davis really Batman?  he looked it in NO but not so much after that.  He won a title in LA but he didn't look like the player he was in NO

I was for the Kyrie trade based on the premise that the team getting the better player wins the deal.  Kyrie was and is the superior player to IT even when IT was healthy.  the problem with Kyrie has always been between the ears.  At the time of that trade, IT was cooked, Hayward was fully healthy and joining the team and we had Al just past his prime.  with Tatum and Brown ascending in talent level, that should have been enough for a title run for a few years had Hayward not had that injury. 

we can debate the Kyrie/IT into the ground but depending on IT after his injury was not an option.  he was toast and he has not bounced back to even half the player he was that season.  C's needed to do something to get a top PG because Smart and Rozier certainly weren't ready at that point to run a title team.

Davis has Batman talent, though he isn't a leader.  Irving could have been the leader though, while Davis was the best player.  The real problem of course was, Boston couldn't have actually acquired Davis while Irving was on his contract he signed with the Cavs, so the C's would have had to wait until the 2019 summer to bring Davis in, and by then Irving was a free agent.  Of course, I would have traded Irving at the deadline in 2018-19 season to bring in Davis anyway.  I'm sure Boston could have picked up a bunch of draft picks and assets from a team like the Knicks for Irving (or maybe the Nets were interested) and then just shifted a bunch of those to New Orleans with another player or two for Davis. 

Either way, I absolutely believe a team with Davis, Tatum, and Horford would have won a title (especially with guys like Hayward, Rozier, maybe Smart, and certainly if they could have kept Brown).