For another installment of “why Bleacher Report articles should not be taken seriously,” check out this article on why it was actually Cleveland, not Boston, that won the Kyrie/IT trade: https://bleacherreport.com/articles/2793158-1-year-later-cavs-can-look-back-and-call-kyrie-irving-trade-a-success
This is such a poorly argued and joke of an article that I don’t even know where to start with it.
I guess it depends on your perspective. I read the article differently. When the trade was made, it was assumed that Boston won the deal hands down. However, if you break it down further after the additional trades of Thomas and Crowder, the focus of the deal needs to be expanded. They’re looking at the deal being Irving (whom they were going to lose via free agency in one year) for the Brooklyn unprotected first (Collin Sexton), Larry Nance Jr, Jordan Clarkson, Rodney Hood, and Ante Zizic. I read the article as both teams come out of the deal as winners, but for Boston, it depends on if Kyrie stays or if Boston can win the title before bolting for free agency after next season. Although, I will admit the article did seem to go back and forth as to who got the better end of the deal.
One little caveat on the Thomas trade to the Lakers. If it wasn’t for the chance to acquire LeBron, the Lakers would have never made that deal. Magic was trying to get rid of contracts that were for more than one year and was hoping to acquire a would be free agent. I’m sure LeBron was going to LA, one way or another, but the allure of being able to possibly play with another max guy may have tipped the scales in LA’s favor over Cleveland. I guess the question then becomes, did the Thomas trade make LeBron’s decision easier because of the additional cap space that the Lakers had to play with?