Trade Irving for the sake of the team

[Moranis]

To simply state the Celts are a better team without Kyrie is borderline ridiculous.

It's not just ridiculous, it's factually untrue. The stats clearly show the team is better with Kyrie than without him.

But you'll only casually see posters like the OP even attempt to address this, because they know they can't, and deep down know their opinions are unsubstantiated horse crap based on nothing but incorrect observations.

This thread for the most part is just a running joke at this point. Sure, I'm not against trading Kyrie it actually brought back a better player. But the OP originally proposed a farcical trade idea, and has then used the rest of the thread to try to convince the rest of us Kyrie makes the team worse despite the facts demonstrating the opposite.

But the saddest part of it all is that the OP isn't alone, and there are a handful of other posters here who are apparently just as incapable of looking at facts and drawing reasonable conclusions. Basically we've got a thread full of Donald Trump wannabes.

and yet Boston just keeps right on winning when Irving isn't in the game.  They did last year as well, so it isn't just a 4 game sample.  The Cavs kept right on winning without Irving.  Even the last year before James went there, the Cavs were a better team (5-6, 45.5%) without Irving then they were with Irving (28-43 39.4%) and that team wasn't exactly riddled with talent.  Even during his 3 seasons with James, the Cavs were often better with Irving on the bench.  I mean the title season he actually had a negative on/off differential per 100 possession (-0.2) for the regular season and he was actually worse in the playoffs at -0.8 per 100 possessions.  The Cavs were actually better when Irving was on the bench in both the regular season and the post season when they won the title.  That should never happen for someone supposedly as good as Irving is. 

The Celtics are better with Irving in the game then without him in the game, but when Irving doesn't play Rozier, Brown, and Smart all play much better.  It isn't a coincidence either and it isn't just a 4 game sample as they all played better without Irving around last year as well, which has continued in the 4 games this year.  Putting all that together, the team might actually be better getting assets for Irving that can actually help the team and fill in some holes (rim protection, rebounding, defensive stopper, etc.) since just taking him away without adding anything else doesn't affect the W/Ls very much.

[Tr1boy]

When it's CRUNCH TIME, in the playoffs...versus the likes of Giannis, Oladipo, Simmons, Embiid, Kawhi - you're going to need HERO BALL - at times quite often.

Kyrie, GH and Big Al are well versed in this department.

Its just GH and Big Al turn on the "jets"  when necessary and try to keep in line with the "team concept" even if the score is close

For example

Last night the Mavs make it close (64 to 60)  and I guarantee you, Irving would have launched the next 10 shots of his own (make or miss).   Team defense suffers, Hayward/Brown/Rozier turn into a spot up shooters.....  probably lose the game

What does Hayward do when the score becomes close in the 3rd quarter? (64-60)

He just keeps trusting his teammates, making the extra passes.  Team energy and defense never wavered last night

this is the difference

It was the Mavs during the regular season.  They're not a good team and its not the playoffs.   

So how did they score 112 and beat us the last time around?

The Mavs are the worst road team in the league. They have a 3-17 record on the road. Conversely, the Mavs have one of the best home records in the league losing only 3 games at home which is tied for least losses at home in the league.

You know, these things are really easy to look up.

What was his point....

Its just the Mavs

Well we lost to them the last time

Your additional record info is a different matter

[Roy H.]

How do these two games compare to our eight game winning streak?

This team has played extremely good — as in, completely dominant — basketball with Kyrie at times.  We’re a top-nine offense and a top-four defense, and Brown and Hayward have both started to progress.  Since a 10-10 start, we’re 13-5.

What’s the problem we’re trying to solve?

The problem is that the championship version of this team requires strong performances from Brown, Hayward and Rozier. Pace and ball movement make those guys different players. Our team's advantage isn't that Kyrie can consistently outplay Durant or Harden or Giannis. Our advantage is that we have more guys that can beat you than anyone else. We will not beat GS if Kyrie and Morris play well, but Brown and Hayward average 10 pts a game.

We can do this with Kyrie, but he would have to do less of what he loves to do best, which is to carve up defenses with his handle.

Has Hayward started slow because of Kyrie, or because of a devestating injury? Does his improved play come from less Kyrie (despite Hayward coming off the bench) or because — as he’s repeatedly acknowledged — his ankle pain is gradually improving?

[nickagneta]

How do these two games compare to our eight game winning streak?

This team has played extremely good — as in, completely dominant — basketball with Kyrie at times.  We’re a top-nine offense and a top-four defense, and Brown and Hayward have both started to progress.  Since a 10-10 start, we’re 13-5.

What’s the problem we’re trying to solve?

My guess from being involved in this thread is that triboy is trying to fix slow starts by Tatum, Brown, Hayward and Rozier by getting rid of Kyrie because those players struggles are all due to Kyrie not passing the ball and not the fact that:

- Brown has struggled in his role with poorer defense than last year and a terrible slump early in the season.

-Tatum looks to have advanced his game very little, has played much worse defense than last year and picked up some bad habits by going iso and hoisting long contested twos

- Hayward wasn't the old Hayward coming straight into the season and has taken much longer coming back from his horrific injury

- Rozier struggles when he doesn't start, so basically, Rozier is Rozier.

[Tr1boy]

How do these two games compare to our eight game winning streak?

This team has played extremely good — as in, completely dominant — basketball with Kyrie at times.  We’re a top-nine offense and a top-four defense, and Brown and Hayward have both started to progress.  Since a 10-10 start, we’re 13-5.

What’s the problem we’re trying to solve?

My guess from being involved in this thread is that triboy is trying to fix slow starts by Tatum, Brown, Hayward and Rozier by getting rid of Kyrie because those players struggles are all due to Kyrie not passing the ball and not the fact that:

- Brown has struggled in his role with poorer defense than last year and a terrible slump early in the season.

-Tatum looks to have advanced his game very little, has played much worse defense than last year and picked up some bad habits by going iso and hoisting long contested twos

- Hayward wasn't the old Hayward coming straight into the season and has taken much longer coming back from his horrific injury

- Rozier struggles when he doesn't start, so basically, Rozier is Rozier.

And what kind of reasoning will you lay on the table

If Kyrie returns and all of these guys go back to being "less" than the two recent games we witnessed?

[nickagneta]

And yet still not addressed by triboy.

Boston has 11 times had 30+ assists in a game this year when Kyrie played.

Boston has 22 times had 25+ assists in a game this year when Kyrie played.

The Celtics have averaged 310 passes a game, a tremendous amount, since December 1st when Kyrie played.

Kyrie has by far the highest assist % and assists per game as anyone on the team.

Kyrie is top two in the league in secondary assists.

Kyrie's on/off numbers are the highest on the team.

Why aren't Brown, Hayward, Tatum, Rozier, and Horford responsible for their own struggles?

[PAOBoston]

To simply state the Celts are a better team without Kyrie is borderline ridiculous.

It's not just ridiculous, it's factually untrue. The stats clearly show the team is better with Kyrie than without him.

But you'll only casually see posters like the OP even attempt to address this, because they know they can't, and deep down know their opinions are unsubstantiated horse crap based on nothing but incorrect observations.

This thread for the most part is just a running joke at this point. Sure, I'm not against trading Kyrie it actually brought back a better player. But the OP originally proposed a farcical trade idea, and has then used the rest of the thread to try to convince the rest of us Kyrie makes the team worse despite the facts demonstrating the opposite.

But the saddest part of it all is that the OP isn't alone, and there are a handful of other posters here who are apparently just as incapable of looking at facts and drawing reasonable conclusions. Basically we've got a thread full of Donald Trump wannabes.

and yet Boston just keeps right on winning when Irving isn't in the game.  They did last year as well, so it isn't just a 4 game sample.  The Cavs kept right on winning without Irving.  Even the last year before James went there, the Cavs were a better team (5-6, 45.5%) without Irving then they were with Irving (28-43 39.4%) and that team wasn't exactly riddled with talent.  Even during his 3 seasons with James, the Cavs were often better with Irving on the bench.  I mean the title season he actually had a negative on/off differential per 100 possession (-0.2) for the regular season and he was actually worse in the playoffs at -0.8 per 100 possessions.  The Cavs were actually better when Irving was on the bench in both the regular season and the post season when they won the title.  That should never happen for someone supposedly as good as Irving is. 

The Celtics are better with Irving in the game then without him in the game, but when Irving doesn't play Rozier, Brown, and Smart all play much better.  It isn't a coincidence either and it isn't just a 4 game sample as they all played better without Irving around last year as well, which has continued in the 4 games this year.  Putting all that together, the team might actually be better getting assets for Irving that can actually help the team and fill in some holes (rim protection, rebounding, defensive stopper, etc.) since just taking him away without adding anything else doesn't affect the W/Ls very much.

Except in the playoffs against good teams this doesn’t really work. Take last year vs the Cavs. They didn’t have a single guy that could step up for 2 games to close it out. Get rid of Kyrie and it will most likely be the same.

Again, this logic is so freaking baffling. Cs tore it down, drafted, rebuilt the roster in the hopes of acquiring or developing star, clutch players. They finally got one on the cheap and some fans legit want to boot him out the door so lesser players can get more playing time. It’s about winning championships. Kyrie is a championship caliber player. They should be looking to consolidate the Roziers/Brown/Tatums to get another championship level player to pair with Kyrie.

I honestly can’t believe there is over 19 pages in this thread debating this.

[Androslav]

I can't wait for this senseless thread to die out.

The fact that is real is disappointing.

The Cs are a significantly better team with Kyrie on the floor. The issue is and has been getting the rest of the rotation to get in line (Rozier/Brown/Hayward).

The lunacy of people advocating getting rid of Kyrie so Rozier can start is truly perplexing.

Yes. I think he is playing the best ball of his career. He has improved on his weakness and team is better with him by a landslide.
But this thread just shows how people stick to thier opinions even when presented with a plethora of opposite facts. Even with a 10:1 ratio of facts, some take that one and entrench. But the fact is that they are the only ones that lose with that unflexible approach.

[KGs Knee]

To simply state the Celts are a better team without Kyrie is borderline ridiculous.

It's not just ridiculous, it's factually untrue. The stats clearly show the team is better with Kyrie than without him.

But you'll only casually see posters like the OP even attempt to address this, because they know they can't, and deep down know their opinions are unsubstantiated horse crap based on nothing but incorrect observations.

This thread for the most part is just a running joke at this point. Sure, I'm not against trading Kyrie it actually brought back a better player. But the OP originally proposed a farcical trade idea, and has then used the rest of the thread to try to convince the rest of us Kyrie makes the team worse despite the facts demonstrating the opposite.

But the saddest part of it all is that the OP isn't alone, and there are a handful of other posters here who are apparently just as incapable of looking at facts and drawing reasonable conclusions. Basically we've got a thread full of Donald Trump wannabes.

and yet Boston just keeps right on winning when Irving isn't in the game.  They did last year as well, so it isn't just a 4 game sample.  The Cavs kept right on winning without Irving.  Even the last year before James went there, the Cavs were a better team (5-6, 45.5%) without Irving then they were with Irving (28-43 39.4%) and that team wasn't exactly riddled with talent.  Even during his 3 seasons with James, the Cavs were often better with Irving on the bench.  I mean the title season he actually had a negative on/off differential per 100 possession (-0.2) for the regular season and he was actually worse in the playoffs at -0.8 per 100 possessions.  The Cavs were actually better when Irving was on the bench in both the regular season and the post season when they won the title.  That should never happen for someone supposedly as good as Irving is. 

The Celtics are better with Irving in the game then without him in the game, but when Irving doesn't play Rozier, Brown, and Smart all play much better.  It isn't a coincidence either and it isn't just a 4 game sample as they all played better without Irving around last year as well, which has continued in the 4 games this year.  Putting all that together, the team might actually be better getting assets for Irving that can actually help the team and fill in some holes (rim protection, rebounding, defensive stopper, etc.) since just taking him away without adding anything else doesn't affect the W/Ls very much.

First, what happened in Cleveland only has marginal bearing on what is going on with the Celtics right now.  Kyrie was at a different stage in his career, in his early 20's and then playing behind one of the top 10 best players of all-time.  Everything was catered to LeBron, and Kyrie needed to fit in around that because that was what was best for the team.  So, really, the only relevance to the situation here in Boston is that Kyrie is now the undisputed best player on the team, and no longer the 'sidekick'.  Which means that for the Celtics to reach their peak the guys around Kyrie need to fit in around him.

Second, what stats do you have to actually prove the claim in bold?  But more importantly, even if it were true, it's not really important.  The bottom line is the team wins more, and outscores the opponent by more points when Kyrie plays.

In 2017-18 the Celtcis had a .683 winning percentage in 60 games with Kyrie and only a .610 winning percentage in 41 games without him.  The Celtics had a per game point differential of +4.5 in games Kyrie played in but without Kyrie were only +1.5 in the regular season and +0.7 in the playoffs.  The Celtics were simply a better team with Kyrie on the court last season, period.  The 4 game sample size this season without Kyrie is so small it's basically useless and not worth being discussed in this context.

If people want to discuss trading Kyrie for a better player, that's one thing.  It's a debatable point that it might make the team better.  People claiming the team as is, is better, or no worse, without Kyrie are simply making a false claim that is easily disproved by the data.

[Moranis]

To simply state the Celts are a better team without Kyrie is borderline ridiculous.

It's not just ridiculous, it's factually untrue. The stats clearly show the team is better with Kyrie than without him.

But you'll only casually see posters like the OP even attempt to address this, because they know they can't, and deep down know their opinions are unsubstantiated horse crap based on nothing but incorrect observations.

This thread for the most part is just a running joke at this point. Sure, I'm not against trading Kyrie it actually brought back a better player. But the OP originally proposed a farcical trade idea, and has then used the rest of the thread to try to convince the rest of us Kyrie makes the team worse despite the facts demonstrating the opposite.

But the saddest part of it all is that the OP isn't alone, and there are a handful of other posters here who are apparently just as incapable of looking at facts and drawing reasonable conclusions. Basically we've got a thread full of Donald Trump wannabes.

and yet Boston just keeps right on winning when Irving isn't in the game.  They did last year as well, so it isn't just a 4 game sample.  The Cavs kept right on winning without Irving.  Even the last year before James went there, the Cavs were a better team (5-6, 45.5%) without Irving then they were with Irving (28-43 39.4%) and that team wasn't exactly riddled with talent.  Even during his 3 seasons with James, the Cavs were often better with Irving on the bench.  I mean the title season he actually had a negative on/off differential per 100 possession (-0.2) for the regular season and he was actually worse in the playoffs at -0.8 per 100 possessions.  The Cavs were actually better when Irving was on the bench in both the regular season and the post season when they won the title.  That should never happen for someone supposedly as good as Irving is. 

The Celtics are better with Irving in the game then without him in the game, but when Irving doesn't play Rozier, Brown, and Smart all play much better.  It isn't a coincidence either and it isn't just a 4 game sample as they all played better without Irving around last year as well, which has continued in the 4 games this year.  Putting all that together, the team might actually be better getting assets for Irving that can actually help the team and fill in some holes (rim protection, rebounding, defensive stopper, etc.) since just taking him away without adding anything else doesn't affect the W/Ls very much.

First, what happened in Cleveland only has marginal bearing on what is going on with the Celtics right now.  Kyrie was at a different stage in his career, in his early 20's and then playing behind one of the top 10 best players of all-time.  Everything was catered to LeBron, and Kyrie needed to fit in around that because that was what was best for the team.  So, really, the only relevance to the situation here in Boston is that Kyrie is now the undisputed best player on the team, and no longer the 'sidekick'.  Which means that for the Celtics to reach their peak the guys around Kyrie need to fit in around him.

Second, what stats do you have to actually prove the claim in bold?  But more importantly, even if it were true, it's not really important.  The bottom line is the team wins more, and outscores the opponent by more points when Kyrie plays.

In 2017-18 the Celtcis had a .683 winning percentage in 60 games with Kyrie and only a .610 winning percentage in 41 games without him.  The Celtics had a per game point differential of +4.5 in games Kyrie played in but without Kyrie were only +1.5 in the regular season and +0.7 in the playoffs.  The Celtics were simply a better team with Kyrie on the court last season, period.  The 4 game sample size this season without Kyrie is so small it's basically useless and not worth being discussed in this context.

If people want to discuss trading Kyrie for a better player, that's one thing.  It's a debatable point that it might make the team better.  People claiming the team as is, is better, or no worse, without Kyrie are simply making a false claim that is easily disproved by the data.

I have a hard time grouping playoff games with win percentages of regular season games given the competition level.  The Celtics were moderately better in the regular season with Irving than without him last year, but that also includes the incredible unsustainable win streak to start the year.  With that excluded, the C's were actually better without Irving than with Irving in the regular season.  I posted all of those numbers earlier in this thread and reposted them below.  But that is with just removing Irving, not with removing Irving and replacing him with valuable players and assets.  And I've never claimed the team was better without Irving, only not appreciably worse in the only area that truly matters i.e. wins and losses. 

Boston is now 3-1 (75%) without Irving this year and is 20-14 (58.8%) with him.  Last year Boston was 41-19 (68.3%) with Irving and 14-8 (63.6%) without him, but that obviously includes the unsustainable 15-2 start (Irving missed a win in that streak).  If you take out the 16-2 start, then Boston was 26-17 (60.4%) with Irving and 13-8 (61.9%) without him.   Boston went 11-8 (57.9%) in the playoffs last year all without Irving and was obviously 1 game away from the NBA Finals. 

Again wins are what matters and looking at those numbers the team wins at about the same rate whether Irving plays or not.  Add value instead of just removing the player and eliminating the need to pay a player that misses 1 in every 5 regular season games including ending several seasons injured (he has missed 1 in 3 possible playoff games) 38 million dollars a year for the next 5 years.  Not to mention said player has clearly clashed with several different players, is incredibly odd, and quite frankly could still pretty easily leave next summer in free agency. 

[nickagneta]

Moranis, please, please, for the sake of mathematics, please stop with the " unsustainable 15-2 start needs to be disregarded". These discussions don't work that way and I am sure you know that. If it was unsustainable it wouldn't have happened. It did happen so you have to count it.
 

You can't discount the Lakers record 33 game winning streak and argue that it wasn't sustainable so we should look at that Lakers juggernaut as a 36 win team. You can't discount the Philly 16 game win streak to end last season and say they were really a barely above .500 team in reality.

You just can't do that. If the games were played then they count and have to be taken into consideration.

So please, for the love of God, stop with the "you have to ignore this very large swarth of games" stuff simply to try to prove a point. It doesn't work that way.

[jambr380]

I often appreciate the points you make, Moranis, but I have no idea why you keep removing the 16-2 (or 15-2 with Irving) to begin last year. Just because it was 'unsustainable' doesn't mean it didn't happen. That start is even more impressive seeing as how we had just lost our max FA signing for at least a year.

It's hard to disagree that Rozier plays better when he starts, but guys like Tatum and Brown more seem to be affected by # of touches/shots than anything Kyrie is doing. Brown and Hayward finally commingling was just something that needed time.

If anything, it seems that Horford takes on more of the leadership role when Kyrie is out and all of the other guys fall into place. I do have confidence that as the season continues, players will feel more and more comfortable with their 'roles'.

[Roy H.]

Moranis, please, please, for the sake of mathematics, please stop with the " unsustainable 15-2 start needs to be disregarded". These discussions don't work that way and I am sure you know that. If it was unsustainable it wouldn't have happened. It did happen so you have to count it.
 

You can't discount the Lakers record 33 game winning streak and argue that it wasn't sustainable so we should look at that Lakers juggernaut as a 36 win team. You can't discount the Philly 16 game win streak to end last season and say they were really a barely above .500 team in reality.

You just can't do that. If the games were played then they count and have to be taken into consideration.

So please, for the love of God, stop with the "you have to ignore this very large swarth of games" stuff simply to try to prove a point. It doesn't work that way.

Agreed. If you’re going to discount last year’s fast start, why not disregard this year’s slow start?

[KGs Knee]

To simply state the Celts are a better team without Kyrie is borderline ridiculous.

It's not just ridiculous, it's factually untrue. The stats clearly show the team is better with Kyrie than without him.

But you'll only casually see posters like the OP even attempt to address this, because they know they can't, and deep down know their opinions are unsubstantiated horse crap based on nothing but incorrect observations.

This thread for the most part is just a running joke at this point. Sure, I'm not against trading Kyrie it actually brought back a better player. But the OP originally proposed a farcical trade idea, and has then used the rest of the thread to try to convince the rest of us Kyrie makes the team worse despite the facts demonstrating the opposite.

But the saddest part of it all is that the OP isn't alone, and there are a handful of other posters here who are apparently just as incapable of looking at facts and drawing reasonable conclusions. Basically we've got a thread full of Donald Trump wannabes.

and yet Boston just keeps right on winning when Irving isn't in the game.  They did last year as well, so it isn't just a 4 game sample.  The Cavs kept right on winning without Irving.  Even the last year before James went there, the Cavs were a better team (5-6, 45.5%) without Irving then they were with Irving (28-43 39.4%) and that team wasn't exactly riddled with talent.  Even during his 3 seasons with James, the Cavs were often better with Irving on the bench.  I mean the title season he actually had a negative on/off differential per 100 possession (-0.2) for the regular season and he was actually worse in the playoffs at -0.8 per 100 possessions.  The Cavs were actually better when Irving was on the bench in both the regular season and the post season when they won the title.  That should never happen for someone supposedly as good as Irving is. 

The Celtics are better with Irving in the game then without him in the game, but when Irving doesn't play Rozier, Brown, and Smart all play much better.  It isn't a coincidence either and it isn't just a 4 game sample as they all played better without Irving around last year as well, which has continued in the 4 games this year.  Putting all that together, the team might actually be better getting assets for Irving that can actually help the team and fill in some holes (rim protection, rebounding, defensive stopper, etc.) since just taking him away without adding anything else doesn't affect the W/Ls very much.

First, what happened in Cleveland only has marginal bearing on what is going on with the Celtics right now.  Kyrie was at a different stage in his career, in his early 20's and then playing behind one of the top 10 best players of all-time.  Everything was catered to LeBron, and Kyrie needed to fit in around that because that was what was best for the team.  So, really, the only relevance to the situation here in Boston is that Kyrie is now the undisputed best player on the team, and no longer the 'sidekick'.  Which means that for the Celtics to reach their peak the guys around Kyrie need to fit in around him.

Second, what stats do you have to actually prove the claim in bold?  But more importantly, even if it were true, it's not really important.  The bottom line is the team wins more, and outscores the opponent by more points when Kyrie plays.

In 2017-18 the Celtcis had a .683 winning percentage in 60 games with Kyrie and only a .610 winning percentage in 41 games without him.  The Celtics had a per game point differential of +4.5 in games Kyrie played in but without Kyrie were only +1.5 in the regular season and +0.7 in the playoffs.  The Celtics were simply a better team with Kyrie on the court last season, period.  The 4 game sample size this season without Kyrie is so small it's basically useless and not worth being discussed in this context.

If people want to discuss trading Kyrie for a better player, that's one thing.  It's a debatable point that it might make the team better.  People claiming the team as is, is better, or no worse, without Kyrie are simply making a false claim that is easily disproved by the data.

I have a hard time grouping playoff games with win percentages of regular season games given the competition level.  The Celtics were moderately better in the regular season with Irving than without him last year, but that also includes the incredible unsustainable win streak to start the year.  With that excluded, the C's were actually better without Irving than with Irving in the regular season.  I posted all of those numbers earlier in this thread and reposted them below.  But that is with just removing Irving, not with removing Irving and replacing him with valuable players and assets.  And I've never claimed the team was better without Irving, only not appreciably worse in the only area that truly matters i.e. wins and losses. 

Boston is now 3-1 (75%) without Irving this year and is 20-14 (58.8%) with him.  Last year Boston was 41-19 (68.3%) with Irving and 14-8 (63.6%) without him, but that obviously includes the unsustainable 15-2 start (Irving missed a win in that streak).  If you take out the 16-2 start, then Boston was 26-17 (60.4%) with Irving and 13-8 (61.9%) without him.   Boston went 11-8 (57.9%) in the playoffs last year all without Irving and was obviously 1 game away from the NBA Finals. 

Again wins are what matters and looking at those numbers the team wins at about the same rate whether Irving plays or not.  Add value instead of just removing the player and eliminating the need to pay a player that misses 1 in every 5 regular season games including ending several seasons injured (he has missed 1 in 3 possible playoff games) 38 million dollars a year for the next 5 years.  Not to mention said player has clearly clashed with several different players, is incredibly odd, and quite frankly could still pretty easily leave next summer in free agency. 

Well, even if you want to discount last year's playoff games from the comparison, Boston still won at a higher clip, and had a +3 point differential with Kyrie in the lineup.  Dismissing that would be folly; with Kyrie the C's won games at a pace that would have resulted in an additional 4 wins over the course of 82 games, which ironically enough was how many games they finished behind Toronto for the #1 seed.  That's significant any way you slice it.  This 4 game sample size from this season you keep talking about isn't statistically meaningful when compared to the 34 games they have played with Kyrie in the lineup.


I don't think there are very many players that would have been able to add 4 wins to Boston's win total last season, and certainly not some combination of lesser talented players.  Once you hit the 50 win mark winning additional games beyond that usually entails how you fare against the top competition, and Boston's playoff record and point differential suggest they missed Kyrie even moreso than the regular season data suggests.

Trading Kyrie for a player like Davis or Kawhi might give the Celtics a higher ceiling, but it's not a given.  Simply replacing him with a couple of good, but inferior, players is almost assuredly not going to help the team.  No one else on this team can do the things Kyrie can, so unless you bring back someone that can, it's pointless.

[Sophomore]

“Trading Kyrie for a player like Davis or Kawhi might give the Celtics a higher ceiling, but it's not a given.  Simply replacing him with a couple of good, but inferior, players is almost assuredly not going to help the team.“

This.

I see a grain of truth in what the OP and others are saying; in the abstract, replacing KI with Davis seems like it would be a plus because it better balances the floor. But we aren’t playing NBA 2K. We aren’t going to get that trade and I think our best shot at signing and keeping Davis is if we have KI here. I definitely would not want to replace KI with lesser players or “assets” if we still hold out hope of winning this year - which I do. I think we’re gling to see a very very good team by April.