I've also been pushing this idea for about two years now, but nobody will listen.
Vicevic is averaging 30 points, 12.5 rebounds, 2.5 assists, 1 steal, 1 block while shooting 68% / 54% / 80% so far over his first two games this season.
Over 6 NBA seasons so far he is averaging career numbers of 14.6 points, 9.9 rebounds, 2 assists and 50% FG - so it's not like this guy has appeared out of nowhere. He's been a very, very good big man his entire career, but has been largely ignored due to the fact that he's playing on crappy teams in Orlando.
His game would be an outstanding fit in Boston, and given that he's still only 26-27 years old he'd also be a perfect fit with our development plan moving forward.
Then on top of that you have the fact that he's only making $12.2M this season, meaning Vucevic and Kyrie would cost us about $31M combined over the next two years. That's only about $4M a year more then what we are paying Al Hoford (on his own) over the next 3 seasons.
I'd much rather have Kyrie and Vucevic for the next two years at $31M a year, rather than Al Horford for the next 3 years at $27M a year. If we could move Horford to a contender in a 3-way deal that allows us to take Vucevic back from Orlando, I would be absolutely all over that.
Kyrie (25), Brown (20), Hayward (27), Tatum (19) and Vucevic (27) would give us one seriously special young core moving forward.
Vucevic is nowhere near the player Horford is. You are severely underrating Horford's defense, or simply ignoring Vucevic's bad defense. Horford is every bit as good of a scorer as Vucevic, and he is a better passer. Horford is a better player than Vucevic.
Vucevic is Enes Kanter. Kanter will put up good numbers in New York this year, but he couldn't play in a tough playoff series in the West last year because he was a defensive liability - that's Vucevic.
Again, it's easy to look at raw numbers without context and think "Imagine adding his 14 points and 10 rebounds to this team." But they wouldn't be 14 points and 10 rebounds. On a good team, they might be 11 points and 6 rebounds, and he would only play in certain situations when he wouldn't be a defensive liability. Every bad team needs someone to score, but that doesn't mean their scoring translates to good teams.
As for the Cavs - it was their 3rd game in 4 nights, after tough games against the Celtics and Bucks. In some ways, it was a scheduled loss, especially after they lost Rose to an injury. You better believe that in a game that matters Lebron would run picks with whoever Vucevic is guarding all game and abuse his awful pick-and-roll defense and lateral quickness.
Firstly, you are severely exaggerating the "crappiness" of Vucevic's defence. He's not a good defender, but he's not as bad as you are suggesting. You have compared Vucevic (who is an average, or perhaps slightly below average defender) to Enes Kanter (who has been the worst defensive big in the league since he entered it).
Secondly, you are severely understating Vucevic's talent. While it is true that he's played on mostly poor teams, you don't average 14 and 10 on 50% shooting over 6 years against NBA starters without having some serious talent. Vucevic is a very skilled post scorer, has an exceptionally good midrange game, and has now extended his range out to the tree point line - which makes him pretty much the perfect offensive big man for today's NBA. He is also a quality passer, and an elite rebounder.
Those are his skills - skills don't go away when you play for a better team. If anything his outright scoring numbers might drop down on a better team due to a reduction in shot attempts, but his offensive efficiency and his rebounding are still going to be major assets - and his defence will only ever look better when he's playing in Brad's system rather than in Orlando. Hell even Kyrie has looked like a genuinely decent defender this year playing in Brad's system.
You say that I am underrating Horford's defence - am I, really? Where did I do that, please quote me. Because I don't recall saying a single thing about Horford's defence. Oh right, because I didn't. Horford is a better defensive player than Vucevic is - I am well aware of that. But you speak as if Horford is an elite defender and Vucevic is a horrible one, which is not the case. Horford is an above average defender, nothing more. Vucevic is an average or slightly below average defender. There is obviously a difference there, and the difference is significant - but defence isn't the only factor in basketball.
You say that Horford is as good a scorer as Vucevic - I find that funny, because he isn't. Maybe he was once upon a time, but he isn't anymore. Did you not watch the game yesterday? Because I watched Horford trying on multiple occasions to take on Ben Simmons (a modest sized rookie big not known for his defence) in the paint on multiple occasions in the Philly game yesterday, and he bricked horribly on almost every attempt. Horford's post game dissapeared about 3 years ago, and today he is completely incapable of scoring with consistency down low on anybody unless it's on a horrible mismatch where he has a good 2" height advantage and can shoot right over the top. His midrange jumper also is not nearly as accurate as it used to be. There is a very good reason why Horford has averaged some of the lowest scoring numbers and THE lowest FG percentages of his career since coming to Boston - his offensive game is degrading significantly on a year by year basis. So far this year he's averaging 13 points on 38% shooting and is shooting 27% from three. The man is not the offensive player he once was, and his offensive game is only dropping off faster as the years go on. He is absolutely NOT on par with Vucevic anymore as a scorer - he just isn't.
Better passer? Well yes, that's obvious. Horford is arguably the best passing big man in the NBA. But Vucevic is a very good passer as well for a big, and he'd fit in Brad's system just fine.
As for Horford being a better player...you know what? I don't disagree with you. Horford probably is the better player of the two overall, but it's not by nearly as wide a margin RIGHT NOW as you seem convinced it is, and in the next 2-3 years of Horford's tenure as a Celtic that is likely to turn around very quickly as Horford continues to decline ad a historically fast rate, while Vucevic continutes to improve as he moves towards his prime.
What you seemingly fail to acknowledge here is that Danny is building this team with the intention of competing not today, but 2-3 years from now. Wyc said this himself, on the record, about 3 days ago. 2-3 years from now Horford is going to be 35 and will be a shadow of his current self, while Vucevic will be 29-30 and just hitting his prime.
See, Horford is a good 4-5 years older than Vucevic, and he's also making more than double the money. Trading Horford (somehow) for Vucenvic might make us a little bit worst this year ("might" being the operative word) but clear about $15M in salary cap space that we could then use (in addition to that $8M injury exception) to solidify our depth...something we are going to need if we want to genuinely compete 2-3 years from now.
Problem with the Celtics fans here is that your mentality and your goals are not in line with that of the Celtics ownership / management. You're measuring each player's value to the organisation based on the player they are right now, rather then measuring them based on where they project to be 2-3 years from now (which is the time frame the Cetlics brass are targeting). This time-frame is the precise reason why Danny traded Thomas for a younger and bigger version of himself in Kyrie. He understands going younger makes more sense for their grand plan.