CelticsStrong
Celtics Basketball => Celtics Talk => Topic started by: Phantom255x on August 23, 2017, 05:28:51 PM
-
So you all know the drill. Grade The Trade. 8)
Oh and CREDIT to @Jvalin for the grading system, the way he laid it out on the poll for the thread "Grading Danny's Offseason Moves". I actually like this way a lot better (with the groupings) than just putting ALL of them (+/-) separately. :laugh:
My Grade For This Trade: A Solid C / C-
-
I went B+. Irving is arguably a top ten player under contract 2 years. While IT is banged up and on his last year. Crowder is a good player but we had a long jam at SF. The Nets pick hurts but if Phx was indeed also bidding then that was probably needed to seal the deal.
-
I say D/D- pending further moves. Expended major assets to upgrade a position where arguably we had our best player last season while doing nothing to improve the frontcourt, rebounding, or interior D.
Very, very poor trade in my opinion. I'm surprised Ainge actually pulled the trigger..
-
I say D/D- pending further moves. Expended major assets to upgrade a position where arguably we had our best player last season while doing nothing to improve the frontcourt, rebounding, or interior D.
Very, very poor trade in my opinion. I'm surprised Ainge actually pulled the trigger..
Yeah, if any future trades are made in-season or next summer, it HAS to be for a big man, and preferably a really good one.
Or hope that Lakers Pick conveys and we get a potential big man of the future to build with.
Unfortunately this could be another year where we get out-rebounded most games. :(
-
A
-
A
(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-PnY6eZ_eq98/T7OKnelwuuI/AAAAAAAABDE/WMg1GQUgKmM/s1600/cereal-guy-spitting.png)
-
A+ for the Cavs
-
A+ for the Cavs
I think so too. :(
-
Definitely an F for me.
Edit: F- if it were an option
-
Why to these polls always give an out for voters? Can't decide? The point isn't to wait until it all plays out to give your grade. Grow a pair and do it now, based on what we think will happen.
-
F-
-
I gave it a B- based on the principle that it's not a bad deal if you get the best asset in the trade. Irving is that, based on his performance, age, current health and contract situation (and as evinced by the fact that we traded multiple assets for him).
That said I believe that if we held out longer, the price would have fallen and we could have held onto the Brooklyn pick, probably by giving up two other first rounders or something.
-
F-
Probably should have included that in the poll LOL.
-
This is the fireworks, turning assets into a potential championship starting point guard. IT might also be good enough for a championship starting point guard, but the timing is wrong. Body wise and basketball wise I think IT is comparable to Iverson. High chance of slowing down, breaking down, and becoming ineffective before the rebuild is fully over. Crowder's ceiling is too low: he is not going to be better than Draymond Green or Kawhi Leonard. Celtics were full of good "glue" guys, but to win the championship you need 2-3 starters who are better players than the competition.
I love Isaiah's character, but this gets the Celtics closer to a championship.
And Danny said "who knows, maybe the trading is not done yet this pre-season" There may be another shoe to drop.
-
This trade will largely be judged on how much of a failure it turns out to be for Cavs. I'm banking on Irving being a stud. If IT's hip is a factor and the Nets makes strides toward mediocrity the deal will look a lot better. I hate having to root for IT for underperform because I love the guy, but I think that's the reality.
Unless of course Irving turns into a transcendent player in Boston. Then I think whatever the price will be well worth it.
My green gut is telling we'll be a better team.
-
F for failure
-
F-
Wow you're joking right?
-
A+
Cleveland and their 1yr rental of IT. Ha.
-
It is possible that we end up winning this trade by a fair margin. Kyrie's game could take a leap in Boston playing for his first good coach since a few games with Coach K. IT4 could bolt after a year or never be the same due to the hip injury. The pick may never end up being a player of Kyrie's caliber. Jae and Zizic are not deal breakers in any way for me. Even if all of that happens (and I would not be THAT surprised if it did) I think as of today DA overpaid so the trade gets a D+ from me. If that pick was some combo of Boston/LAC/Memphis picks instead I would bump the trade up to the A- range.
-
F-
Dang you hate it worse than me. LOL. Any reasons?
-
Must win a ring in three years or it's an F. Must get past Cavs in two years
-
I'll wait and post my grade around end of May 2018.
By then hopefully we would've dispatched CLE and LeBron and moved on to play GSW.
We do THIS and we could very well once again be the team that sends LeBron packing to another team.
HISTORIC.
-
B- --> the inclusion of the pick prevents it from being an A. Kyrie is better than IT. Crowder is a bench player on a good team. Losing Zizic thinned the frontcourt where we're already thin
-
I went with solid B as of now. We traded undersized pg (great guy etc) for a younger, bigger, better player. We gave up Jae who is a sub, he's never going to get better than TWO years ago, only worse. i.e. last season he didn't play as well. We gave up a draft pick that could be very good or not at all. And we gave up a young big who as of now doesn't look ready for a few years.
what did it cost us to get IT? Jae?
will IT stay beyond a year rental in Cleveland? he wants max $ remember, he probably would have walked from c's
solid b, could be better as time goes on
-
F-
Dang you hate it worse than me. LOL. Any reasons?
Because one realistic outcome is that we sacrificed Crowder, Zizic and Porter/Bagley for a lateral move.
-
A++ (and I'm an IT and Crowder fan)
Pacers traded Paul George with 1-year left and got Oladipo & Sabonis
Celtics traded BK pick and IT with 1-year left and got Kyrie Irving, a bonafide all-star, championship PG that is also 4 years younger. Trading the pick hurts in theory but getting a proven commodity in Kyrie is equivalent to a draft pick breaking out, so I'm cool with this.
Let's be honest, we didn't move on from Crowder with this trade... we moved on from Crowder a long time ago when we drafted Brown last year, Tatum this year and signed Hayward.
Zizic is an anomaly, but at the moment having seen him play in Summer League he's not our long term solution.
-
F-
Dang you hate it worse than me. LOL. Any reasons?
Because one realistic outcome is that we sacrificed Crowder, Zizic and Porter/Bagley for a lateral move.
Bingo. We're in total agreement here..
-
Don't know why almost everyone hates this trade..Thomas going be a FA..Crowder is a sub..Zizic is a project..and brookyln pick may be a flop, or may might not b a top 3 pick..we got a top 15 playerwho may be here for a long time
-
A
IT was not leading Boston 18 . Better to have two years of Irving , than chance an i juried IT and then pay him max and then see his hip shatter .
Time to end the to,keep,or not keep IT endless debate ....move on already.
Irving , Morris , Hayward .> IT , AB , Crowder .....mostly because AB is forever injuried and IT is highly likey as a tiny dude to get nailed and not get up. andddddd...AB and IT are not going to,get max deals. ....anywhere
-
C. I think it's an overpay. I hate losing the Nets pick and I'm not a big fan of Irving's game.
That said, Irving has yet to hit his prime and there's a reasonable chance that Irving evolves under Stevens and away from Lebron. Arguably a better bet to produce high value throughout his next contract - IT is reliant on athleticism and quickness, which are traits that frequently don't age well. Also, it's very possible that the Nets climb out of the cellar in a hilariously bad East. So while a lot of people are pointing out the downside of this trade, it's important to note that there is upside, too.
-
F-
Dang you hate it worse than me. LOL. Any reasons?
Because one realistic outcome is that we sacrificed Crowder, Zizic and Porter/Bagley for a lateral move.
we still have a lotto pick though. The Lakers have a significantly harder schedule than the nets. We may have parted with what was going to be a worse pick
-
Irving , Morris , Hayward .> IT , AB , Crowder
Sure. And IT, Hayward, Crowder, Zizic, BRK 18 > Irving + Hayward
-
Amazingly spread out grades, from A+ to F.
-
I give it a B because I definitely think Kyrie is an upgrade and I am already relieved about not having to think about what the C's will do with IT. Paying a 29 yo 5'8" PG 30Million was not something I was going to be happy with and losing him for nothing was not a great thought either. I hate losing the pick, but happier losing the pick than losing Tatum.
I REALLY am looking forward to hearing about the Brown-Irving debates about the Earth's shape and rotation. That alone might push me to a B+.
-
So glad we got rid of IT.
Giving him a max contract would have been a disaster.
And here is what Irving did to us in the playoffs...
62% from the field, 50% from the three, and 90% from the line.
I can hardly wait to see Irving, Brown, Hayward, Tatum, and Horford together.
-
Irving , Morris , Hayward .> IT , AB , Crowder
Sure. And IT, Hayward, Crowder, Zizic, BRK 18 > Irving + Hayward
Don't agree. I think Crowder was notably worthless to our team due to the fact that his position was redundant. We should have and might have been able to get a bit more in terms of return, but this trade is just not that bad.
Also, just so that we know what we were bidding against:
Milwaukee supposedly offered Brogdon, Middleton, and a 1st.
-
I think people should view this trade like they viewed the AB trade. It's not exactly a swap for just raw talent, there were salary cap implications taken into consideration. Crowder and Zizic were salary filler as far as I'm concerned. Zicic won't be an integral part of a Celtics or Cavs title run, and this team has Tatum, Brown, Nader, Semi, etc. who can all fill the role of Jae Crowder. (And we all want to see the young guys develop).
The 2018 pick is compensation for the Cavs taking back a player that's injured, older, and expiring. The C's cashed in on 3 of the 4 Nets picks. Young, Brown and Tatum were drafted, and the last one was used to acquire a 25 year old 4x All-Star widely revered as a top 10 PG, arguably top 3 in the East, with a championship under his belt.
This trade was good for both sides.
Edit: Gave it a B
-
Getting a D+ from me. A bad trade where we gave up too much, but an F implies we got nothing good back in return, which is incorrect.
-
We get superstar and people give an F? Unbelievable. That nets pick could be a Bennett type flop. IT wasn't going to get a max from us
-
And here is what Irving did to us in the playoffs...
62% from the field, 50% from the three, and 90% from the line.
So we add Irving, who in some areas had worse defensive numbers than Isaiah, so another guard can do that to us all over again?
-
We get superstar and people give an F? Unbelievable. That nets pick could be a Bennett type flop. IT wasn't going to get a max from us
The Nets pick could also be #6 or thereabout. And Thomas might miss half of the season with his hip issue. But people don't really see the question marks.
-
We get superstar and people give an F? Unbelievable. That nets pick could be a Bennett type flop. IT wasn't going to get a max from us
The Nets pick could also be #6 or thereabout. And Thomas might miss half of the season with his hip issue. But people don't really see the question marks.
exactly. The nets have the 7th hardest strength of schedule. Its hard but not top 5 hardest. Pick 6 through 10 are not out of the question for the nets
-
It's the least exciting answer possible but I have to give it an incomplete. Too many question marks, mainly IT's hip, what Brad gets out of Kyrie, where the BRK pick winds up and who we could've gotten there.
But overall, I understand the logic but am modestly pessimistic about it. I think Danny gave up so much precisely because Kyrie over IT made so much sense on paper. But I don't feel like we were in a bidding war with anyone, I feel like we just basically met their price, which is frustrating. IT or the BRK pick makes sense, Crowder on top is tough but understandable, but both and throwing in Zizic to boot - leaves a bad taste in my mouth.
Still, gonna be an exciting year! Counterfactuals all around!!
-
If the Brooklyn pick wasn't included, I would have gave a B+. If it was the Lakers/Kings pick, a B-. Any other pick (or none at all) would get a B+.
But to include that pick was crazy. C is my grade. Yeah we may have gotten the best player, but we sure gave up a ton of value for him.
-
Irving , Morris , Hayward .> IT , AB , Crowder
Sure. And IT, Hayward, Crowder, Zizic, BRK 18 > Irving + Hayward
/thread
Only way Boston looks good here is if Kyrie Irving hits another level and becomes a perennial MVP type for us. He probably needs to do what Westbrook did last year.
-
C-
Absolutely HATE that we gave up a BKN pick unprotected. Really does my head in.
Other than that it'd probably be a B+ / A-
It'll be interesting since we've barely seen Kyrie play as the legit number #1 option (sure he did early on, but he was a kid back then)
-
C
One of the reasons the Celtics were so successful this year was because of the depth of their bench. It's likely Danny will find losing Crowder is bigger than he thought. You know there's going to be at least one key injury during the year. That back up help will be needed.
Even though Zizic won't be a star, he would have added some strength to their anemic front court. My guess is that he'll be more of a contributor than Yabuseli.
I'm okay with trading Isaiah for Kryie. I dreaded the thought of Isaiah trying to make things happen in the later rounds of a playoff series. His lack of height can sometimes be frustrating. That's a big plus for me. Thus, Danny's off-season efforts to increase average player height is commendable. If he wants a smaller, spark-plug type player maybe he can find a height challenged player in the D-League with skills similar to Isaiah.
The worst part of the deal was losing the Nets pick. What was Danny thinking? It seems this is the kind of deal Danny would have made if he were the GM of the Cavaliers, not the Celtics. He should have held out. I'm disappointed. If the Nets pick turns out to the number 1, then this could end up being the worst trade in Celtics history.
A few years ago Danny made a trade for Zeller that helped Cleveland make the NBA Finals. I believe he did something similar for the Pistons. Looks like Danny might up to his old tricks. Let's hope not.
My feeling is that unless the youngsters are ready to contribute the Celtics are going to struggle. On the other hand getting a player of Kyrie's ability is a once in a decade occurrence.
-
I really don't understand the critics. Ok: i'm so sad we lost IT, loyal player and all you know about him (who also complained about brad stevens after a loss). But we can grade the trade simply as as swap. We would have lost IT after this season... or choose to max a soon to be 29 year old player. We cannot forget his defense is a problem for us in the playoff, not his fault, but it is.
We take irving. I don t have to describe him
Crowder and Zizic are not important pieces come on... bkn pick is the only real chip here. I prefer a 25 year old star than that pick.
I m just feeling like i ve betrayed IT... this is the only think make me sick
-
It's a A+ if not for the love with IT and feel sorry for him, so it's A-
-
B-/B
-
Irving , Morris , Hayward .> IT , AB , Crowder
Sure. And IT, Hayward, Crowder, Zizic, BRK 18 > Irving + Hayward
Don't agree. I think Crowder was notably worthless to our team due to the fact that his position was redundant. We should have and might have been able to get a bit more in terms of return, but this trade is just not that bad.
Also, just so that we know what we were bidding against:
Milwaukee supposedly offered Brogdon, Middleton, and a 1st.
Absolutely no reason to give up the Nets pick if that's what we were bidding against.
Trade seems worse and worse the more I think about it. Just terrible..
-
If he wants a smaller, spark-plug type player maybe he can find a height challenged player in the D-League with skills similar to Isaiah.
(https://pics.me.me/um-image-courtesy-of-vn-design-fo-ndsgn-guard-mpg-28-5-25787486.png)
-
A
The Celtics got the best player in the deal, and virtually the only sure thing. If you're going to trade for arguably a top 10 player in the league, who has two years or more remaining on his contract, then you have to overpay. Although I'm not so sure that the Celtics did overpay. Even before Isaiah's hip injury, I was very reluctant to see the Celtics give him a max deal. I would have liked to keep Crowder and Zizic, but there's that little issue of matching salaries in the trade. Unfortunately, the Celtics had so few players that could be traded to match salaries, unless fans would have rather seen Smart, Brown, or Tatum used instead. Losing the Nets pick hurts, but you need a blue chip asset to get a player of Irving's caliber.
Speaking of the Nets pick, I'm not so sure it's a lock of being a top 3 pick after the offseason they had. I also think we're forgetting how the draft workouts have gone the past two drafts. Can you imagine the frustration of possibly having 2 top 5 picks next year, and no one wanting to participate in a Celtics workout? Yes it would have been a nice problem to have, but based on the past two drafts and how they improved this offseason, the issue will only be worse next year. Besides, Danny finally found a trade partner willing to trade a star player for only one of those blue chips, where as everyone else seemed to have wanted two.
-
A - for now but we really won't know for a couple of years. They're projecting Irving to become one of the best players in the league - and if that happens you do whatever it takes to get him because the opportunities to get that type of player are few and far between.
But it still bothers me that they got rid of IT to do it. They overpaid - but you also probably need to overpay to trade for a top 5 player in the league - he's not there yet but hopefully will be.
I'm not doing cartwheels over this but at some point Danny needed to make some hard decisions in order to elevate a good team with zero chance of winning it all to one that's capable of winning it all - unless they wanted to sit back and hope they got real lucky in the draft.
Horford's age (and IT's age while they had him) worked against that approach. The cards have been played - now we'll have to see whether it worked.
-
Incomplete.
-
Incomplete seems to be the only rational grade. We simply won't know until Isaiah returns (or doesn't) and until what the Brooklyn record projects to be after a sizable sample. We do know that Kyrie will be an offensive force, so I agree that if we were to prematurely grade the trade based only on what we know for certain, then we won.
-
Incomplete.
Impossible to draw any other conclusions at the moment.
-
We get superstar and people give an F? Unbelievable. That nets pick could be a Bennett type flop. IT wasn't going to get a max from us
The Nets pick could also be #6 or thereabout. And Thomas might miss half of the season with his hip issue. But people don't really see the question marks.
Agreed. People giving F's are over reacting to a draft pick. For the last few years people have been wanting DA to trade the picks for a legit star, now that he has they only wanted him to trade those for KD or AD type player. Those tier type players are going to cost a lot more than that.
From a Wojo interview rumor has it IT hasn't even started to run yet. A few weeks from training camp and he's not even running, let alone playing with some contact. He could miss a couple months at this point. Now I love IT and what he did last season, but I think a lot of the backlash is from his playoff performance. He was in God mode playing threw what he did unlit his hip did him in. And thats what we love.
BUT he had two good season with Boston in a system that was built for him, he's going to be 29 in Feb putting him at 33/34 at the end of his next contract making 25-30 mill a year. And he's taken a beating over the last couple years. And we don't see many guys under 6 feet play at high levels past 30.
Also a few months ago, before the play offs, there was the IT to LA rumors. Still could happen people. Especially when you factor PG13/IT All-Star stuff and after we didn't get PG13, this is a big possibility. And now that He's playing with LeBron, and his LA rumors, I wouldn't be surprised if we saw all three end up there. Lebron would have to take a pay cut, but he makes something like 50 mill in endorsements, I think he'll be okay. I expect IT to end up in Cali some wheres getting his payday next season.
With Crowder, he was so up and down last season it was painful. I mean at times some of us were wishing Brown was starting over him. And he was awful in the playoffs, and not good against LEbron. Brown was better, and now with Morris, Lebron will have it a little tougher against us. And was done with the Twitter B$##$#ing fest every time some one rubbed him the wrong way. Grow up!
Zizic...Well if this was 15 to 20 years ago maybe we could be really mad about that. But he was slow in summer league, and I get he may have been tired from his euro season, and he showed flashed of being good, he just lacked something that seemed not to fit in a fast pace system.
And the Nets pick. Who knows. We got lucky this year, but the East got bad, and most of the bad teams will be looking to tank, and the Nets will look to make the playoffs this year. Why? Why not, they have no reason to tank and they got a little better. LA's pick may be the one to keep, tougher schedule, tougher conference, might get lucky with that one. Anything top 5 should be decent, but who know could also be bust.
Irving is a great player. He's been playing behind Lebron doing what Lebron wants. Now he has a chance to play with unselfish players, and play for a REAL coach who has up just about everyones game that has walked threw the doors. People forget that if it wasn't for Irving the Cavs lose that championship. He kept the boat a float and could have been MVP. And Lebron gave little to no respect to that. No wonder he wanted out. It was all about LEbron and winning in Cleveland. I wouldn't want to talk to him or the people who were on their knees around him either.
Oh yeah, he just turned 25. Give him an extension, he's 30/31 at the end of it, Hayward is 32ish, and Brown and Tatum will be 25 and 24 and hopefully ready to take over. Potentially this gives the C's a better window to being dominate over the next 8 to 10 years.
-
Lol this poll is ALL OVER the place.
Meanwhile, most of Cleveland is celebrating the deal giving it mostly 'A' grades... :(
-
From a Wojo interview rumor has it IT hasn't even started to run yet. A few weeks from training camp and he's not even running, let alone playing with some contact. He could miss a couple months at this point.
And then when he does return he could still be bothered by the hip and be a subpar version of himself. What we might have traded is a half season of hobbled, inefficient volume scoring.
-
Lol this poll is ALL OVER the place.
Meanwhile, most of Cleveland is celebrating the deal giving it mostly 'A' grades... :(
From the Cavs perspective, it is an easy A. Compared to the other recent star trades they got a bonanza for a player who demanded to be traded. If they let it drag on they weren't going to get a better offer and it might have dragged into the season. If anything the trade increases the chance that Lebron stays. The Cavs went from a tough situation with little flexibility to a team with options.
If IT is healthy, he's not a significant drop off from Irving. Him being 3 years older doesn't really matter considering Lebron's timeline. Crowder may have been superfluous to us but he's a significant addition for them. He'll be able to take some of the defensive load from Lebron. If things are going well, they could look to flip the Nets pick for more star power.
Worse case. IT isn't healthy so they let him walk. Lebron leaves. They can trade Love and Crowder for picks. With the Nets pick that gives them a good start on a rebuild. Maybe Zizic even turns into an NBA player.
-
This trade, barring a top 3 pick, is hands down in Boston's favor! Irving is going to grow as a player while IT will go down hill and not in a year or two. We got the better player in the deal and while Crowder is a nice player he can be replaced.
If the pick works into a franchise player then yeah we may have lost the trade but the odds are against that. I think Irving is a fantastic player and he will become even better in Celtics green. It seems like every time there is a good player, picks and other players traded that everyone thinks the team who got the one very good player got fleeced. Funny thing is every NBA fan knows that it takes superstars to win. We got the better end of the deal. I went with A+.
-
Most here give it a solid A-B range grade.
But there are also a good number of C's and F's here LOL.
-
well....there are holders on to the IT dream ...its over ....
Crowder has been unhappy
I hate losing the Nets pick and Zizic
Given ITs highly questional future
Its a heck of a deal for Cavs ...compared to their other offers ..not dreamed up offers rumored
Boston takes advantage of Cavs misfortunes.....too BAD cavs fans .....not our fault Irving wants out .....your getting more than you should expect already .
Boston grade B+
Cavs ....A. ....considering what Pacers got ....Cavs hit the jackpot.
-
well....there are holders on to the IT dream ...its over ....
Crowder has been unhappy
I hate losing the Nets pick and Zizic
Given ITs highly questional future
Its a heck of a deal for Cavs ...compared to their other offers ..not dreamed up offers rumored
Boston takes advantage of Cavs misfortunes.....too BAD cavs fans .....not our fault Irving wants out .....your getting more than you should expect already .
Boston grade B+
Cavs ....A. ....considering what Pacers got ....Cavs hit the jackpot.
that sounds fair. it was a win-win for both teams.
-
Since we've learned just how bad Isaiah's hip is, I'm re-rating the trade as an A for us.
-
As the OP here, I originally gave it a C - / C, now I think I'll push it to B- range now. ;D
A LOT depends on how Isaiah does for CLE when he returns (which reports now sound optimistic it could be earlier than expected).
-
10 games into the season, with a big game (that IT has had 30 of) against the Hawks? Give that man his money! We the team to beat!
A++
-
A+....we'd be 11-0 with Hayward.
-
As the OP here, I originally gave it a C - / C, now I think I'll push it to B- range now. ;D
A LOT depends on how Isaiah does for CLE when he returns (which reports now sound optimistic it could be earlier than expected).
Or when our team doctors thought it could be.
-
Fun to go back and read people's initial reactions. A lot to be determined by that pick still.
That pick is going to have to produce one heck of a player.
-
10 games into the season, with a big game (that IT has had 30 of) against the Hawks? Give that man his money! We the team to beat!
A++
Your sarcasm really only points out you have nothing to stand on.
You think people like me are just excited because he scored 35?
No, it is because he has shown he isn't as easy to knock off his game as IT was, and is younger, taller, and a better passer, defender, and arguably, shooter.
He has come out and played great team ball.
But hey you continue act like one of those dudes who insisted IT was just a sixth man. That is exactly what you sound like.
-
So glad we got rid of IT.
Giving him a max contract would have been a disaster.
And here is what Irving did to us in the playoffs...
62% from the field, 50% from the three, and 90% from the line.
I can hardly wait to see Irving, Brown, Hayward, Tatum, and Horford together.
Nice.
-
10 games into the season, with a big game (that IT has had 30 of) against the Hawks? Give that man his money! We the team to beat!
A++
Your sarcasm really only points out you have nothing to stand on.
You think people like me are just excited because he scored 35?
No, it is because he has shown he isn't as easy to knock off his game as IT was, and is younger, taller, and a better passer, defender, and arguably, shooter.
He has come out and played great team ball.
But hey you continue act like one of those dudes who insisted IT was just a sixth man. That is exactly what you sound like.
You can't back that up with any evidence.
I want Kyrie to prove he can carry this team the way IT did, and with the benefit of far more weapons at his disposal. And to stop wearing mittens during post-game interviews.
You're emotions are clouding your perception of what I'm actually saying. I've literally said in several threads that he has played great team ball. In general, I continue to give Kyrie the benefit of the doubt as the better prospect, yet you somehow keep suggesting that I believe otherwise.
-
10 games into the season, with a big game (that IT has had 30 of) against the Hawks? Give that man his money! We the team to beat!
A++
Your sarcasm really only points out you have nothing to stand on.
You think people like me are just excited because he scored 35?
No, it is because he has shown he isn't as easy to knock off his game as IT was, and is younger, taller, and a better passer, defender, and arguably, shooter.
He has come out and played great team ball.
But hey you continue act like one of those dudes who insisted IT was just a sixth man. That is exactly what you sound like.
You can't back that up with any evidence.
I want Kyrie to prove he can carry this team the way IT did, and with the benefit of far more weapons at his disposal. And to stop wearing mittens during post-game interviews.
You're emotions are clouding your perception of what I'm actually saying. I've literally said in several threads that he has played great team ball. In general, I continue to give Kyrie the benefit of the doubt as the better prospect, yet you somehow keep suggesting that I believe otherwise.
Your derision of people who absolutely love Kyrie is evident in your original lost I quoted.
Come on now.
You sound EXACTLY like people who kept finding ways to down play what IT was doing.
-
10 games into the season, with a big game (that IT has had 30 of) against the Hawks? Give that man his money! We the team to beat!
A++
Your sarcasm really only points out you have nothing to stand on.
You think people like me are just excited because he scored 35?
No, it is because he has shown he isn't as easy to knock off his game as IT was, and is younger, taller, and a better passer, defender, and arguably, shooter.
He has come out and played great team ball.
But hey you continue act like one of those dudes who insisted IT was just a sixth man. That is exactly what you sound like.
You can't back that up with any evidence.
I want Kyrie to prove he can carry this team the way IT did, and with the benefit of far more weapons at his disposal. And to stop wearing mittens during post-game interviews.
You're emotions are clouding your perception of what I'm actually saying. I've literally said in several threads that he has played great team ball. In general, I continue to give Kyrie the benefit of the doubt as the better prospect, yet you somehow keep suggesting that I believe otherwise.
this is from like the day after the IT trade:
Can't hate on Ainge today. Sick move. Gotta start Thomas.
lets keep these attacks grounded in facts
-
10 games into the season, with a big game (that IT has had 30 of) against the Hawks? Give that man his money! We the team to beat!
A++
Your sarcasm really only points out you have nothing to stand on.
You think people like me are just excited because he scored 35?
No, it is because he has shown he isn't as easy to knock off his game as IT was, and is younger, taller, and a better passer, defender, and arguably, shooter.
He has come out and played great team ball.
But hey you continue act like one of those dudes who insisted IT was just a sixth man. That is exactly what you sound like.
You can't back that up with any evidence.
I want Kyrie to prove he can carry this team the way IT did, and with the benefit of far more weapons at his disposal. And to stop wearing mittens during post-game interviews.
You're emotions are clouding your perception of what I'm actually saying. I've literally said in several threads that he has played great team ball. In general, I continue to give Kyrie the benefit of the doubt as the better prospect, yet you somehow keep suggesting that I believe otherwise.
this is from like the day after the IT trade:
Can't hate on Ainge today. Sick move. Gotta start Thomas.
lets keep these attacks grounded in facts
This us going right over your head.
I am comparing you to the people who doubted IT, reasonably at first, and then continued to, irrationally.
If you gave Kyrie the same benefit of the doubt you gave IT, you would not have so many sarcastic and condescending remarks about Kyrie.
-
10 games into the season, with a big game (that IT has had 30 of) against the Hawks? Give that man his money! We the team to beat!
A++
Your sarcasm really only points out you have nothing to stand on.
You think people like me are just excited because he scored 35?
No, it is because he has shown he isn't as easy to knock off his game as IT was, and is younger, taller, and a better passer, defender, and arguably, shooter.
He has come out and played great team ball.
But hey you continue act like one of those dudes who insisted IT was just a sixth man. That is exactly what you sound like.
You can't back that up with any evidence.
I want Kyrie to prove he can carry this team the way IT did, and with the benefit of far more weapons at his disposal. And to stop wearing mittens during post-game interviews.
You're emotions are clouding your perception of what I'm actually saying. I've literally said in several threads that he has played great team ball. In general, I continue to give Kyrie the benefit of the doubt as the better prospect, yet you somehow keep suggesting that I believe otherwise.
this is from like the day after the IT trade:
Can't hate on Ainge today. Sick move. Gotta start Thomas.
lets keep these attacks grounded in facts
This us going right over your head.
I am comparing you to the people who doubted IT, reasonably at first, and then continued to, irrationally.
If you gave Kyrie the same benefit of the doubt you gave IT, you would not have so many sarcastic and condescending remarks about Kyrie.
The fact that other people were wrong about 1 player 2 years ago doesnt make Tarheels wrong about a different one today.
-
10 games into the season, with a big game (that IT has had 30 of) against the Hawks? Give that man his money! We the team to beat!
A++
Your sarcasm really only points out you have nothing to stand on.
You think people like me are just excited because he scored 35?
No, it is because he has shown he isn't as easy to knock off his game as IT was, and is younger, taller, and a better passer, defender, and arguably, shooter.
He has come out and played great team ball.
But hey you continue act like one of those dudes who insisted IT was just a sixth man. That is exactly what you sound like.
You can't back that up with any evidence.
I want Kyrie to prove he can carry this team the way IT did, and with the benefit of far more weapons at his disposal. And to stop wearing mittens during post-game interviews.
You're emotions are clouding your perception of what I'm actually saying. I've literally said in several threads that he has played great team ball. In general, I continue to give Kyrie the benefit of the doubt as the better prospect, yet you somehow keep suggesting that I believe otherwise.
this is from like the day after the IT trade:
Can't hate on Ainge today. Sick move. Gotta start Thomas.
lets keep these attacks grounded in facts
This us going right over your head.
I am comparing you to the people who doubted IT, reasonably at first, and then continued to, irrationally.
If you gave Kyrie the same benefit of the doubt you gave IT, you would not have so many sarcastic and condescending remarks about Kyrie.
The fact that other people were wrong about 1 player 2 years ago doesnt make Tarheels wrong about a different one today.
Never said it did.
Just letting him know how he comes across, like someone who never did just accept IT for his skill (even though he did).
-
I still think it’s too early to grade.
Kyrie has looked excellent thus far, and they have looked very impressive since that understandable 0-2 start.
We need to see if Kyrie can keep this up (him and Horford look tailor-made for each other), how Isaiah is when he returns, and what that Brooklyn pick lands.
Just like theNsts trade took a few years to become the most lopsided trade ever, this should take a year to figure out. Early returns are encouraging, but if Isaiah comes back the All-NBA talent he was pre-injury and that pick comes up top-3, that’s tough to swallow, even for a guy of Kyrie’s caliber.
I’m already a believer in the deal. I was against it from the start but Kyrie is definitely winning me over. It’s a shame we have to wait so long to see Irving-Hayward-Horford (and Tatum!) together.
-
10 games into the season, with a big game (that IT has had 30 of) against the Hawks? Give that man his money! We the team to beat!
A++
Your sarcasm really only points out you have nothing to stand on.
You think people like me are just excited because he scored 35?
No, it is because he has shown he isn't as easy to knock off his game as IT was, and is younger, taller, and a better passer, defender, and arguably, shooter.
He has come out and played great team ball.
But hey you continue act like one of those dudes who insisted IT was just a sixth man. That is exactly what you sound like.
You can't back that up with any evidence.
I want Kyrie to prove he can carry this team the way IT did, and with the benefit of far more weapons at his disposal. And to stop wearing mittens during post-game interviews.
You're emotions are clouding your perception of what I'm actually saying. I've literally said in several threads that he has played great team ball. In general, I continue to give Kyrie the benefit of the doubt as the better prospect, yet you somehow keep suggesting that I believe otherwise.
this is from like the day after the IT trade:
Can't hate on Ainge today. Sick move. Gotta start Thomas.
lets keep these attacks grounded in facts
This us going right over your head.
I am comparing you to the people who doubted IT, reasonably at first, and then continued to, irrationally.
If you gave Kyrie the same benefit of the doubt you gave IT, you would not have so many sarcastic and condescending remarks about Kyrie.
The fact that other people were wrong about 1 player 2 years ago doesnt make Tarheels wrong about a different one today.
Never said it did.
Just letting him know how he comes across, like someone who never did just accept IT for his skill (even though he did).
I just want him to prove it. We Boston fans have obnoxiously high standards, myself included. I want to like the guy, and ultimately I'm sure I will. He's even better than I thought he was. But again, he has a long way to go to meet the standards a lot of posters here are holding him to. We did overpay in the trade, and IT was a monster in Boston.
-
To all the people who think they know better than Ainge, just remember that it was HIS acquired assets that were dealt in the first place. He got BRK18, crowder and IT. For dirt cheap: Marcus Thornton, Retired Rondo, Retired Jason Terry. You don't really have much to stand on talking about the 2nd part if you loved the first part.
Kyrie is worth every penny. The deal is an A+. All Ainge deals have been A+.
-
Originally, I gave the deal a C/C-. At this point, I've submitted it for regrading and gotten a reply of, "Now we know why DA is the GM and you aren't."
Mike
-
Originally, I gave the deal a C/C-. At this point, I've submitted it for regrading and gotten a reply of, "Now we know why DA is the GM and you aren't."
Mike
Your humility is refreshing on this blog. TP.
-
We traded someone with a severe injury for an NBA champion who might have the best handle in the league. Ante Zizic is averaging 4 mpg while Tristan Thompson is injured. Jae Crowder isn't a starting 4, Jayson Tatum is... Through 1/8th of the season we have at least won this trade.
-
I gave it an A/A- originally. Feel pretty good about that now
-
A
solved the what to do with IT issue . Which i ll bet my house he was never getting no max from DA period . So ....most likely he was leaving anyway to get paid . Problem solved . We got a replacment I bet 30 of 30 GMs would take Kyrie over IT , given a choice.
Keeping bad leg IT and with Gordon down ....total bummer year . With Kyrie we still make some noise and train the rookies .
Snagged one ofthe most dynamic point guards in the NBA....rare ....at Kyries age.....yeah I like a few other guard as well , but nobody is trading Harden , Westbrook , Lillard , or Wall . And Cavs would not either, if he did not want out. Thanks LeBron !
Unless the nets pick is a top three , I think we won hands down.
-
Originally, I gave the deal a C/C-. At this point, I've submitted it for regrading and gotten a reply of, "Now we know why DA is the GM and you aren't."
Mike
I feel that way about the Fultz/Tatum trade now.
Fultz is just a hot mess right now, and I'm starting to think it's more than just his injury...
-
Originally, I gave the deal a C/C-. At this point, I've submitted it for regrading and gotten a reply of, "Now we know why DA is the GM and you aren't."
Mike
I feel that way about the Fultz/Tatum trade now.
Fultz is just a hot mess right now, and I'm starting to think it's more than just his injury...
Yeah, I’m conceding I was wrong on the Fultz deal as well.
I’m happy with how Kyrie has played, but I still think we paid through the nose for him. But, it depends upon how IT plays, and where the BRK pick falls.
-
A+ 8)
-
Originally, I gave the deal a C/C-. At this point, I've submitted it for regrading and gotten a reply of, "Now we know why DA is the GM and you aren't."
Mike
I feel that way about the Fultz/Tatum trade now.
Fultz is just a hot mess right now, and I'm starting to think it's more than just his injury...
Yeah, I’m conceding I was wrong on the Fultz deal as well.
I’m happy with how Kyrie has played, but I still think we paid through the nose for him. But, it depends upon how IT plays, and where the BRK pick falls.
Yep, my thoughts exact on everything you said.
-
Originally, I gave the deal a C/C-. At this point, I've submitted it for regrading and gotten a reply of, "Now we know why DA is the GM and you aren't."
Mike
I feel that way about the Fultz/Tatum trade now.
Fultz is just a hot mess right now, and I'm starting to think it's more than just his injury...
Yeah, I’m conceding I was wrong on the Fultz deal as well.
I’m happy with how Kyrie has played, but I still think we paid through the nose for him. But, it depends upon how IT plays, and where the BRK pick falls.
Yep, my thoughts exact on everything you said.
I concur on the KI-IT trade. Kyrie has been better than expected, especially on D, but that Brooklyn pick will still be a mid-to-high lottery pick. awfully high priced asset to include with IT, Crowder and Zizic to get it done.
throw in the consideration for how much every good/great player was traded for in the offseason and now with Bledsoe during the season, I can't help but still feel Danny really overpaid.
-
I didnt vote but I would have originally said what alot of us said.. Overpay - wanted to keep the pick.. Sidewise move - blah blah blah..
I was wrong about IT vs KI - KI is better hands down... Its more than scoring - its this Swag that this team has.. You can tell the team Respects KI because he has seen the promised land.. You can tell that they truly believe they can win.. KI just brings something different.. He is a Star.. Not an Awesome 4th Qtr Scorer but a Star.. And right now he is playing like one of the best players in the league..
Being led by IT I always thought we were a gritty feisty team with a huge chip on our shoulder.. but we were paper champions who only gave the GS Trouble (minus Durant)
This year, I feel like we are walking like real champions.. with 2 players under 21 in the starting line up.. I know we arent winning it this year.. But We still feel like a great team..
I never believed we were a great Team with IT.. Just a team with a great player.
It doesnt matter what IT does when he comes back nor the Draft pick.. we have enough Talent when Gordon comes back to win it all.. Tatum will special, Brown is darn good and KI is one of the best to ever do it.. And we are getting a high pick.. We have enough.
-
Kyrie Irving has the "goods". You have to give this trade an A grade as of today. I know there are doubters but the Celtics went from a mediocre defense last year to the #1 defense in the NBA today. He also has shown us that he can carry the team when need be and we're riding a 9 game winning streak thanks in large part to Kyrie's efforts.
Those who feared KI might be a ball stopping ball hog, well that has been so far from the truth, I feel your fears can be allayed. He has really bought in and made a lot of great, unselfish passes on this run that have helped this offense. A big beneficiary of these passes have been Al Horford and Jayson Tatum, just to name a couple, who have been lighting it up from 3, 47% and 52% respectively, thanks to receiving wide open looks from Kyrie.
-
Alot of the initial thoughts remind me alot of when Jaylen was picked and people where saying why take this guy he cant shoot blah blah. We have Crowder. We have AB.
Its kinda a classic case of overvaluing the guys that we had. Once again Crowder was elevated to a position where people thought we shouldnt get rid of him. He had a ton of value but ignored his performance vs elite teams and players. Decent player but not one that the team couldnt do without.
IT was very good even great at times but going into that series last year I dont know how many people would say that we for sure had the 2nd best player in the series.
And lets also be honest here. The attention that Kyrie draws and his ability to see over defenses has been huge for this team. He can make passes that IT couldnt and its created great opportunities for lets also be honest much better players than IT played with.
I graded this trade on a player for player/pick basis of a B+/ A- only because of the outside chance of the Nets actually giving the Cavs a top 5 pick. Overall I gave this trade an A++ because I thought Crowder's contract was too long and I didnt want Tatum to sit behind Crowder for 2 or 3 years. I wanted Brown to get time and opportunity. The trade opened up that opportunity and Im loving the results. If you say we could have played Crowder next to Brown and Tatum after Hayward got hurt that's fine but I would counter that I would rather play Baynes both on O and D because he providers a greater element to their O and D than Crowder.
Anyways, I loved the upside of having Irving then and Im even more in love with that idea now.
-
Originally, I gave the deal a C/C-. At this point, I've submitted it for regrading and gotten a reply of, "Now we know why DA is the GM and you aren't."
Mike
I feel that way about the Fultz/Tatum trade now.
Fultz is just a hot mess right now, and I'm starting to think it's more than just his injury...
Yeah, I’m conceding I was wrong on the Fultz deal as well.
I’m happy with how Kyrie has played, but I still think we paid through the nose for him. But, it depends upon how IT plays, and where the BRK pick falls.
Yep, my thoughts exact on everything you said.
I concur on the KI-IT trade. Kyrie has been better than expected, especially on D, but that Brooklyn pick will still be a mid-to-high lottery pick. awfully high priced asset to include with IT, Crowder and Zizic to get it done.
throw in the consideration for how much every good/great player was traded for in the offseason and now with Bledsoe during the season, I can't help but still feel Danny really overpaid.
Yeah, and you see George and Butler gone for essentially peanuts... the C's payed a grand price for Kyrie.
:(
-
A
-
A+, up from B rationally, F- emotionally when it happened.
-
It's an I.
It will remain an Incomplete until we find out a few things:
1. How Kyrie plays.
2. If Kyrie resigns in Boston.
3. If Kyrie can play consistently 70+ games per season and not be a distraction.
4. If IT's injury heals.
5. How IT plays once that injury heals.
6. How much IT resigns for.
7. How the Brooklyn pick works out.
8. If Zizic can play in the NBA.
Right now the trade could not be going better from a Boston perspective. Kyrie is playing well and seems to enjoy playing here. The team is winning. IT will be injured for longer than most anyone expected. Crowder isn't playing well. Zizic can't get off the bench in Cleveland. Brooklyn is 4-6 (FYI, this is the exact same record they had last year at this time). Right now Boston has gotten an All Star for an injured vet and a late lottery pick.
If all of those things remain as-is then I was wrong and the trade was a great deal. If the year ends with IT scoring 25 ppg, the Brooklyn pick in the top 2 and us losing before the NBA Finals then things would look substantially different. I've said all along that this was an awfully big roll of the dice on Danny's part. Just because it looks very favorable 10 games in doesn't mean that it will look that way by the end of the year. If we see Cleveland picking Marvin Bagley III next June, that's going to be a tough pill to swallow without an NBA Title in hand.
-
I thought IT if he stayed would have been given a max contract, because he earned it. But I had no idea that the injury was as serious as it is or that it could be career changing.
When the trade happened, I thought it was a massive overpay.
Not because of Zizic as I think too many people bought into the comment that he had top 10 player talent in this draft. He doesn't. He is slow and plodding and probably a dinosaur in today's game. Not because of Crowder as he had to go to match salary in some teade because Brown, Tatum and Hayward were his replacements. Not because of Isaiah because I thought Kyrie and IT wete a pretty even swap.
But because of the Brooklyn pick. But as I see that Kyrie is the better player, all around, than IT and that IT has a serious injury going forward, I now know something had to go Cleveland's way to make up for this. It had to be a high first rounder. I would have preferred giving up the LA/Sac pick but understand if it had to be the Brooklyn pick now.
-
A+, up from B rationally, F- emotionally when it happened.
LOL I was like "wait... they actually traded him??" when I first heard the news.
I thought the "reports" that they were discussing was just going to end in nothing again. Boy were we all wrong. :P
-
It's an I.
It will remain an Incomplete until we find out a few things:
1. How Kyrie plays.
2. If Kyrie resigns in Boston.
3. If Kyrie can play consistently 70+ games per season and not be a distraction.
4. If IT's injury heals.
5. How IT plays once that injury heals.
6. How much IT resigns for.
7. How the Brooklyn pick works out.
8. If Zizic can play in the NBA.
Right now the trade could not be going better from a Boston perspective. Kyrie is playing well and seems to enjoy playing here. The team is winning. IT will be injured for longer than most anyone expected. Crowder isn't playing well. Zizic can't get off the bench in Cleveland. Brooklyn is 4-6 (FYI, this is the exact same record they had last year at this time). Right now Boston has gotten an All Star for an injured vet and a late lottery pick.
If all of those things remain as-is then I was wrong and the trade was a great deal. If the year ends with IT scoring 25 ppg, the Brooklyn pick in the top 2 and us losing before the NBA Finals then things would look substantially different. I've said all along that this was an awfully big roll of the dice on Danny's part. Just because it looks very favorable 10 games in doesn't mean that it will look that way by the end of the year. If we see Cleveland picking Marvin Bagley III next June, that's going to be a tough pill to swallow without an NBA Title in hand.
TP. Well said. Agree with everything mentioned here.
I thought IT if he stayed would have been given a max contract, because he earned it. But I had no idea that the injury was as serious as it is or that it could be career changing.
When the trade happened, I thought it was a massive overpay.
Not because of Zizic as I think too many people bought into the comment that he had top 10 player talent in this draft. He doesn't. He is slow and plodding and probably a dinosaur in today's game. Not because of Crowder as he had to go to match salary in some teade because Brown, Tatum and Hayward were his replacements. Not because of Isaiah because I thought Kyrie and IT wete a pretty even swap.
But because of the Brooklyn pick. But as I see that Kyrie is the better player, all around, than IT and that IT has a serious injury going forward, I now know something had to go Cleveland's way to make up for this. It had to be a high first rounder. I would have preferred giving up the LA/Sac pick but understand if it had to be the Brooklyn pick now.
Yeah honestly I didn't know IT's injury was THAT bad until the trade happened, but I think general belief around here too was that he'd miss only 2-3 weeks at most then come back. Looks like it's actually 2-3 months at best... :o (or maybe more if his injury is even worse than thought)
And I thought it was ridiculous Ainge threw in Zizic as a "throw in" to this deal, as experts said in the most previous draft he would have probably gone Top-10, but it turns out Zizic was needed to match salaries and all...
-
Still an F, nothing has changed.
We're the worst kind of treadmill team. The kind which gives you hope.
And y'all hype victims.
-
Still an F, nothing has changed.
We're the worst kind of treadmill team. The kind which gives you hope.
And y'all hype victims.
Even if you want to give the trade a F, which I don't agree with, but it's not a concern here. I don't see how a team with two young prospects like Tatum and Brown, and another pick coming from either LA or Sac is a "treadmill team". That doesn't make sense.
Maybe Ainge did waste 1 pick, and some other mediocre assets. That doesn't change the fact the team still has a tone of room for growth with the young players we do have.
-
Still an F, nothing has changed.
We're the worst kind of treadmill team. The kind which gives you hope.
And y'all hype victims.
Even if you want to give the trade a F, which I don't agree with, but it's not a concern here. I don't see how a team with two young prospects like Tatum and Brown, and another pick coming from either LA or Sac is a "treadmill team". That doesn't make sense.
Maybe Ainge did waste 1 pick, and some other mediocre assets. That doesn't change the fact the team still has a tone of room for growth with the young players we do have.
Good luck talking sense when someone has such a negative outlook from the get go
-
Still an F, nothing has changed.
We're the worst kind of treadmill team. The kind which gives you hope.
And y'all hype victims.
TP for still saying that despite everything that is happening right now..
Pretty much the only things that has not gone our way so far is the Lakers winning a few games, Crowder being involved (but not culpable) in the Hayward injury, Tatum's shooting woes, and IT slinging mud.
Still, TP.
-
Still an F, nothing has changed.
We're the worst kind of treadmill team. The kind which gives you hope.
And y'all hype victims.
Huh??
So this team + healthy Hayward + Top-5 pick in either 2018 OR 2019 is still not a championship team a few years from now?
???
-
Still an F, nothing has changed.
We're the worst kind of treadmill team. The kind which gives you hope.
And y'all hype victims.
Thanks for the laugh buddy, I appreciate it.
Some people here just love to cry and complain about LITERALLY anything, and refuse to look at the positive outlook or silver lining.
Imagine if half the naysayers on this forum were Phoenix Suns fans... Jesus lol.
-
I think people should view this trade like they viewed the AB trade. It's not exactly a swap for just raw talent, there were salary cap implications taken into consideration. Crowder and Zizic were salary filler as far as I'm concerned. Zicic won't be an integral part of a Celtics or Cavs title run, and this team has Tatum, Brown, Nader, Semi, etc. who can all fill the role of Jae Crowder. (And we all want to see the young guys develop).
The 2018 pick is compensation for the Cavs taking back a player that's injured, older, and expiring. The C's cashed in on 3 of the 4 Nets picks. Young, Brown and Tatum were drafted, and the last one was used to acquire a 25 year old 4x All-Star widely revered as a top 10 PG, arguably top 3 in the East, with a championship under his belt.
This trade was good for both sides.
Edit: Gave it a B
I still feel the same way. Thought it was a good deal for both sides especially if Lebron and Thomas leave, that pick will help kick-start their rebuild. This is only an F if Kyrie leaves the team after his contract expires in my opinion.
-
Still an F, nothing has changed.
We're the worst kind of treadmill team. The kind which gives you hope.
And y'all hype victims.
Thanks for the laugh buddy, I appreciate it.
Some people here just love to cry and complain about LITERALLY anything, and refuse to look at the positive outlook or silver lining.
Imagine if half the naysayers on this forum were Phoenix Suns fans... Jesus lol.
They would tell you how the Suns have a brighter future than BOS b/c of all their youth, promising prospects (Bender > Brown! Jackson > Tatum), and good picks coming up! ::)
-
Still an Incomplete, IT hasn't played and the Brooklyn pick could be anywhere from 1-16 or so. Just TRY and knock me off this fence! Try it!
-
I dont get anyone who give a D or F here. You are basically saying, you thought IT could get you a title with Hayward in the next 2 maybe 3 years max AND you would rather that Crowder get 30 min a night instead of Tatum.
That's really how this boils down.
-
Right now, Irving may be the best PG in the NBA. He is the man on the Celtics-- a superstar.
Ainge gets an A+.
-
Viewing as a long-term investment I'd have to give it a B+, we still have years of all-star play by Kyrie. He'll be in his prime when Brown, Tatum, Rozier, and even Semi are moving into their prime.
Unfortunately, that Nets pick could produce a future star, other than that we unloaded a potentially overpaid, undersized, one trick pony, and middle of the road small forward.
With normal luck...the future is bright.
-
we unloaded a potentially overpaid, undersized, one trick pony,
Was the “one trick” playing basketball at an All-NBA level?
Whatever feelings somebody had about the trade, I still don’t understand the criticism of IT. He just had one of the best offensive seasons ever for a guard.
-
I give it a B+ because Kyrie is playing and IT is not. We have had a lot of factors like have helped us besides this matter. The growth of Brown, the coming of Tatum.
Both these young guys look up to Kyrie, folks. So it has some impact.
Thing about Kyrie is that he looks like he has no business getting off a shot. Seems to move slow but somehow it works for him. I do think IT was more dynamic.
-
we unloaded a potentially overpaid, undersized, one trick pony,
Was the “one trick” playing basketball at an All-NBA level?
Whatever feelings somebody had about the trade, I still don’t understand the criticism of IT. He just had one of the best offensive seasons ever for a guard.
This kind of thing annoys me (not you Roy). Just because you're happy with the trade doesn't mean you have to crap all over IT's game on the way out.
There are legitimate criticisms of IT (defence, putting himself in harms way too much), but calling him a one trick pony is pretty ridiculous.
I voted a C, but that was when I was still pretty riled up and not thinking straight. I'd give it an A- now
-
we unloaded a potentially overpaid, undersized, one trick pony,
Was the “one trick” playing basketball at an All-NBA level?
Whatever feelings somebody had about the trade, I still don’t understand the criticism of IT. He just had one of the best offensive seasons ever for a guard.
IT was awesome last year for the Celtics. There's no reason for Celtics fans to have anything but praise for IT's game. The guys tiny, yet played like a lion for Boston.
I think Danny knew his hip injury was serious. I also think that Danny was less optimistic on IT's future than you are.
If Danny thought IT was going to score 30ppg for the next 3 yrs, he might not have traded him.
-
we unloaded a potentially overpaid, undersized, one trick pony,
Was the “one trick” playing basketball at an All-NBA level?
Whatever feelings somebody had about the trade, I still don’t understand the criticism of IT. He just had one of the best offensive seasons ever for a guard.
As someone who loves the trade, and think Kyrie is clearly better, I fully agree with this post.
Not only was ITs season last year incredible on its own merits, some of those 4th quarters by him were just insane. Them everything he overcame on the playoffs, and the 53 point game.
This isn't even touching on how much he embraced Boston, and how much of a true Celtic he was.
While I am happy with how it ended up, I have an incredible amount of love and respect for Isaiah.
He will always be a Celtic in my eyes.
-
we unloaded a potentially overpaid, undersized, one trick pony,
Was the “one trick” playing basketball at an All-NBA level?
Whatever feelings somebody had about the trade, I still don’t understand the criticism of IT. He just had one of the best offensive seasons ever for a guard.
As someone who loves the trade, and think Kyrie is clearly better, I fully agree with this post.
Not only was ITs season last year incredible on its own merits, some of those 4th quarters by him were just insane. Them everything he overcame on the playoffs, and the 53 point game.
This isn't even touching on how much he embraced Boston, and how much of a true Celtic he was.
While I am happy with how it ended up, I have an incredible amount of love and respect for Isaiah.
He will always be a Celtic in my eyes.
Ditto and well said.
I can't imagine being disdainful towards IT. His season last year was not just great, it was historically great. He's been a great player for a while now and Ainge noticed some years ago.
I was against the trade due to wanting the Brooklyn pick in combination with not being ready to beat Golden State...and liked the idea of being loyal to IT while allowing Smart and Rozier to get better at PG...after all, Hayward is a bit of a point forward so I was ready to see lots of stuff run through Hayward, putting less pressure on Smart/Rozier. I thought Crowder could have been traded on his own for more assets of some kind, or towards a better big man.
Having seen the team this year, I think Danny should get an A. What Kyrie does he does fairly easily...that's a big deal for longevity, and playoff Kyrie should be something pretty special.
If Gordon were healthy, this team might be 11 and 0.
Agree with above, IT will always be a Celtic in my book. Great player. Great heart. Great dude.
-
I hate this thread.
It's just *you said B-, you said B-, you said B-"
-
we unloaded a potentially overpaid, undersized, one trick pony,
Was the “one trick” playing basketball at an All-NBA level?
Whatever feelings somebody had about the trade, I still don’t understand the criticism of IT. He just had one of the best offensive seasons ever for a guard.
It's almost disappointing to see how many people seemed to just dislike Isaiah in general.
I mean that post... "overpaid, one trick pony".. after the season he just had... :o ???
I appreciate everything Isaiah did for this organization and I do miss him (even if last year's team was full of overachievers, they still made it a fun season to watch still).
-
I hate this thread.
It's just *you said B-, you said B-, you said B-"
It is interesting to see how emotional people got. After thinking, some people came around. After watching, more people came around. It will take 5 years for some to come to a decision.
The way things are looking so far after only 11 games, I can see Kyrie signing an extension. For me, that will make this deal an A.
-
I hate this thread.
It's just *you said B-, you said B-, you said B-"
It is interesting to see how emotional people got. After thinking, some people came around. After watching, more people came around. It will take 5 years for some to come to a decision.
The way things are looking so far after only 11 games, I can see Kyrie signing an extension. For me, that will make this deal an A.
Lol it will look REALLY BAD for Ainge if Kyrie bolts in 2 years...
-
I hate this thread.
It's just *you said B-, you said B-, you said B-"
It is interesting to see how emotional people got. After thinking, some people came around. After watching, more people came around. It will take 5 years for some to come to a decision.
The way things are looking so far after only 11 games, I can see Kyrie signing an extension. For me, that will make this deal an A.
Lol it will look REALLY BAD for Ainge if Kyrie bolts in 2 years...
Woulda looked bad if IT had bolted. Might not look as bad if Kyrie wins a ring here first
-
I hate this thread.
It's just *you said B-, you said B-, you said B-"
It is interesting to see how emotional people got. After thinking, some people came around. After watching, more people came around. It will take 5 years for some to come to a decision.
The way things are looking so far after only 11 games, I can see Kyrie signing an extension. For me, that will make this deal an A.
Lol it will look REALLY BAD for Ainge if Kyrie bolts in 2 years...
Woulda looked bad if IT had bolted. Might not look as bad if Kyrie wins a ring here first
If we get a top-5 pick this year (sadly looks like a slim chance though) and a healthy Hayward back, I like our chances next year at Banner 18! 8)
-
I hate this thread.
It's just *you said B-, you said B-, you said B-"
I mean.. it's literally ALL OVER the place.. :P
-
I hate this thread.
It's just *you said B-, you said B-, you said B-"
It is interesting to see how emotional people got. After thinking, some people came around. After watching, more people came around. It will take 5 years for some to come to a decision.
The way things are looking so far after only 11 games, I can see Kyrie signing an extension. For me, that will make this deal an A.
I'd reckon the reason a ton of people have "come around" is because there is a precedent for it. At the time, a lot of people were disappointed with the BKN trade, and that sure worked out well. So, why wouldn't this one?
That's not always the best reason for making a decision or choosing an action, though. If every one relied on a precedent for X, the outcome would always be some variation of Y, and we would learn a lot less.
I don't even think people with strong opinions have actually watched much of Kyrie this year.
-
I hate this thread.
It's just *you said B-, you said B-, you said B-"
It is interesting to see how emotional people got. After thinking, some people came around. After watching, more people came around. It will take 5 years for some to come to a decision.
The way things are looking so far after only 11 games, I can see Kyrie signing an extension. For me, that will make this deal an A.
I'd reckon the reason a ton of people have "come around" is because there is a precedent for it. At the time, a lot of people were disappointed with the BKN trade, and that sure worked out well. So, why wouldn't this one?
That's not always the best reason for making a decision or choosing an action, though. If every one relied on a precedent for X, the outcome would always be some variation of Y, and we would learn a lot less.
I don't even think people with strong opinions have actually watched much of Kyrie this year.
If the LAL Pick doesn't convey but BKN Pick falls out of Top-5.. may not look so bad.
Yeah we wouldn't have a top pick but we'd still have a great chance at Top-3 in 2019 (Kings look REAL BAD).
-
I hate this thread.
It's just *you said B-, you said B-, you said B-"
It is interesting to see how emotional people got. After thinking, some people came around. After watching, more people came around. It will take 5 years for some to come to a decision.
The way things are looking so far after only 11 games, I can see Kyrie signing an extension. For me, that will make this deal an A.
I'd reckon the reason a ton of people have "come around" is because there is a precedent for it. At the time, a lot of people were disappointed with the BKN trade, and that sure worked out well. So, why wouldn't this one?
That's not always the best reason for making a decision or choosing an action, though. If every one relied on a precedent for X, the outcome would always be some variation of Y, and we would learn a lot less.
I don't even think people with strong opinions have actually watched much of Kyrie this year.
If the LAL Pick doesn't convey but BKN Pick falls out of Top-5.. may not look so bad.
Yeah we wouldn't have a top pick but we'd still have a great chance at Top-3 in 2019 (Kings look REAL BAD).
Any idea how the 2019 NBA draft is expected to be? I haven't seen much about it. It's a shame that Draft Express is done.
-
I hate this thread.
It's just *you said B-, you said B-, you said B-"
It is interesting to see how emotional people got. After thinking, some people came around. After watching, more people came around. It will take 5 years for some to come to a decision.
The way things are looking so far after only 11 games, I can see Kyrie signing an extension. For me, that will make this deal an A.
I'd reckon the reason a ton of people have "come around" is because there is a precedent for it. At the time, a lot of people were disappointed with the BKN trade, and that sure worked out well. So, why wouldn't this one?
That's not always the best reason for making a decision or choosing an action, though. If every one relied on a precedent for X, the outcome would always be some variation of Y, and we would learn a lot less.
I don't even think people with strong opinions have actually watched much of Kyrie this year.
If the LAL Pick doesn't convey but BKN Pick falls out of Top-5.. may not look so bad.
Yeah we wouldn't have a top pick but we'd still have a great chance at Top-3 in 2019 (Kings look REAL BAD).
Any idea how the 2019 NBA draft is expected to be? I haven't seen much about it. It's a shame that Draft Express is done.
Unfortunately idk either.
Sucks though because this draft is LOADED with potential franchise-changing big men... :(
But looks like we won't get the pick. Lakers look somewhat decent and other teams look worse...
-
I hate this thread.
It's just *you said B-, you said B-, you said B-"
It is interesting to see how emotional people got. After thinking, some people came around. After watching, more people came around. It will take 5 years for some to come to a decision.
The way things are looking so far after only 11 games, I can see Kyrie signing an extension. For me, that will make this deal an A.
I'd reckon the reason a ton of people have "come around" is because there is a precedent for it. At the time, a lot of people were disappointed with the BKN trade, and that sure worked out well. So, why wouldn't this one?
That's not always the best reason for making a decision or choosing an action, though. If every one relied on a precedent for X, the outcome would always be some variation of Y, and we would learn a lot less.
I don't even think people with strong opinions have actually watched much of Kyrie this year.
If the LAL Pick doesn't convey but BKN Pick falls out of Top-5.. may not look so bad.
Yeah we wouldn't have a top pick but we'd still have a great chance at Top-3 in 2019 (Kings look REAL BAD).
Any idea how the 2019 NBA draft is expected to be? I haven't seen much about it. It's a shame that Draft Express is done.
Unfortunately idk either.
Sucks though because this draft is LOADED with potential franchise-changing big men... :(
But looks like we won't get the pick. Lakers look somewhat decent and other teams look worse...
Yeah, I thought the Lakers were going to be terrible. It's disappointing how well they're playing. I would love a top 5 pick this next draft.
-
I hate this thread.
It's just *you said B-, you said B-, you said B-"
It is interesting to see how emotional people got. After thinking, some people came around. After watching, more people came around. It will take 5 years for some to come to a decision.
The way things are looking so far after only 11 games, I can see Kyrie signing an extension. For me, that will make this deal an A.
I'd reckon the reason a ton of people have "come around" is because there is a precedent for it. At the time, a lot of people were disappointed with the BKN trade, and that sure worked out well. So, why wouldn't this one?
That's not always the best reason for making a decision or choosing an action, though. If every one relied on a precedent for X, the outcome would always be some variation of Y, and we would learn a lot less.
I don't even think people with strong opinions have actually watched much of Kyrie this year.
If the LAL Pick doesn't convey but BKN Pick falls out of Top-5.. may not look so bad.
Yeah we wouldn't have a top pick but we'd still have a great chance at Top-3 in 2019 (Kings look REAL BAD).
Any idea how the 2019 NBA draft is expected to be? I haven't seen much about it. It's a shame that Draft Express is done.
Unfortunately idk either.
Sucks though because this draft is LOADED with potential franchise-changing big men... :(
But looks like we won't get the pick. Lakers look somewhat decent and other teams look worse...
Yeah, I thought the Lakers were going to be terrible. It's disappointing how well they're playing. I would love a top 5 pick this next draft.
It's also that there's just other (new) teams this year that are just downright awful.
I mean even Brooklyn actually looks pretty decent too this season.
Hawks, Bulls, Kings, Mavericks... horrible. :(
-
Grading trades is a media thing IMO. It's unclear what we are evaluating.
Irving's trade is one any GM would have done, it's a no-brainer really.
-
Grading trades is a media thing IMO. It's unclear what we are evaluating.
Irving's trade is one any GM would have done, it's a no-brainer really.
Yes, the funniest thing is when the pieces in a trade are picks (or 19 y/o players) that take 4/5 years to be consumed in the first place, without us having a clear idea where they might land, and then they grade it 15 minutes after the trade.
They can't predict how will, for example, Batum fit in Bobcats in 2015, (they didn't predict he will be operating the ball this much and that he will bring much less defensively than offensively) but they are presenting to know how the unknown pick that will select the unknown player to a, by then surely, unknown roster in an unknown league, that was totally different just 4 years ago.
Oh yea, teams can also trade the parts of that trade to make it even more of an unknown.
Ahh, the "experts".
Now, in the Internet era, we can't even wipe our behinds with their articles, to put some use into them.
-
Grading trades is a media thing IMO. It's unclear what we are evaluating.
Irving's trade is one any GM would have done, it's a no-brainer really.
Eh it was a ballsy trade by Ainge.
Not sure every single GM would pull off this particular trade if they viewed their pick(s) or young player as really valuable. Was a large package.
-
I originally had C/C-
Now I'll bump it to B/B-, although a lot depends on how Isaiah does when he comes back.
So far, Kyrie is averaging 24 PPG, 5 APG, 3 RPG on 50% shooting, 39% 3 pt. shooting.
Also playing like a Top-20 defender in the league according to most metrics/stats, if you're that kind of guy. ;D
Also, Jae Crowder looks LOST in Cleveland. Averaging 8/3 but has struggled in A LOT of the games. Goes to show what coaching/systems can do for a guy. Still rooting for him and hope he does well (except when he plays us, of course :P )
-
Right now I would give the trade a B. Given the fact Thomas wouldn't be playing for the Celtics yet, getting Irving saved the Celtics season at least so far. When Hayward went down I honestly thought the Celtics might not make the playoffs after going 0-2. I give Brad Stevens an A+ getting the team to stay focused after the Hayward injury.
It is going to be interesting when Hayward comes back...how does he fit in and will it change the team chemistry,
Still have my doubts the Celtics as is are better than the Cavs. In fact, how certain is it that the Celtics will make it back to the Eastern conference finals this year? Won't be easy. Celtics are 6-3 since the 16 game streak; will be interesting to see what their record will be at mid- season and beyond.
MikeB Celtcis fan for 50 years
-
Don't know why almost everyone hates this trade..Thomas going be a FA..Crowder is a sub..Zizic is a project..and brookyln pick may be a flop, or may might not b a top 3 pick..we got a top 15 playerwho may be here for a long time
I gave it an A when it happen..and I still do!!! Irving is showing why he's a top 15 player if not top 8
-
I gave the trade a B when it was made and I feel the same way. It was a lot to give up and tough to see Isaiah go but if the front office had an idea that Jae's best season was last year, the Brooklyn pick was likely to not be bottom 5 and they weren't interested in paying IT the money he will be demanding this summer then it was a shrewd move.
-
I voted D/D- but now I’d give it a B+. Wasn’t sure how Irving would fit in here (now playing like a top 10 superstar), and the Nets pick was at its peak value
For me it was all about the pick for Kyrie, didn’t care much about the rest of the trade (expiring contract not in long term plans w/ injury concerns + role player at a deep position + late 1st flier)
In hindsight the rumors about the Cavs wanting Tatum or Brown or LAL pick added on because of IT injury concerns...that asking price looks outrageous...can’t help but laugh
-
Still F-. ;)
But seriously, Kyrie looks great. His defense and leadership have been better than expected. That said, it’s toughto give the trade a final grade until we see how IT performs and where the BRK pick falls.
-
My main issue with the trade when it went down was the Brooklyn pick. I didn't understand why that had to be included (still don't) but with IT being a free agent I guess that is what it costs. That pick is looking more like 7-to-11 then 1-5 so on talent alone the trade ids at least a B.
-
Still F-. ;)
But seriously, Kyrie looks great. His defense and leadership have been better than expected. That said, it’s toughto give the trade a final grade until we see how IT performs and where the BRK pick falls.
Doesn't it matter that CLE resigns IT? I think that is a huge factor.
-
Still F-. ;)
But seriously, Kyrie looks great. His defense and leadership have been better than expected. That said, it’s toughto give the trade a final grade until we see how IT performs and where the BRK pick falls.
Doesn't it matter that CLE resigns IT? I think that is a huge factor.
It is, but say Isaiah leads them to a Finals win and he leaves. Then CLE would have won the trade.
-
Still F-. ;)
But seriously, Kyrie looks great. His defense and leadership have been better than expected. That said, it’s toughto give the trade a final grade until we see how IT performs and where the BRK pick falls.
Doesn't it matter that CLE resigns IT? I think that is a huge factor.
And also if Kyrie bolts in 2019.
-
Still F-. ;)
But seriously, Kyrie looks great. His defense and leadership have been better than expected. That said, it’s toughto give the trade a final grade until we see how IT performs and where the BRK pick falls.
Doesn't it matter that CLE resigns IT? I think that is a huge factor.
And also if Kyrie bolts in 2019.
This too^
-
Still F-. ;)
But seriously, Kyrie looks great. His defense and leadership have been better than expected. That said, it’s toughto give the trade a final grade until we see how IT performs and where the BRK pick falls.
Doesn't it matter that CLE resigns IT? I think that is a huge factor.
It is, but say Isaiah leads them to a Finals win and he leaves. Then CLE would have won the trade.
So even if we were to go on and win a championship or two with Kyrie, Cleveland won the trade if they win this year?
-
Still F-. ;)
But seriously, Kyrie looks great. His defense and leadership have been better than expected. That said, it’s toughto give the trade a final grade until we see how IT performs and where the BRK pick falls.
Doesn't it matter that CLE resigns IT? I think that is a huge factor.
It is, but say Isaiah leads them to a Finals win and he leaves. Then CLE would have won the trade.
So even if we were to go on and win a championship or two with Kyrie, Cleveland won the trade if they win this year?
Win-win.
-
Still F-. ;)
But seriously, Kyrie looks great. His defense and leadership have been better than expected. That said, it’s toughto give the trade a final grade until we see how IT performs and where the BRK pick falls.
Doesn't it matter that CLE resigns IT? I think that is a huge factor.
It is, but say Isaiah leads them to a Finals win and he leaves. Then CLE would have won the trade.
If the Cavs win the Finals, IT won’t have “led them” to the win. He might be a contributor, but LBJ is the best player on that team, even with a full-strength Isaiah, and it isn’t close.
You have to compare what the players do and how the pick lands. Right now, Boston is ahead (given that IT hasn’t played yet and JC’s replacements are significantly outplaying him, it’s pretty clear). We’ll see what happens. If KI keeps doing what he’s doing or improves a bit and IT is about 75% of last years version, and the Nets pick is high lottery, I call the trade for Boston whether Cleveland wins or not. Especially if KI’s performance goes up another notch next year and he’s on the books for 10 million less than we’d have had to pay IT...
-
Still F-. ;)
But seriously, Kyrie looks great. His defense and leadership have been better than expected. That said, it’s toughto give the trade a final grade until we see how IT performs and where the BRK pick falls.
Doesn't it matter that CLE resigns IT? I think that is a huge factor.
It is, but say Isaiah leads them to a Finals win and he leaves. Then CLE would have won the trade.
If the Cavs win the Finals, IT won’t have “led them” to the win. He might be a contributor, but LBJ is the best player on that team, even with a full-strength Isaiah, and it isn’t close.
You have to compare what the players do and how the pick lands. Right now, Boston is ahead (given that IT hasn’t played yet and JC’s replacements are significantly outplaying him, it’s pretty clear). We’ll see what happens. If KI keeps doing what he’s doing or improves a bit and IT is about 75% of last years version, and the Nets pick is high lottery, I call the trade for Boston whether Cleveland wins or not. Especially if KI’s performance goes up another notch next year and he’s on the books for 10 million less than we’d have had to pay IT...
I mean yeah that's what I meant. Isaiah helps lead them to a Finals win (as a #2 guy).
And yeah it does depend on where BKN pick lands, which fortunately looks like it could land close to #10 (give or take a few spots), so likely NOT a Top-5 pick.
-
Still F-. ;)
But seriously, Kyrie looks great. His defense and leadership have been better than expected. That said, it’s toughto give the trade a final grade until we see how IT performs and where the BRK pick falls.
Doesn't it matter that CLE resigns IT? I think that is a huge factor.
It is, but say Isaiah leads them to a Finals win and he leaves. Then CLE would have won the trade.
If the Cavs win the Finals, IT won’t have “led them” to the win. He might be a contributor, but LBJ is the best player on that team, even with a full-strength Isaiah, and it isn’t close.
You have to compare what the players do and how the pick lands. Right now, Boston is ahead (given that IT hasn’t played yet and JC’s replacements are significantly outplaying him, it’s pretty clear). We’ll see what happens. If KI keeps doing what he’s doing or improves a bit and IT is about 75% of last years version, and the Nets pick is high lottery, I call the trade for Boston whether Cleveland wins or not. Especially if KI’s performance goes up another notch next year and he’s on the books for 10 million less than we’d have had to pay IT...
I mean yeah that's what I meant. Isaiah helps lead them to a Finals win (as a #2 guy).
And yeah it does depend on where BKN pick lands, which fortunately looks like it could land close to #10 (give or take a few spots), so likely NOT a Top-5 pick.
Frankly, I don’t judge the trade by how Cleveland does. So what if IT contributes to a title in Cleveland? He wasn’t going to do that there and then we’d be forced to overpay him. Kyrie is 100% keeper and that’s enough for me.
-
Still F-. ;)
But seriously, Kyrie looks great. His defense and leadership have been better than expected. That said, it’s toughto give the trade a final grade until we see how IT performs and where the BRK pick falls.
Doesn't it matter that CLE resigns IT? I think that is a huge factor.
It is, but say Isaiah leads them to a Finals win and he leaves. Then CLE would have won the trade.
If the Cavs win the Finals, IT won’t have “led them” to the win. He might be a contributor, but LBJ is the best player on that team, even with a full-strength Isaiah, and it isn’t close.
You have to compare what the players do and how the pick lands. Right now, Boston is ahead (given that IT hasn’t played yet and JC’s replacements are significantly outplaying him, it’s pretty clear). We’ll see what happens. If KI keeps doing what he’s doing or improves a bit and IT is about 75% of last years version, and the Nets pick is high lottery, I call the trade for Boston whether Cleveland wins or not. Especially if KI’s performance goes up another notch next year and he’s on the books for 10 million less than we’d have had to pay IT...
I mean yeah that's what I meant. Isaiah helps lead them to a Finals win (as a #2 guy).
And yeah it does depend on where BKN pick lands, which fortunately looks like it could land close to #10 (give or take a few spots), so likely NOT a Top-5 pick.
Frankly, I don’t judge the trade by how Cleveland does. So what if IT contributes to a title in Cleveland? He wasn’t going to do that there and then we’d be forced to overpay him. Kyrie is 100% keeper and that’s enough for me.
He's loyal as the day is long, too.
-
F-
I was wondering what people think about this trade now?
-
F-
I was wondering what people think about this trade now?
Well I made this poll/thread and originally gave it a C/C-.
Now I'll give it a solid B. :)
Nets Pick unfortunately looks like it will be Top-6. Also depends if Kyrie re-signs here or not in 2 years when he hits FA (there's still the risk he bolts).
-
I gave it a B+ and now would move it to an A/A-
But final grade will have to wait until we see what is gotten from BKLN Pick.
-
F-
I was wondering what people think about this trade now?
Well I made this poll/thread and originally gave it a C/C-.
Now I'll give it a solid B. :)
Nets Pick unfortunately looks like it will be Top-6. Also depends if Kyrie re-signs here or not in 2 years when he hits FA (there's still the risk he bolts).
Agree on both counts - and Irving can be a flake.
He is notorious for becoming "bored" with his current situation. Supposedly needs a new challenge and all that. Funny how stars from the past didn't complain about being bored with their teams or just had to be "The Man" somewhere. McHale loved playing with Bird, Dr. J was very happy to have Moses join the Sixers and Magic was quite content to leave the Lakers as Kareem's team.
-
I was curious to see if the old board got fired up about 22 minutes of Kyrie not looking the best.
Seriously though, Kyrie is still tradeable. Not that I am saying we should.. we should definitely get at least one playoffs out of him, but if something came up, say a deadline deal for Gasol and Tyreke??
-
I was curious to see if the old board got fired up about 22 minutes of Kyrie not looking the best.
Seriously though, Kyrie is still tradeable. Not that I am saying we should.. we should definitely get at least one playoffs out of him, but if something came up, say a deadline deal for Gasol and Tyreke??
SMH. Kyrie for a player on an expiring contract that could just leave and 33 year old Marc Gasol who has become slow on defense and a lot less efficient on offense?
Ummmm...no
-
I was curious to see if the old board got fired up about 22 minutes of Kyrie not looking the best.
Seriously though, Kyrie is still tradeable. Not that I am saying we should.. we should definitely get at least one playoffs out of him, but if something came up, say a deadline deal for Gasol and Tyreke??
What? Are you suggesting a trade of Kyrie for Gasol and Evans? That would be bad on so many levels. Not only would it help cement the 'Traitor Danny' narrative, but it is terrible value. Kyrie may be tradable, but only in like a 1 for 1 deal for AD. Otherwise, it's time to commit to our franchise leader now and in the future.
Agree on both counts - and Irving can be a flake.
He is notorious for becoming "bored" with his current situation. Supposedly needs a new challenge and all that. Funny how stars from the past didn't complain about being bored with their teams or just had to be "The Man" somewhere. McHale loved playing with Bird, Dr. J was very happy to have Moses join the Sixers and Magic was quite content to leave the Lakers as Kareem's team.
I also disagree with this. If you think the reason Kyrie wanted out of Cleveland was because he didn't want to play with another great player and that he was 'bored', then I think you are missing the whole point. It is possible that Kyrie doesn't stay in Boston long-term, but so far so good. As for wanting a challenge, is there a more engaging coach the Brad Stevens?
-
I was curious to see if the old board got fired up about 22 minutes of Kyrie not looking the best.
Seriously though, Kyrie is still tradeable. Not that I am saying we should.. we should definitely get at least one playoffs out of him, but if something came up, say a deadline deal for Gasol and Tyreke??
Huh? Kyrie for Gasol + Tyreke???
I mean sure he's not untouchable but for that trade idea he better be...
-
I was curious to see if the old board got fired up about 22 minutes of Kyrie not looking the best.
Seriously though, Kyrie is still tradeable. Not that I am saying we should.. we should definitely get at least one playoffs out of him, but if something came up, say a deadline deal for Gasol and Tyreke??
Is this a joke post?
You can't seriously be suggesting this, rofl
-
Kyrie looked amazing at the beginning of the season. Now Rozier looks amazing.
-
Kyrie looked amazing at the beginning of the season. Now Rozier looks amazing.
Hey, Smart's time has to be coming, right? :P
-
Bias aside, he'd be our best trade asset for Davis. Im sure itd make us better, but obviously that would negate a lot of the benefit of landing Davis. And obviously Ainge woulsnt do that with his love for guards and Kyrie.
-
Kyrie has been about what I expected (better overall than 2016-17 IT). He has been better than I thought at times but at other times not so much making the mean about what I think most should have expected from Kyrie. But IT has not returned to form. I don't know how much of that is injury vs. system/teammates but I think we would be a lottery team right now if we had not made the trade instead of a premier destination for buy out Free Agents who want a shot at the finals.
-
I gave that move the A-mark.
More than half of the voters didn't see it as an A type of move.
Some time has passed, this old thread is bumped and we got a considerable amount of information on it. Not all though.
What have we found out in the meantime?
- IT looks worse than anyone thought he'd be.
-Jae Crowder continued his drop off since his best 2015-16 season (prior to ankle injuries, some 70 games in the season). He is getting old in dogs years.
- BKN pick has been hovering around the 8-9 range all year long rather than the 4-5 range everyone advertised at the time.
- And sadly, even I, Žižić's "bodyguard" on the CB, have to admit that he has been a disappointment (I'm not giving up on him yet! He is young, is coached by Lou and is in poor situation overall.)
- Kyrie has been amazing. He is having his most efficient year offensively and he even improved his defense. Who could expect more so far?
I have a funny feeling that the F's, D's, C's will still try to think of the reasons that the trade didn't work. They will use much more of their brain power to think of the reasons why they were right, rather than to think of the reasons it is an A-move.
My dear data analysis/game theory professor Kopal, was right:
"Once someone makes up their mind, and forms an opinion, it is extremely difficult to change it. Even if you present him the tangible proof that says otherwise. It is basic human nature."
I'll stick with Žižić guys.
You stick with D- marks for Kyrie deal.
A+ for Prof. Kopal. Sit.
-
What ever happened to Zizic anyways.
You'd think he'd get playing time in the games the Cavaliers get blown out in, but nope... ???
-
I gave that move the A-mark.
More than half of the voters didn't see it as an A type of move.
Some time has passed, this old thread is bumped and we got a considerable amount of information on it. Not all though.
What have we found out in the meantime?
- IT looks worse than anyone thought he'd be.
-Jae Crowder continued his drop off since his best 2015-16 season (prior to ankle injuries, some 70 games in the season). He is getting old in dogs years.
- BKN pick has been hovering around the 8-9 range all year long rather than the 4-5 range everyone advertised at the time.
- And sadly, even I, Žižić's "bodyguard" on the CB, have to admit that he has been a disappointment (I'm not giving up on him yet! He is young, is coached by Lou and is in poor situation overall.)
- Kyrie has been amazing. He is having his most efficient year offensively and he even improved his defense. Who could expect more so far?
I have a funny feeling that the F's, D's, C's will still try to think of the reasons that the trade didn't work. They will use much more of their brain power to think of the reasons why they were right, rather than to think of the reasons it is an A-move.
Can't vouch for anyone else, but this C- has moved to an A-. Oops.
Mike
-
I gave that move the A-mark.
More than half of the voters didn't see it as an A type of move.
Some time has passed, this old thread is bumped and we got a considerable amount of information on it. Not all though.
What have we found out in the meantime?
- IT looks worse than anyone thought he'd be.
-Jae Crowder continued his drop off since his best 2015-16 season (prior to ankle injuries, some 70 games in the season). He is getting old in dogs years.
- BKN pick has been hovering around the 8-9 range all year long rather than the 4-5 range everyone advertised at the time.
- And sadly, even I, Žižić's "bodyguard" on the CB, have to admit that he has been a disappointment (I'm not giving up on him yet! He is young, is coached by Lou and is in poor situation overall.)
- Kyrie has been amazing. He is having his most efficient year offensively and he even improved his defense. Who could expect more so far?
I have a funny feeling that the F's, D's, C's will still try to think of the reasons that the trade didn't work. They will use much more of their brain power to think of the reasons why they were right, rather than to think of the reasons it is an A-move.
Can't vouch for anyone else, but this C- has moved to an A-. Oops.
Mike
Mine has moved to a B. Still some factors to look at (does Kyrie sign an extension here or does he bolt? Does that BKN pick actually land Top-5 or outside of it?)
-
I have a funny feeling that the F's, D's, C's will still try to think of the reasons that the trade didn't work. They will use much more of their brain power to think of the reasons why they were right, rather than to think of the reasons it is an A-move.
My dear data analysis/game theory professor Kopal, was right:
"Once someone makes up their mind, and forms an opinion, it is extremely difficult to change it. Even if you present him the tangible proof that says otherwise. It is basic human nature."
I'll stick with Žižić guys.
You stick with D- marks for Kyrie deal.
A+ for Prof. Kopal. Sit.
I think you are a little misinformed in your post, Andro. The poll was actually very split in the first day or two with grades spread out across the spectrum and was based on our initial opinion of the trade. Unfortunately, the poll was left open (is it still open?) for quite some time after we found out about IT's true injury and after people had a chance to digest trading our best player and our best pick in a deal where we were basically bidding against ourselves.
I highly doubt there are many people here still grading this deal a D or F so there really isn't any reason to tell people how stubborn they are being. Perhaps we should start a brand new poll asking how people think about the deal now.
-
Still incomplete but I've loved what's come out of it so far.
-
I have a funny feeling that the F's, D's, C's will still try to think of the reasons that the trade didn't work. They will use much more of their brain power to think of the reasons why they were right, rather than to think of the reasons it is an A-move.
My dear data analysis/game theory professor Kopal, was right:
"Once someone makes up their mind, and forms an opinion, it is extremely difficult to change it. Even if you present him the tangible proof that says otherwise. It is basic human nature."
I'll stick with Žižić guys.
You stick with D- marks for Kyrie deal.
A+ for Prof. Kopal. Sit.
I think you are a little misinformed in your post, Andro. The poll was actually very split in the first day or two with grades spread out across the spectrum and was based on our initial opinion of the trade. Unfortunately, the poll was left open (is it still open?) for quite some time after we found out about IT's true injury and after people had a chance to digest trading our best player and our best pick in a deal where we were basically bidding against ourselves.
I highly doubt there are many people here still grading this deal a D or F so there really isn't any reason to tell people how stubborn they are being. Perhaps we should start a brand new poll asking how people think about the deal now.
Well I could be wrong but I think some moderator on here (idk who) locked the poll a long time ago, so no one can vote. Don't think anyone has put in a vote in the last 2-3 months as a result.
-
I have a funny feeling that the F's, D's, C's will still try to think of the reasons that the trade didn't work. They will use much more of their brain power to think of the reasons why they were right, rather than to think of the reasons it is an A-move.
My dear data analysis/game theory professor Kopal, was right:
"Once someone makes up their mind, and forms an opinion, it is extremely difficult to change it. Even if you present him the tangible proof that says otherwise. It is basic human nature."
I'll stick with Žižić guys.
You stick with D- marks for Kyrie deal.
A+ for Prof. Kopal. Sit.
I think you are a little misinformed in your post, Andro. The poll was actually very split in the first day or two with grades spread out across the spectrum and was based on our initial opinion of the trade. Unfortunately, the poll was left open (is it still open?) for quite some time after we found out about IT's true injury and after people had a chance to digest trading our best player and our best pick in a deal where we were basically bidding against ourselves.
I highly doubt there are many people here still grading this deal a D or F so there really isn't any reason to tell people how stubborn they are being. Perhaps we should start a brand new poll asking how people think about the deal now.
Well I could be wrong but I think some moderator on here (idk who) locked the poll a long time ago, so no one can vote. Don't think anyone has put in a vote in the last 2-3 months as a result.
2-3 months ago is still too much. It seems like the kind of poll that should have been closed within a week (or even a couple of days).
Is there anybody on this site who wouldn't give an 'A' or a 'B' grade at this point? We have all had time to get to know Kyrie and move on from IT/Crowder.
-
I'm sure there are some that still don't like Kyrie. We can't find them, though, as they've run for the hills.
-
I have a funny feeling that the F's, D's, C's will still try to think of the reasons that the trade didn't work. They will use much more of their brain power to think of the reasons why they were right, rather than to think of the reasons it is an A-move.
My dear data analysis/game theory professor Kopal, was right:
"Once someone makes up their mind, and forms an opinion, it is extremely difficult to change it. Even if you present him the tangible proof that says otherwise. It is basic human nature."
I'll stick with Žižić guys.
You stick with D- marks for Kyrie deal.
A+ for Prof. Kopal. Sit.
I think you are a little misinformed in your post, Andro. The poll was actually very split in the first day or two with grades spread out across the spectrum and was based on our initial opinion of the trade. Unfortunately, the poll was left open (is it still open?) for quite some time after we found out about IT's true injury and after people had a chance to digest trading our best player and our best pick in a deal where we were basically bidding against ourselves.
I highly doubt there are many people here still grading this deal a D or F so there really isn't any reason to tell people how stubborn they are being. Perhaps we should start a brand new poll asking how people think about the deal now.
Well I could be wrong but I think some moderator on here (idk who) locked the poll a long time ago, so no one can vote. Don't think anyone has put in a vote in the last 2-3 months as a result.
2-3 months ago is still too much. It seems like the kind of poll that should have been closed within a week (or even a couple of days).
Is there anybody on this site who wouldn't give an 'A' or a 'B' grade at this point? We have all had time to get to know Kyrie and move on from IT/Crowder.
Probably @tarheels :laugh:
Like I hated it at first, thought it was an overpay, and honestly still think it is. But Zizic looks like he won't do anything next 2-3 years. Isaiah and Crowder look underwhelming so far (hell, Isaiah could be dealt tomorrow...).
BUT, depends on if Kyrie stays here long term or bolts in 2019, and if Nets Pick lands Top-5 (which is still a possibility)
-
It's a B+ for me now. Close to A-.
-
I originally gave it a C, but am up to a B+ now given just how bad IT has looked. And it isn't that IT has been bad, as I figured at least 20 games to return to form, but the concern is he hasn't progressed at all and is still talking like he is the same player he was last year. Having that on this team would have been a disaster. That said, I'm not ready to give it an A yet, since I have no idea what becomes of that BKN pick or if Irving ends up signing long term.
-
I went with solid B as of now. We traded undersized pg (great guy etc) for a younger, bigger, better player. We gave up Jae who is a sub, he's never going to get better than TWO years ago, only worse. i.e. last season he didn't play as well. We gave up a draft pick that could be very good or not at all. And we gave up a young big who as of now doesn't look ready for a few years.
what did it cost us to get IT? Jae?
will IT stay beyond a year rental in Cleveland? he wants max $ remember, he probably would have walked from c's
solid b, could be better as time goes on
Well I originally went with solid b, I think this should be adjusted up to A- at this point. The only reason it isn't higher is the unknown draft pick
-
IT and Crowder and 2020 MIA second rounder traded away already... Down to Zizic and BRK 18...
-
Given matching salary and Brooklyn's record the trade is looking like Clarkson, Hood, Zizic a 2nd rounder and the 8th pick in the draft for Kyrie. That looks like a great trade for Boston.
-
Given matching salary and Brooklyn's record the trade is looking like Clarkson, Hood, Zizic a 2nd rounder and the 8th pick in the draft for Kyrie. That looks like a great trade for Boston.
From Cleveland's end they gave up Kyrie, their 1st (probably in early 20s) and Frye/Rose (who cares) also.
-
Given matching salary and Brooklyn's record the trade is looking like Clarkson, Hood, Zizic a 2nd rounder and the 8th pick in the draft for Kyrie. That looks like a great trade for Boston.
From Cleveland's end they gave up Kyrie, their 1st (probably in early 20s) and Frye/Rose (who cares) also.
Their 1st...yeah. I figure Channing trade for Nance being a sepate trade. Rose as just a released player. But youcan definitely look at it from you point of view.
-
Idk, now it's looking like its back in CLE's favor if Hood, Clarkson etc all work out real well. Ugh.
-
Idk, now it's looking like its back in CLE's favor if Hood, Clarkson etc all work out real well. Ugh.
I don't know that it's fair to grade the Kyrie trade with what Cleveland was able to convince another team to do with those assets in another trade. The fact that IT and Crowder didn't even last the season and Zizic isn't part of the rotation, to me, is all in the Celtics' favor.
-
So Cleveland essentially traded away
Irving, Frye, Rose, Shumpert, Agravanis, 2018 CLE 1st (top 3 prot), 2024 2nd (swap rights with Utah), 2.1 million cash
for essentially
Clarkson, Nance, Hill, Hood, Gudatis, Zizic, 2018 BKN 1st
I'd say that it is a better package for Cleveland then the original one, but if Boston re-signs Irving and the BKN pick doesn't turn into a superstar it was a clear win by Boston. However, a superstar from the BKN pick or Irving leaving in free agency and the trade is definitely altered a bit.
-
So Cleveland essentially traded away
Irving, Frye, Rose, Shumpert, Agravanis, 2018 CLE 1st (top 3 prot), 2024 2nd (swap rights with Utah), 2.1 million cash
for essentially
Clarkson, Nance, Hill, Hood, Gudatis, Zizic, 2018 BKN 1st
I'd say that it is a better package for Cleveland then the original one, but if Boston re-signs Irving and the BKN pick doesn't turn into a superstar it was a clear win by Boston. However, a superstar from the BKN pick or Irving leaving in free agency and the trade is definitely altered a bit.
If we prune out the dead weight, this boils down to Irving for Hill, Hood, Clarkson, Nance and the BKN 1st. We still need to see how the chips are going to fall this offseason, but it doesn't seem like a great return squarely on talent. Remember that the Cavs were hoping for the likes of Eric Gordon, Kemba Walker, and DeAndre Jordan.
-
So Cleveland essentially traded away
Irving, Frye, Rose, Shumpert, Agravanis, 2018 CLE 1st (top 3 prot), 2024 2nd (swap rights with Utah), 2.1 million cash
for essentially
Clarkson, Nance, Hill, Hood, Gudatis, Zizic, 2018 BKN 1st
I'd say that it is a better package for Cleveland then the original one, but if Boston re-signs Irving and the BKN pick doesn't turn into a superstar it was a clear win by Boston. However, a superstar from the BKN pick or Irving leaving in free agency and the trade is definitely altered a bit.
If we prune out the dead weight, this boils down to Irving for Hill, Hood, Clarkson, Nance and the BKN 1st. We still need to see how the chips are going to fall this offseason, but it doesn't seem like a great return squarely on talent. Remember that the Cavs were hoping for the likes of Eric Gordon, Kemba Walker, and DeAndre Jordan.
Hood still has a chance to be as good as those guys. Probably doesn't get there, but he has made pretty decent production jumps every single season he has been in the league. Hill is older, but is a much better fit next to James than any of those players. Great shooter, plus defender, plays well off the ball, etc. Clarkson and Nance are both solid role players.
Not a super great return for Irving, but I just think the new package is a much better fit overall for the Cavs. They got some much needed youth on their bench which comprises on the whole better shooting and defense then what they had.
-
So Cleveland essentially traded away
Irving, Frye, Rose, Shumpert, Agravanis, 2018 CLE 1st (top 3 prot), 2024 2nd (swap rights with Utah), 2.1 million cash
for essentially
Clarkson, Nance, Hill, Hood, Gudatis, Zizic, 2018 BKN 1st
I'd say that it is a better package for Cleveland then the original one, but if Boston re-signs Irving and the BKN pick doesn't turn into a superstar it was a clear win by Boston. However, a superstar from the BKN pick or Irving leaving in free agency and the trade is definitely altered a bit.
If we prune out the dead weight, this boils down to Irving for Hill, Hood, Clarkson, Nance and the BKN 1st. We still need to see how the chips are going to fall this offseason, but it doesn't seem like a great return squarely on talent. Remember that the Cavs were hoping for the likes of Eric Gordon, Kemba Walker, and DeAndre Jordan.
Hood still has a chance to be as good as those guys. Probably doesn't get there, but he has made pretty decent production jumps every single season he has been in the league. Hill is older, but is a much better fit next to James than any of those players. Great shooter, plus defender, plays well off the ball, etc. Clarkson and Nance are both solid role players.
Not a super great return for Irving, but I just think the new package is a much better fit overall for the Cavs. They got some much needed youth on their bench which comprises on the whole better shooting and defense then what they had.
We overpaid for the Irving deal in August IMO, and even now it looks that way.
They aren't all-stars, but Hood, Clarkson, etc are very solid players and the Nets Pick will likely be somewhere in the 6-8 range. :(
-
So Cleveland essentially traded away
Irving, Frye, Rose, Shumpert, Agravanis, 2018 CLE 1st (top 3 prot), 2024 2nd (swap rights with Utah), 2.1 million cash
for essentially
Clarkson, Nance, Hill, Hood, Gudatis, Zizic, 2018 BKN 1st
I'd say that it is a better package for Cleveland then the original one, but if Boston re-signs Irving and the BKN pick doesn't turn into a superstar it was a clear win by Boston. However, a superstar from the BKN pick or Irving leaving in free agency and the trade is definitely altered a bit.
If we prune out the dead weight, this boils down to Irving for Hill, Hood, Clarkson, Nance and the BKN 1st. We still need to see how the chips are going to fall this offseason, but it doesn't seem like a great return squarely on talent. Remember that the Cavs were hoping for the likes of Eric Gordon, Kemba Walker, and DeAndre Jordan.
Hood still has a chance to be as good as those guys. Probably doesn't get there, but he has made pretty decent production jumps every single season he has been in the league. Hill is older, but is a much better fit next to James than any of those players. Great shooter, plus defender, plays well off the ball, etc. Clarkson and Nance are both solid role players.
Not a super great return for Irving, but I just think the new package is a much better fit overall for the Cavs. They got some much needed youth on their bench which comprises on the whole better shooting and defense then what they had.
We overpaid for the Irving deal in August IMO, and even now it looks that way.
They aren't all-stars, but Hood, Clarkson, etc are very solid players and the Nets Pick will likely be somewhere in the 6-8 range. :(
How? Kyrie is better than anyone CLE got back for Crowder and IT. In the NBA, 4 quarters does not equal a dollar.
-
So Cleveland essentially traded away
Irving, Frye, Rose, Shumpert, Agravanis, 2018 CLE 1st (top 3 prot), 2024 2nd (swap rights with Utah), 2.1 million cash
for essentially
Clarkson, Nance, Hill, Hood, Gudatis, Zizic, 2018 BKN 1st
I'd say that it is a better package for Cleveland then the original one, but if Boston re-signs Irving and the BKN pick doesn't turn into a superstar it was a clear win by Boston. However, a superstar from the BKN pick or Irving leaving in free agency and the trade is definitely altered a bit.
If we prune out the dead weight, this boils down to Irving for Hill, Hood, Clarkson, Nance and the BKN 1st. We still need to see how the chips are going to fall this offseason, but it doesn't seem like a great return squarely on talent. Remember that the Cavs were hoping for the likes of Eric Gordon, Kemba Walker, and DeAndre Jordan.
Hood still has a chance to be as good as those guys. Probably doesn't get there, but he has made pretty decent production jumps every single season he has been in the league. Hill is older, but is a much better fit next to James than any of those players. Great shooter, plus defender, plays well off the ball, etc. Clarkson and Nance are both solid role players.
Not a super great return for Irving, but I just think the new package is a much better fit overall for the Cavs. They got some much needed youth on their bench which comprises on the whole better shooting and defense then what they had.
We overpaid for the Irving deal in August IMO, and even now it looks that way.
They aren't all-stars, but Hood, Clarkson, etc are very solid players and the Nets Pick will likely be somewhere in the 6-8 range. :(
How? Kyrie is better than anyone CLE got back for Crowder and IT. In the NBA, 4 quarters does not equal a dollar.
Well Zizic is a promising prospect, BKN Pick is likely becoming Top 10, and at the time Crowder looked solid and Isaiah was coming off an MVP-caliber season.
Now yeah, we didn't find out about Isaiah's injury extent until much later, but it still looked like an overpay at the time.
The deal certainly looks better now, but it depends on three major things.
1.) Does BKN Pick land Top 5? Top 3??? :o
2.) Do Cavaliers win Finals this year with Hood, Clarkson, Hill, Nance as key parts?
3.) Does Kyrie bolt in 2 years when he hits FA, or will he sign a long term extension here?
-
So Cleveland essentially traded away
Irving, Frye, Rose, Shumpert, Agravanis, 2018 CLE 1st (top 3 prot), 2024 2nd (swap rights with Utah), 2.1 million cash
for essentially
Clarkson, Nance, Hill, Hood, Gudatis, Zizic, 2018 BKN 1st
I'd say that it is a better package for Cleveland then the original one, but if Boston re-signs Irving and the BKN pick doesn't turn into a superstar it was a clear win by Boston. However, a superstar from the BKN pick or Irving leaving in free agency and the trade is definitely altered a bit.
If we prune out the dead weight, this boils down to Irving for Hill, Hood, Clarkson, Nance and the BKN 1st. We still need to see how the chips are going to fall this offseason, but it doesn't seem like a great return squarely on talent. Remember that the Cavs were hoping for the likes of Eric Gordon, Kemba Walker, and DeAndre Jordan.
Hood still has a chance to be as good as those guys. Probably doesn't get there, but he has made pretty decent production jumps every single season he has been in the league. Hill is older, but is a much better fit next to James than any of those players. Great shooter, plus defender, plays well off the ball, etc. Clarkson and Nance are both solid role players.
Not a super great return for Irving, but I just think the new package is a much better fit overall for the Cavs. They got some much needed youth on their bench which comprises on the whole better shooting and defense then what they had.
We overpaid for the Irving deal in August IMO, and even now it looks that way.
They aren't all-stars, but Hood, Clarkson, etc are very solid players and the Nets Pick will likely be somewhere in the 6-8 range. :(
How? Kyrie is better than anyone CLE got back for Crowder and IT. In the NBA, 4 quarters does not equal a dollar.
And two of those quarters are on long-term inflated contracts (and Hood is about to be). I applaud Utah for turning an expiring Hood into a bargain priced Crowder - I bet Memphis wishes they could have done that with Evans. And how Sacramento ever convinced Cleveland to take back $37M in salary for the aging Hill for $11M in salary for Shumpert is beyond me.
At this point, we root for Kyrie to continue his rise into superstardom (and hope the BKN pick is a dud...just out of spite!).
-
So Cleveland essentially traded away
Irving, Frye, Rose, Shumpert, Agravanis, 2018 CLE 1st (top 3 prot), 2024 2nd (swap rights with Utah), 2.1 million cash
for essentially
Clarkson, Nance, Hill, Hood, Gudatis, Zizic, 2018 BKN 1st
I'd say that it is a better package for Cleveland then the original one, but if Boston re-signs Irving and the BKN pick doesn't turn into a superstar it was a clear win by Boston. However, a superstar from the BKN pick or Irving leaving in free agency and the trade is definitely altered a bit.
If we prune out the dead weight, this boils down to Irving for Hill, Hood, Clarkson, Nance and the BKN 1st. We still need to see how the chips are going to fall this offseason, but it doesn't seem like a great return squarely on talent. Remember that the Cavs were hoping for the likes of Eric Gordon, Kemba Walker, and DeAndre Jordan.
Hood still has a chance to be as good as those guys. Probably doesn't get there, but he has made pretty decent production jumps every single season he has been in the league. Hill is older, but is a much better fit next to James than any of those players. Great shooter, plus defender, plays well off the ball, etc. Clarkson and Nance are both solid role players.
Not a super great return for Irving, but I just think the new package is a much better fit overall for the Cavs. They got some much needed youth on their bench which comprises on the whole better shooting and defense then what they had.
We overpaid for the Irving deal in August IMO, and even now it looks that way.
They aren't all-stars, but Hood, Clarkson, etc are very solid players and the Nets Pick will likely be somewhere in the 6-8 range. :(
How? Kyrie is better than anyone CLE got back for Crowder and IT. In the NBA, 4 quarters does not equal a dollar.
Well Zizic is a promising prospect, BKN Pick is likely becoming Top 10, and at the time Crowder looked solid and Isaiah was coming off an MVP-caliber season.
Now yeah, we didn't find out about Isaiah's injury extent until much later, but it still looked like an overpay at the time.
The deal certainly looks better now, but it depends on three major things.
1.) Does BKN Pick land Top 5? Top 3??? :o
2.) Do Cavaliers win Finals this year with Hood, Clarkson, Hill, Nance as key parts?
3.) Does Kyrie bolt in 2 years when he hits FA, or will he sign a long term extension here?
1) That doesn't really matter too much to be honest. The deal improved our long term and short term prospects. That's all that matters.
2) There is almost literally no chance, barring a disaster occurs and Golden State/Houston and Toronto suffer insane injuries. I still don't see Cleveland making it out of the East.
3) I am incredibly doubtful this happens, but if it does then Kyrie's legacy will be tarnished forever, and I doubt he wants that. I don't believe that that's what will dictate his movements, but it's a factor imo
-
So Cleveland essentially traded away
Irving, Frye, Rose, Shumpert, Agravanis, 2018 CLE 1st (top 3 prot), 2024 2nd (swap rights with Utah), 2.1 million cash
for essentially
Clarkson, Nance, Hill, Hood, Gudatis, Zizic, 2018 BKN 1st
I'd say that it is a better package for Cleveland then the original one, but if Boston re-signs Irving and the BKN pick doesn't turn into a superstar it was a clear win by Boston. However, a superstar from the BKN pick or Irving leaving in free agency and the trade is definitely altered a bit.
If we prune out the dead weight, this boils down to Irving for Hill, Hood, Clarkson, Nance and the BKN 1st. We still need to see how the chips are going to fall this offseason, but it doesn't seem like a great return squarely on talent. Remember that the Cavs were hoping for the likes of Eric Gordon, Kemba Walker, and DeAndre Jordan.
Hood still has a chance to be as good as those guys. Probably doesn't get there, but he has made pretty decent production jumps every single season he has been in the league. Hill is older, but is a much better fit next to James than any of those players. Great shooter, plus defender, plays well off the ball, etc. Clarkson and Nance are both solid role players.
Not a super great return for Irving, but I just think the new package is a much better fit overall for the Cavs. They got some much needed youth on their bench which comprises on the whole better shooting and defense then what they had.
We overpaid for the Irving deal in August IMO, and even now it looks that way.
They aren't all-stars, but Hood, Clarkson, etc are very solid players and the Nets Pick will likely be somewhere in the 6-8 range. :(
How? Kyrie is better than anyone CLE got back for Crowder and IT. In the NBA, 4 quarters does not equal a dollar.
Well Zizic is a promising prospect, BKN Pick is likely becoming Top 10, and at the time Crowder looked solid and Isaiah was coming off an MVP-caliber season.
Now yeah, we didn't find out about Isaiah's injury extent until much later, but it still looked like an overpay at the time.
The deal certainly looks better now, but it depends on three major things.
1.) Does BKN Pick land Top 5? Top 3??? :o
2.) Do Cavaliers win Finals this year with Hood, Clarkson, Hill, Nance as key parts?
3.) Does Kyrie bolt in 2 years when he hits FA, or will he sign a long term extension here?
With regards to point 2, I would like to see the Cavs play a string of games with their new squad before passing judgment. 1 game isn’t a big enough sample size. If you think about it we won 16 in a row with our rejigged lineup at the start of the season and 4 months later some people are slitting wrists about it. IMO the Cavs still have their work cut out for them.
-
So Cleveland essentially traded away
Irving, Frye, Rose, Shumpert, Agravanis, 2018 CLE 1st (top 3 prot), 2024 2nd (swap rights with Utah), 2.1 million cash
for essentially
Clarkson, Nance, Hill, Hood, Gudatis, Zizic, 2018 BKN 1st
I'd say that it is a better package for Cleveland then the original one, but if Boston re-signs Irving and the BKN pick doesn't turn into a superstar it was a clear win by Boston. However, a superstar from the BKN pick or Irving leaving in free agency and the trade is definitely altered a bit.
If we prune out the dead weight, this boils down to Irving for Hill, Hood, Clarkson, Nance and the BKN 1st. We still need to see how the chips are going to fall this offseason, but it doesn't seem like a great return squarely on talent. Remember that the Cavs were hoping for the likes of Eric Gordon, Kemba Walker, and DeAndre Jordan.
Hood still has a chance to be as good as those guys. Probably doesn't get there, but he has made pretty decent production jumps every single season he has been in the league. Hill is older, but is a much better fit next to James than any of those players. Great shooter, plus defender, plays well off the ball, etc. Clarkson and Nance are both solid role players.
Not a super great return for Irving, but I just think the new package is a much better fit overall for the Cavs. They got some much needed youth on their bench which comprises on the whole better shooting and defense then what they had.
We overpaid for the Irving deal in August IMO, and even now it looks that way.
They aren't all-stars, but Hood, Clarkson, etc are very solid players and the Nets Pick will likely be somewhere in the 6-8 range. :(
How? Kyrie is better than anyone CLE got back for Crowder and IT. In the NBA, 4 quarters does not equal a dollar.
Well Zizic is a promising prospect, BKN Pick is likely becoming Top 10, and at the time Crowder looked solid and Isaiah was coming off an MVP-caliber season.
Now yeah, we didn't find out about Isaiah's injury extent until much later, but it still looked like an overpay at the time.
The deal certainly looks better now, but it depends on three major things.
1.) Does BKN Pick land Top 5? Top 3??? :o
2.) Do Cavaliers win Finals this year with Hood, Clarkson, Hill, Nance as key parts?
3.) Does Kyrie bolt in 2 years when he hits FA, or will he sign a long term extension here?
With regards to point 2, I would like to see the Cavs play a string of games with their new squad before passing judgment. 1 game isn’t a big enough sample size. If you think about it we won 16 in a row with our rejigged lineup at the start of the season and 4 months later some people are slitting wrists about it. IMO the Cavs still have their work cut out for them.
Yeah. And frankly I think Toronto poses a legitimate threat too for them if not Boston.
DeRozan looks better and that bench is dynamic and one of the better units in the league.
But in regards to the Cavs moves, it's funny because if they lost yesterday everyone would have said "oh it's fine they just need time to gel". They won yesterday and they have apparently tightened/closed the gap against the Warriors... ::)
-
So Cleveland essentially traded away
Irving, Frye, Rose, Shumpert, Agravanis, 2018 CLE 1st (top 3 prot), 2024 2nd (swap rights with Utah), 2.1 million cash
for essentially
Clarkson, Nance, Hill, Hood, Gudatis, Zizic, 2018 BKN 1st
I'd say that it is a better package for Cleveland then the original one, but if Boston re-signs Irving and the BKN pick doesn't turn into a superstar it was a clear win by Boston. However, a superstar from the BKN pick or Irving leaving in free agency and the trade is definitely altered a bit.
If we prune out the dead weight, this boils down to Irving for Hill, Hood, Clarkson, Nance and the BKN 1st. We still need to see how the chips are going to fall this offseason, but it doesn't seem like a great return squarely on talent. Remember that the Cavs were hoping for the likes of Eric Gordon, Kemba Walker, and DeAndre Jordan.
Hood still has a chance to be as good as those guys. Probably doesn't get there, but he has made pretty decent production jumps every single season he has been in the league. Hill is older, but is a much better fit next to James than any of those players. Great shooter, plus defender, plays well off the ball, etc. Clarkson and Nance are both solid role players.
Not a super great return for Irving, but I just think the new package is a much better fit overall for the Cavs. They got some much needed youth on their bench which comprises on the whole better shooting and defense then what they had.
We overpaid for the Irving deal in August IMO, and even now it looks that way.
They aren't all-stars, but Hood, Clarkson, etc are very solid players and the Nets Pick will likely be somewhere in the 6-8 range. :(
How? Kyrie is better than anyone CLE got back for Crowder and IT. In the NBA, 4 quarters does not equal a dollar.
And two of those quarters are on long-term inflated contracts (and Hood is about to be). I applaud Utah for turning an expiring Hood into a bargain priced Crowder - I bet Memphis wishes they could have done that with Evans. And how Sacramento ever convinced Cleveland to take back $37M in salary for the aging Hill for $11M in salary for Shumpert is beyond me.
At this point, we root for Kyrie to continue his rise into superstardom (and hope the BKN pick is a dud...just out of spite!).
I think I read somewhere that even if Lebron leaves, the Cavaliers would STILL be over the cap and would hit large luxury tax numbers again if they want to re-sign Hood, etc.
A lot really does hinge on Lebron it seems lol.
-
Whether Kyrie re-signs with us or not does impact the long term value of the trade but in any case, we have a better chance, perhaps much better chance, to re-sign him than if we didn't trade for him. So there is value there either way. Plus he did waive his trade kicker which is a pretty good indication of his intentions. Intentions can change but I think he intends to stay. And he has played and fit in better than most thought.
As for what we gave up, IT, Crowder, Zizic, BNK pick, all of them have less current value than the perceived value at the time of the trade. This is subjective admittedly but still pretty clear.
As for what CLE was able to flip them for, can you imagine that we would have traded IT, Crowder, and Zizic for Hill, Clarkson, and say Nance (it is impossible to completely match this up). This is somewhat comparable value if you know that IT is not going to be close to 100% all season but otherwise, no way.
-
So Cleveland essentially traded away
Irving, Frye, Rose, Shumpert, Agravanis, 2018 CLE 1st (top 3 prot), 2024 2nd (swap rights with Utah), 2.1 million cash
for essentially
Clarkson, Nance, Hill, Hood, Gudatis, Zizic, 2018 BKN 1st
I'd say that it is a better package for Cleveland then the original one, but if Boston re-signs Irving and the BKN pick doesn't turn into a superstar it was a clear win by Boston. However, a superstar from the BKN pick or Irving leaving in free agency and the trade is definitely altered a bit.
If we prune out the dead weight, this boils down to Irving for Hill, Hood, Clarkson, Nance and the BKN 1st. We still need to see how the chips are going to fall this offseason, but it doesn't seem like a great return squarely on talent. Remember that the Cavs were hoping for the likes of Eric Gordon, Kemba Walker, and DeAndre Jordan.
Hood still has a chance to be as good as those guys. Probably doesn't get there, but he has made pretty decent production jumps every single season he has been in the league. Hill is older, but is a much better fit next to James than any of those players. Great shooter, plus defender, plays well off the ball, etc. Clarkson and Nance are both solid role players.
Not a super great return for Irving, but I just think the new package is a much better fit overall for the Cavs. They got some much needed youth on their bench which comprises on the whole better shooting and defense then what they had.
We overpaid for the Irving deal in August IMO, and even now it looks that way.
They aren't all-stars, but Hood, Clarkson, etc are very solid players and the Nets Pick will likely be somewhere in the 6-8 range. :(
How? Kyrie is better than anyone CLE got back for Crowder and IT. In the NBA, 4 quarters does not equal a dollar.
Well Zizic is a promising prospect, BKN Pick is likely becoming Top 10, and at the time Crowder looked solid and Isaiah was coming off an MVP-caliber season.
Now yeah, we didn't find out about Isaiah's injury extent until much later, but it still looked like an overpay at the time.
The deal certainly looks better now, but it depends on three major things.
1.) Does BKN Pick land Top 5? Top 3??? :o
2.) Do Cavaliers win Finals this year with Hood, Clarkson, Hill, Nance as key parts?
3.) Does Kyrie bolt in 2 years when he hits FA, or will he sign a long term extension here?
1) We traded the BRK pick figuring it would be top 5. If it lands there I don't see how that changes anything. The only way the value of the BRK pick can go from the moment we traded it is down. Right now its in 7th.
2) The Cavs gave up a lot more than just IT and Crowder to get Clarkson, Hood, Hill, and Nance. So substituting those 4 players dor IT and Crowder into our trade with Cleveland is disingenuous. Maybe substitute just Clarkson and Nance as salaries are close.
3) Though Kyrie could bolt, I doubt he will. Boston is his team now and contenders. That's what he wanted and why he forced himself out of Cleveland.
-
So Cleveland essentially traded away
Irving, Frye, Rose, Shumpert, Agravanis, 2018 CLE 1st (top 3 prot), 2024 2nd (swap rights with Utah), 2.1 million cash
for essentially
Clarkson, Nance, Hill, Hood, Gudatis, Zizic, 2018 BKN 1st
I'd say that it is a better package for Cleveland then the original one, but if Boston re-signs Irving and the BKN pick doesn't turn into a superstar it was a clear win by Boston. However, a superstar from the BKN pick or Irving leaving in free agency and the trade is definitely altered a bit.
If we prune out the dead weight, this boils down to Irving for Hill, Hood, Clarkson, Nance and the BKN 1st. We still need to see how the chips are going to fall this offseason, but it doesn't seem like a great return squarely on talent. Remember that the Cavs were hoping for the likes of Eric Gordon, Kemba Walker, and DeAndre Jordan.
Hood still has a chance to be as good as those guys. Probably doesn't get there, but he has made pretty decent production jumps every single season he has been in the league. Hill is older, but is a much better fit next to James than any of those players. Great shooter, plus defender, plays well off the ball, etc. Clarkson and Nance are both solid role players.
Not a super great return for Irving, but I just think the new package is a much better fit overall for the Cavs. They got some much needed youth on their bench which comprises on the whole better shooting and defense then what they had.
We overpaid for the Irving deal in August IMO, and even now it looks that way.
They aren't all-stars, but Hood, Clarkson, etc are very solid players and the Nets Pick will likely be somewhere in the 6-8 range. :(
How? Kyrie is better than anyone CLE got back for Crowder and IT. In the NBA, 4 quarters does not equal a dollar.
Well Zizic is a promising prospect, BKN Pick is likely becoming Top 10, and at the time Crowder looked solid and Isaiah was coming off an MVP-caliber season.
Now yeah, we didn't find out about Isaiah's injury extent until much later, but it still looked like an overpay at the time.
The deal certainly looks better now, but it depends on three major things.
1.) Does BKN Pick land Top 5? Top 3??? :o
2.) Do Cavaliers win Finals this year with Hood, Clarkson, Hill, Nance as key parts?
3.) Does Kyrie bolt in 2 years when he hits FA, or will he sign a long term extension here?
1) We traded the BRK pick figuring it would be top 5. If it lands there I don't see how that changes anything. The only way the value of the BRK pick can go from the moment we traded it is down. Right now its in 7th.
2) The Cavs gave up a lot more than just IT and Crowder to get Clarkson, Hood, Hill, and Nance. So substituting those 4 players dor IT and Crowder into our trade with Cleveland is disingenuous. Maybe substitute just Clarkson and Nance as salaries are close.
3) Though Kyrie could bolt, I doubt he will. Boston is his team now and contenders. That's what he wanted and why he forced himself out of Cleveland.
I'm not sure Shumpert, Frye, Rose, and a late 1st round pick can actually be called a lot more.
-
So Cleveland essentially traded away
Irving, Frye, Rose, Shumpert, Agravanis, 2018 CLE 1st (top 3 prot), 2024 2nd (swap rights with Utah), 2.1 million cash
for essentially
Clarkson, Nance, Hill, Hood, Gudatis, Zizic, 2018 BKN 1st
I'd say that it is a better package for Cleveland then the original one, but if Boston re-signs Irving and the BKN pick doesn't turn into a superstar it was a clear win by Boston. However, a superstar from the BKN pick or Irving leaving in free agency and the trade is definitely altered a bit.
If we prune out the dead weight, this boils down to Irving for Hill, Hood, Clarkson, Nance and the BKN 1st. We still need to see how the chips are going to fall this offseason, but it doesn't seem like a great return squarely on talent. Remember that the Cavs were hoping for the likes of Eric Gordon, Kemba Walker, and DeAndre Jordan.
Hood still has a chance to be as good as those guys. Probably doesn't get there, but he has made pretty decent production jumps every single season he has been in the league. Hill is older, but is a much better fit next to James than any of those players. Great shooter, plus defender, plays well off the ball, etc. Clarkson and Nance are both solid role players.
Not a super great return for Irving, but I just think the new package is a much better fit overall for the Cavs. They got some much needed youth on their bench which comprises on the whole better shooting and defense then what they had.
We overpaid for the Irving deal in August IMO, and even now it looks that way.
They aren't all-stars, but Hood, Clarkson, etc are very solid players and the Nets Pick will likely be somewhere in the 6-8 range. :(
How? Kyrie is better than anyone CLE got back for Crowder and IT. In the NBA, 4 quarters does not equal a dollar.
Well Zizic is a promising prospect, BKN Pick is likely becoming Top 10, and at the time Crowder looked solid and Isaiah was coming off an MVP-caliber season.
Now yeah, we didn't find out about Isaiah's injury extent until much later, but it still looked like an overpay at the time.
The deal certainly looks better now, but it depends on three major things.
1.) Does BKN Pick land Top 5? Top 3??? :o
2.) Do Cavaliers win Finals this year with Hood, Clarkson, Hill, Nance as key parts?
3.) Does Kyrie bolt in 2 years when he hits FA, or will he sign a long term extension here?
1) We traded the BRK pick figuring it would be top 5. If it lands there I don't see how that changes anything. The only way the value of the BRK pick can go from the moment we traded it is down. Right now its in 7th.
2) The Cavs gave up a lot more than just IT and Crowder to get Clarkson, Hood, Hill, and Nance. So substituting those 4 players dor IT and Crowder into our trade with Cleveland is disingenuous. Maybe substitute just Clarkson and Nance as salaries are close.
3) Though Kyrie could bolt, I doubt he will. Boston is his team now and contenders. That's what he wanted and why he forced himself out of Cleveland.
I'm not sure Shumpert, Frye, Rose, and a late 1st round pick can actually be called a lot more.
That's a first rounder and a bunch of salary. No way IT and Crowder's salary brings in all four guys Cleveland brought in. So yeah, that's a lot more.
-
So Cleveland essentially traded away
Irving, Frye, Rose, Shumpert, Agravanis, 2018 CLE 1st (top 3 prot), 2024 2nd (swap rights with Utah), 2.1 million cash
for essentially
Clarkson, Nance, Hill, Hood, Gudatis, Zizic, 2018 BKN 1st
I'd say that it is a better package for Cleveland then the original one, but if Boston re-signs Irving and the BKN pick doesn't turn into a superstar it was a clear win by Boston. However, a superstar from the BKN pick or Irving leaving in free agency and the trade is definitely altered a bit.
If we prune out the dead weight, this boils down to Irving for Hill, Hood, Clarkson, Nance and the BKN 1st. We still need to see how the chips are going to fall this offseason, but it doesn't seem like a great return squarely on talent. Remember that the Cavs were hoping for the likes of Eric Gordon, Kemba Walker, and DeAndre Jordan.
Hood still has a chance to be as good as those guys. Probably doesn't get there, but he has made pretty decent production jumps every single season he has been in the league. Hill is older, but is a much better fit next to James than any of those players. Great shooter, plus defender, plays well off the ball, etc. Clarkson and Nance are both solid role players.
Not a super great return for Irving, but I just think the new package is a much better fit overall for the Cavs. They got some much needed youth on their bench which comprises on the whole better shooting and defense then what they had.
We overpaid for the Irving deal in August IMO, and even now it looks that way.
They aren't all-stars, but Hood, Clarkson, etc are very solid players and the Nets Pick will likely be somewhere in the 6-8 range. :(
How? Kyrie is better than anyone CLE got back for Crowder and IT. In the NBA, 4 quarters does not equal a dollar.
Well Zizic is a promising prospect, BKN Pick is likely becoming Top 10, and at the time Crowder looked solid and Isaiah was coming off an MVP-caliber season.
Now yeah, we didn't find out about Isaiah's injury extent until much later, but it still looked like an overpay at the time.
The deal certainly looks better now, but it depends on three major things.
1.) Does BKN Pick land Top 5? Top 3??? :o
2.) Do Cavaliers win Finals this year with Hood, Clarkson, Hill, Nance as key parts?
3.) Does Kyrie bolt in 2 years when he hits FA, or will he sign a long term extension here?
1) We traded the BRK pick figuring it would be top 5. If it lands there I don't see how that changes anything. The only way the value of the BRK pick can go from the moment we traded it is down. Right now its in 7th.
2) The Cavs gave up a lot more than just IT and Crowder to get Clarkson, Hood, Hill, and Nance. So substituting those 4 players dor IT and Crowder into our trade with Cleveland is disingenuous. Maybe substitute just Clarkson and Nance as salaries are close.
3) Though Kyrie could bolt, I doubt he will. Boston is his team now and contenders. That's what he wanted and why he forced himself out of Cleveland.
I'm not sure Shumpert, Frye, Rose, and a late 1st round pick can actually be called a lot more.
That's a first rounder and a bunch of salary. No way IT and Crowder's salary brings in all four guys Cleveland brought in. So yeah, that's a lot more.
a late 1st and a bunch of mostly useless salary (Frye is ok, but a bench player, the other guys weren't even playing in Cleveland). Sure they needed that salary to take back the salary they did, but it wasn't like it was salary from valuable or useful players. The Cavs could have literally traded anyone that made those salaries and the trades would have still happened.
-
Whether Kyrie re-signs with us or not does impact the long term value of the trade but in any case, we have a better chance, perhaps much better chance, to re-sign him than if we didn't trade for him. So there is value there either way. Plus he did waive his trade kicker which is a pretty good indication of his intentions. Intentions can change but I think he intends to stay. And he has played and fit in better than most thought.
As for what we gave up, IT, Crowder, Zizic, BNK pick, all of them have less current value than the perceived value at the time of the trade. This is subjective admittedly but still pretty clear.
As for what CLE was able to flip them for, can you imagine that we would have traded IT, Crowder, and Zizic for Hill, Clarkson, and say Nance (it is impossible to completely match this up). This is somewhat comparable value if you know that IT is not going to be close to 100% all season but otherwise, no way.
Does Zizic even get any playing time in CLE these days?? Even when they were getting blown out in games before... he never seemed to get it.
-
Whether Kyrie re-signs with us or not does impact the long term value of the trade but in any case, we have a better chance, perhaps much better chance, to re-sign him than if we didn't trade for him. So there is value there either way. Plus he did waive his trade kicker which is a pretty good indication of his intentions. Intentions can change but I think he intends to stay. And he has played and fit in better than most thought.
As for what we gave up, IT, Crowder, Zizic, BNK pick, all of them have less current value than the perceived value at the time of the trade. This is subjective admittedly but still pretty clear.
As for what CLE was able to flip them for, can you imagine that we would have traded IT, Crowder, and Zizic for Hill, Clarkson, and say Nance (it is impossible to completely match this up). This is somewhat comparable value if you know that IT is not going to be close to 100% all season but otherwise, no way.
Does Zizic even get any playing time in CLE these days?? Even when they were getting blown out in games before... he never seemed to get it.
No and they were very very thin up front at times. He looks like a bust, glad we are not having him here feeling disappointed.
-
So Cleveland essentially traded away
Irving, Frye, Rose, Shumpert, Agravanis, 2018 CLE 1st (top 3 prot), 2024 2nd (swap rights with Utah), 2.1 million cash
for essentially
Clarkson, Nance, Hill, Hood, Gudatis, Zizic, 2018 BKN 1st
I'd say that it is a better package for Cleveland then the original one, but if Boston re-signs Irving and the BKN pick doesn't turn into a superstar it was a clear win by Boston. However, a superstar from the BKN pick or Irving leaving in free agency and the trade is definitely altered a bit.
If we prune out the dead weight, this boils down to Irving for Hill, Hood, Clarkson, Nance and the BKN 1st. We still need to see how the chips are going to fall this offseason, but it doesn't seem like a great return squarely on talent. Remember that the Cavs were hoping for the likes of Eric Gordon, Kemba Walker, and DeAndre Jordan.
Hood still has a chance to be as good as those guys. Probably doesn't get there, but he has made pretty decent production jumps every single season he has been in the league. Hill is older, but is a much better fit next to James than any of those players. Great shooter, plus defender, plays well off the ball, etc. Clarkson and Nance are both solid role players.
Not a super great return for Irving, but I just think the new package is a much better fit overall for the Cavs. They got some much needed youth on their bench which comprises on the whole better shooting and defense then what they had.
We overpaid for the Irving deal in August IMO, and even now it looks that way.
They aren't all-stars, but Hood, Clarkson, etc are very solid players and the Nets Pick will likely be somewhere in the 6-8 range. :(
How? Kyrie is better than anyone CLE got back for Crowder and IT. In the NBA, 4 quarters does not equal a dollar.
Well Zizic is a promising prospect, BKN Pick is likely becoming Top 10, and at the time Crowder looked solid and Isaiah was coming off an MVP-caliber season.
Now yeah, we didn't find out about Isaiah's injury extent until much later, but it still looked like an overpay at the time.
The deal certainly looks better now, but it depends on three major things.
1.) Does BKN Pick land Top 5? Top 3??? :o
2.) Do Cavaliers win Finals this year with Hood, Clarkson, Hill, Nance as key parts?
3.) Does Kyrie bolt in 2 years when he hits FA, or will he sign a long term extension here?
1) We traded the BRK pick figuring it would be top 5. If it lands there I don't see how that changes anything. The only way the value of the BRK pick can go from the moment we traded it is down. Right now its in 7th.
2) The Cavs gave up a lot more than just IT and Crowder to get Clarkson, Hood, Hill, and Nance. So substituting those 4 players dor IT and Crowder into our trade with Cleveland is disingenuous. Maybe substitute just Clarkson and Nance as salaries are close.
3) Though Kyrie could bolt, I doubt he will. Boston is his team now and contenders. That's what he wanted and why he forced himself out of Cleveland.
I'm not sure Shumpert, Frye, Rose, and a late 1st round pick can actually be called a lot more.
That's a first rounder and a bunch of salary. No way IT and Crowder's salary brings in all four guys Cleveland brought in. So yeah, that's a lot more.
a late 1st and a bunch of mostly useless salary (Frye is ok, but a bench player, the other guys weren't even playing in Cleveland). Sure they needed that salary to take back the salary they did, but it wasn't like it was salary from valuable or useful players. The Cavs could have literally traded anyone that made those salaries and the trades would have still happened.
But those players and salary didn't come from the Celtics in the Kyrie trade so you can't really say all 4 guys are a replacement for IT and Crowder when doing substitution for them when analyzing the Kyrie trade.
-
Whether Kyrie re-signs with us or not does impact the long term value of the trade but in any case, we have a better chance, perhaps much better chance, to re-sign him than if we didn't trade for him. So there is value there either way. Plus he did waive his trade kicker which is a pretty good indication of his intentions. Intentions can change but I think he intends to stay. And he has played and fit in better than most thought.
As for what we gave up, IT, Crowder, Zizic, BNK pick, all of them have less current value than the perceived value at the time of the trade. This is subjective admittedly but still pretty clear.
As for what CLE was able to flip them for, can you imagine that we would have traded IT, Crowder, and Zizic for Hill, Clarkson, and say Nance (it is impossible to completely match this up). This is somewhat comparable value if you know that IT is not going to be close to 100% all season but otherwise, no way.
Does Zizic even get any playing time in CLE these days?? Even when they were getting blown out in games before... he never seemed to get it.
No and they were very very thin up front at times. He looks like a bust, glad we are not having him here feeling disappointed.
Lol most here (including me) thought he'd be our "temporary answer" at center as a rotation big, but yikes... he may be at least 1-2 years away still.
-
I think at this point the trade has to simply be rated as 2 years of prime Kyrie vs. the Brooklyn pick.
Since IT and Crowder were dumped, and the players they brought back are all role players (either with expiring deals or awful long term contracts), you cannot factor those into the grade.
I initially gave the trade a B/B- due to the Brooklyn pick, which I thought could be top-5. It is looking like that is a real chance, and for us that sucks.
But Kyrie is definitely better than I expected (he has actually been a pleasant surprise on defense).
So I am going to grade this a B+, and if that Brooklyn falls back into the 8-10 range, it will become and A for me.
-
I think at this point the trade has to simply be rated as 2 years of prime Kyrie vs. the Brooklyn pick.
Since IT and Crowder were dumped, and the players they brought back are all role players (either with expiring deals or awful long term contracts), you cannot factor those into the grade.
I initially gave the trade a B/B- due to the Brooklyn pick, which I thought could be top-5. It is looking like that is a real chance, and for us that sucks.
But Kyrie is definitely better than I expected (he has actually been a pleasant surprise on defense).
So I am going to grade this a B+, and if that Brooklyn falls back into the 8-10 range, it will become and A for me.
Seems like Lebron already has picked who the Cavaliers should select w/Nets Pick based off his comments today - Trae Young
Of course, he could say that and then bolt anyways :P
Remember 2014 with the Heat selecting Napier and Lebron's tweet. Didn't matter much.
-
Just curious, but is there a way to maybe, idk, reset the poll and have everyone vote again how they feel about it now? :P (I think poll is locked now)
Or would that simply mean having to create a new thread (in which case, nah).
-
How are people grading this trade taking into account what the Cavs did at the trade deadline??? That has NOTHING to do with our trade. You should ONLY be grading the trade made between the Celtics and Cavs.
The Cavs were able to make some nice moves with some pieces they got from our trade but that should have ZERO affect on the grade of OUR trade.
If you want to play that game, then it would be infinite and the grade of the trade will never be known.
Trade = A. I wanted to keep BK and give LAL/SAC at the time, then it seemed genius, now it seemed correct. But Kyrie is amazing, I cant wait to see him in the playoffs. Especially next year with Gordon and another big piece (hopefully)
-
I find it hilarious seeing the National Media and the Cavaliers leaking so many rumors about this trade even now, trying to make Irving and the Cavaliers FO look like the villain, Lebron the victim :laugh:
Irving is starting to look good in all this. He's moved on. Looks like CLE hasn't.
-
I find it hilarious seeing the National Media and the Cavaliers leaking so many rumors about this trade even now, trying to make Irving and the Cavaliers FO look like the villain, Lebron the victim :laugh:
Irving is starting to look good in all this. He's moved on. Looks like CLE hasn't.
But, how could he not? He initiated the divorce, steadfast in his demand for a year. His reason? A desire to cheat -- want for "more."
CLE's response? Unprecedented: They not only granted him the divorce, but hooked him up with the most attractive candidate possible (now, and in the future), who also doubles as the current bitter rival.
There was no way for him to "lose," look bad, etc. He's very fortunate to be in Boston. I hope he realizes it.
-
I find it hilarious seeing the National Media and the Cavaliers leaking so many rumors about this trade even now, trying to make Irving and the Cavaliers FO look like the villain, Lebron the victim :laugh:
Irving is starting to look good in all this. He's moved on. Looks like CLE hasn't.
But, how could he not? He initiated the divorce, steadfast in his demand for a year. His reason? A desire to cheat -- want for "more."
CLE's response? Unprecedented: They not only granted him the divorce, but hooked him up with the most attractive candidate possible (now, and in the future), who also doubles as the current bitter rival.
There was no way for him to "lose," look bad, etc. He's very fortunate to be in Boston. I hope he realizes it.
Well, most reports say Kyrie was being shopped anyways before he ultimately demanded the trade (realizing what the Cavaliers FO was doing - and not being stupid and realizing Lebron was pulling the strings here too).
If you're Kyrie and you see the Cavaliers actively shopping you despite all you've done, and there's a great chance Lebron leaves in FA the next season, and you aren't beating GSW as it is... then can you really blame him for demanding out?
Sure, the fashion he did it in may have been questionable, but @tar, are you really going to convince to me that Lebron is the poor victim here in all this?
-
Okay, time for a check in on this.
I still don't like Irving's game. He's a good scorer with an exceptional handle but there's really little else to his game. He still doesn't distribute well, doesn't rebound and is still a turnstile on defense. He's really filling the same role as IT did last year and if that was the deal then this trade is a bust.
But....
This isn't last year. IT looks dreadful, didn't fit in with Cleveland and is playing with the Lakers hoping someone will offer him more than the MLE next year. Holy cripes how the mighty have fallen. I've long predicted that IT's game wouldn't translate well as he got older but I never imagined that he'd look this bad this soon. Zizic can't sniff the floor. Crowder looks barely better than IT and lost his starting spot. That trio looks like they turned into pumpkins the minute they left Boston.
But...
The Nets pick still looms. They're better this year with 19 wins (on pace for 26) but the rest of bottom-dwellers are also in the same boat. There's 8 teams between 19 and 21 wins right now so even one or two wins may make a huge difference in the value of the pick. If the Nets draft 7th or 8th it's a massive win for the Cs. If they draft 1st or 2nd then this trade still may come back to bite us in the butt if a guy like Ayton and/or Bagley become generational talents.
And...
Irving has one more year and then he's a FA. If he doesn't resign here and the Cs don't win a championship then this trade is still a massive bust no matter where the pick hits.
So while it's not as bad as I feared, it's not as good as I hoped and could still turn into a debacle for the Celtics. Or this may turn into another Danny Ainge incredible win. Stay tuned...
-
I hear you on the BKN pick. That could hurt if its top 3. I'm confident that Danny will be able to sign Kyrie. I've pretty much forgotten about Zizic, and I'm ok that IT/Crowder are not on the team this year.
-
I find it hilarious seeing the National Media and the Cavaliers leaking so many rumors about this trade even now, trying to make Irving and the Cavaliers FO look like the villain, Lebron the victim :laugh:
Irving is starting to look good in all this. He's moved on. Looks like CLE hasn't.
But, how could he not? He initiated the divorce, steadfast in his demand for a year. His reason? A desire to cheat -- want for "more."
CLE's response? Unprecedented: They not only granted him the divorce, but hooked him up with the most attractive candidate possible (now, and in the future), who also doubles as the current bitter rival.
There was no way for him to "lose," look bad, etc. He's very fortunate to be in Boston. I hope he realizes it.
Well, most reports say Kyrie was being shopped anyways before he ultimately demanded the trade (realizing what the Cavaliers FO was doing - and not being stupid and realizing Lebron was pulling the strings here too).
If you're Kyrie and you see the Cavaliers actively shopping you despite all you've done, and there's a great chance Lebron leaves in FA the next season, and you aren't beating GSW as it is... then can you really blame him for demanding out?
Sure, the fashion he did it in may have been questionable, but @tar, are you really going to convince to me that Lebron is the poor victim here in all this?
First I've heard of that. MacMullen reports that CLE explored a trade to acquire Bledsoe and PG, though a formal offer was never made. I could understand his trade request if true, but this sounds like informal talks at best. It's ironic that he ended up in Boston though, where Ainge has dangled so many. Only recently has he started to keep quieter about it.
I'd never consider LBJ a victim. He sure won the genetic sweepstakes -- his body empowers steroids, not vice versa. Then with the championships, accolades, Nike deal, legacy -- he's in pretty decent shape. If anything, I'm the victim of having to tolerate the Irving-to-Boston trade. :)
-
I've pretty much forgotten about Zizic
Yeah, the hype train on him here was patently absurd. The best thing is he was a not a wasted pick as we used him in a decent trade.
-
I find it hilarious seeing the National Media and the Cavaliers leaking so many rumors about this trade even now, trying to make Irving and the Cavaliers FO look like the villain, Lebron the victim :laugh:
Irving is starting to look good in all this. He's moved on. Looks like CLE hasn't.
But, how could he not? He initiated the divorce, steadfast in his demand for a year. His reason? A desire to cheat -- want for "more."
CLE's response? Unprecedented: They not only granted him the divorce, but hooked him up with the most attractive candidate possible (now, and in the future), who also doubles as the current bitter rival.
There was no way for him to "lose," look bad, etc. He's very fortunate to be in Boston. I hope he realizes it.
Well, most reports say Kyrie was being shopped anyways before he ultimately demanded the trade (realizing what the Cavaliers FO was doing - and not being stupid and realizing Lebron was pulling the strings here too).
If you're Kyrie and you see the Cavaliers actively shopping you despite all you've done, and there's a great chance Lebron leaves in FA the next season, and you aren't beating GSW as it is... then can you really blame him for demanding out?
Sure, the fashion he did it in may have been questionable, but @tar, are you really going to convince to me that Lebron is the poor victim here in all this?
First I've heard of that. MacMullen reports that CLE explored a trade to acquire Bledsoe and PG, though a formal offer was never made. I could understand his trade request if true, but this sounds like informal talks at best. It's ironic that he ended up in Boston though, where Ainge has dangled so many. Only recently has he started to keep quieter about it.
I'd never consider LBJ a victim. He sure won the genetic sweepstakes -- his body empowers steroids, not vice versa. Then with the championships, accolades, Nike deal, legacy -- he's in pretty decent shape. If anything, I'm the victim of having to tolerate the Irving-to-Boston trade. :)
Yup, Cleveland was dangling Kyrie before he asked for a trade.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/syndication.bleacherreport.com/amp/2752210-report-kyrie-irving-trade-for-paul-george-eric-bledsoe-was-explored-by-cavs.amp.html
-
I've pretty much forgotten about Zizic
Yeah, the hype train on him here was patently absurd. The best thing is he was a not a wasted pick as we used him in a decent trade.
I imagined he could be a rotation big for us behind Horford (at the time we had not signed Baynes, Theis so we were kind of "desperate" in that regard), but wow he has barely seen any playing time in CLE. Even when they had horrid stretches and the games were out of reach late, he never found any PT... :o
-
Slam dunk A grade.
They in essence traded the Brooklyn pick (the only really valuable piece in the trade at this point) for Irving. It was a heist. I dint ecen care where the pick lands at this point. It was a great trade for the Cs.
-
Slam dunk A grade.
They in essence traded the Brooklyn pick (the only really valuable piece in the trade at this point) for Irving. It was a heist. I dint ecen care where the pick lands at this point. It was a great trade for the Cs.
That BKN Pick looks very likely to land Top-5 now though. Would be nice if they could go on a bit of a winning streak soon...
-
Slam dunk A grade.
They in essence traded the Brooklyn pick (the only really valuable piece in the trade at this point) for Irving. It was a heist. I dint ecen care where the pick lands at this point. It was a great trade for the Cs.
That BKN Pick looks very likely to land Top-5 now though. Would be nice if they could go on a bit of a winning streak soon...
There are at least 7-8 teams who will be actively tanking at the end of this season (the last of the current lottery structure). I'm guessing the Nets pick lands 9th.
-
Slam dunk A grade.
They in essence traded the Brooklyn pick (the only really valuable piece in the trade at this point) for Irving. It was a heist. I dint ecen care where the pick lands at this point. It was a great trade for the Cs.
That BKN Pick looks very likely to land Top-5 now though. Would be nice if they could go on a bit of a winning streak soon...
There are at least 7-8 teams who will be actively tanking at the end of this season (the last of the current lottery structure). I'm guessing the Nets pick lands 9th.
If it does, I'll be ecstatic.
As long as the Cavaliers don't get Ayton, Bagley or Porter, I'm happy ;D
-
After the Kyrie injury and learning it could possibly be a long term "nagging" issue, the grade is lowered to B-
From C/C- to B+ to B- lol :laugh:
-
I gave it a B at the time. Given how IT, Crowder, and Zizic have performed this season I think it's a B+ now.
If Kyrie's career is ruined by this knee issue, it'll change again but I haven't heard any indication yet that that's in play.
-
The grade still mostly depends on the Nets pick and if Irving re-signs.
-
The grade still mostly depends on the Nets pick and if Irving re-signs.
Right now the Nets have the 7th worst record, but with two games against the Bulls coming up and one against us they could easily go 3-0 to finish out the season and finish with the 10th worst record.
If that pick falls 7th or higher its hard to not see this as a steal for the Celtics.. even factoring in Kyrie's injury.
-
The grade still mostly depends on the Nets pick and if Irving re-signs.
Right now the Nets have the 7th worst record, but with two games against the Bulls coming up and one against us they could easily go 3-0 to finish out the season and finish with the 10th worst record.
If that pick falls 7th or higher its hard to not see this as a steal for the Celtics.. even factoring in Kyrie's injury.
We need to start all our D leaguers in our game against Brooklyn.
-
The grade still mostly depends on the Nets pick and if Irving re-signs.
I kind of agree with this logic.
If Kyrie leaves after next year that would be bad. I'd imagine the chances of that happening are less than 5%, but until that is fully resolved it's something that could change the outlook of the trade.
I'm less concerned about the Brooklyn pick, however. Even if the pick ends up as the #1 pick I still think that is fair value for Kyrie.
-
The grade still mostly depends on the Nets pick and if Irving re-signs.
I agree with this 100%.
That being said, I feel like your answer is kind of a punt. If we are to judge Danny today, I still give him an A. The uncertainty of the BKN pick has to considered: yes, it can be very good. It can also be meh. Danny traded a couple uncertainties (IT & BKN pick) for Kyrie.
While Kyrie might never play again, and he might not re-sign with BOS, I'm more confident than not that the opposite is true. I think he will stay with the Celtics through another contract for a 6 year run (or so), with at least 3 all star seasons.
-
Along with whether the Cavs win it all or not, the position of the Brooklyn Pick will tell us a lot about this trade and how it looks.
-
Along with whether the Cavs win it all or not, the position of the Brooklyn Pick will tell us a lot about this trade and how it looks.
Not to mention the position of the Lakers pick!
Mike
-
Along with whether the Cavs win it all or not, the position of the Brooklyn Pick will tell us a lot about this trade and how it looks.
Not to mention the position of the Lakers pick!
Mike
Not really. That Lakers Pick was acquired from the trade with PHI involving Tatum and Fultz.
Or unless you mean in the sense that, what if we gave up Lakers pick instead of Nets pick in the trade, which makes sense.
-
Along with whether the Cavs win it all or not, the position of the Brooklyn Pick will tell us a lot about this trade and how it looks.
Will it? None of the pieces the Celtics sent to Cleveland are contributing to the Cav's run right now.
-
The pick was a dead cost the minute we traded it. Don't see whether Cleveland ends up with the 1st pick or the 9th pick that it effects the grade on this trade.
-
Just saw it was either Tatum or the Brooklyn pick for Kyrie. That's it. The trade was an A because we kept Tatum.
-
The pick was a dead cost the minute we traded it. Don't see whether Cleveland ends up with the 1st pick or the 9th pick that it effects the grade on this trade.
I don't agree. That's like saying that Isaiah's injury or Crowder's disappointing performance in Cleveland doesn't effect the grade because those things happened post-trade.
If the pick tonight ends up being #1 and that guy ends up being the next Lebron or Bird, then history will rightfully crucify the Celtics for making the deal. It's not a second or third order impact, this is directly related to this deal.
-
The pick was a dead cost the minute we traded it. Don't see whether Cleveland ends up with the 1st pick or the 9th pick that it effects the grade on this trade.
I don't agree. That's like saying that Isaiah's injury or Crowder's disappointing performance in Cleveland doesn't effect the grade because those things happened post-trade.
If the pick tonight ends up being #1 and that guy ends up being the next Lebron or Bird, then history will rightfully crucify the Celtics for making the deal. It's not a second or third order impact, this is directly related to this deal.
The Celtics did NOT trade away the next Lebron or Bird in that instance! They traded away the likelihood of obtaining said player. Whether or not Cleveland's few ping pong balls fall in their favor should have zero effect on how the Celtics are judged on the trade. If the Celtics had not made the trade you cannot say they would have received said player because the season would have played out COMPLETELY differently as well as the ping pong balls.
-
What are odds of the pick landing top 3?
-
The pick was a dead cost the minute we traded it. Don't see whether Cleveland ends up with the 1st pick or the 9th pick that it effects the grade on this trade.
I don't agree. That's like saying that Isaiah's injury or Crowder's disappointing performance in Cleveland doesn't effect the grade because those things happened post-trade.
If the pick tonight ends up being #1 and that guy ends up being the next Lebron or Bird, then history will rightfully crucify the Celtics for making the deal. It's not a second or third order impact, this is directly related to this deal.
You can disagree all you want, but that's not how a business looks at things. If you made an accurate assessment at the time, you move on. They rightfully graded the odds of Brooklyn drafting a LeBron/ Bird as very small. Right now they have a 2.8% chance of getting the #1 pick, and the odds of Ayton/Doncic becoming LeBron/Bird are small on top of that.
This is more like getting a bad beat at the poker table- there's nothing you can do about bad luck.
-
The pick was a dead cost the minute we traded it. Don't see whether Cleveland ends up with the 1st pick or the 9th pick that it effects the grade on this trade.
I don't agree. That's like saying that Isaiah's injury or Crowder's disappointing performance in Cleveland doesn't effect the grade because those things happened post-trade.
If the pick tonight ends up being #1 and that guy ends up being the next Lebron or Bird, then history will rightfully crucify the Celtics for making the deal. It's not a second or third order impact, this is directly related to this deal.
You can disagree all you want, but that's not how a business looks at things. If you made an accurate assessment at the time, you move on. They rightfully graded the odds of Brooklyn drafting a LeBron/ Bird as very small. Right now they have a 2.8% chance of getting the #1 pick, and the odds of Ayton/Doncic becoming LeBron/Bird are small on top of that.
This is more like getting a bad beat at the poker table- there's nothing you can do about bad luck.
Logic fail. You can't talk about a 2.8% chance NOW as a "bad beat" when most people thought that pick was a virtual lock for a top 5 spot. Logically you can't have it both ways. If you factor in the 2.8% now then the actual pick slot and player selected follows. If you don't consider the pick probability then this was always going to be valued as a top 5 pick. And in that regard Ainge traded away a top pick in what has appeared for the last two years to be a very talented draft, especially at the top of it.
Projection has always been part of this evaluation. Otherwise, Ainge traded a 28 year old guy for the exact same production from a 25 year old guy (stats don't lie), plus a solid starter plus a likely top 5 pick. That trade sucks on the face of it.
Except then you take into account Kyrie's ability to grow his game, IT's likelihood to maintain that level (not), IT's extra year of higher salary due to his impending contract (though over 2 years that Kyrie would cost more), Crowder's replacement already being on the team, needing to free up minutes for young players and the likely position of that draft pick. That's all based on projection, not on the information at that very moment. What none of us could foresee - including Cleveland apparently - was the severity of IT's injury and how that would impact him long into the season.
And as much as fans here don't like it, if that selection becomes a premier-type pick then it will always be "the Celtics traded away the rights to get that guy" much like we've seen the constant references around here about Tatum and Brown could/should be in Nets uniforms. But since it won't - the Cavs are picking 8th - then it's a different evaluation.
-
Crisis averted.
-
Did this trade really come down to:
Kyrie Irving for
#24 pick
#8 pick
Jordan Clarkson
Larry Nance Jr.
Zizic
George Hill
#56 2nd round pick
Is that it? Am I missing something?
-
Solid A because the pick didn’t end up as high as expected.
-
Did this trade really come down to:
Kyrie Irving for
#24 pick
#8 pick
Jordan Clarkson
Larry Nance Jr.
Zizic
George Hill
#56 2nd round pick
Is that it? Am I missing something?
Classic quantity for quality trade!
-
Did this trade really come down to:
Kyrie Irving for
#24 pick
#8 pick
Jordan Clarkson
Larry Nance Jr.
Zizic
George Hill
#56 2nd round pick
Is that it? Am I missing something?
Classic quantity for quality trade!
Can someone else double-check this? I feel like I'm missing something...I've got to be missing something. It can't be that lopsided?!?
-
Originally gave is a C/C- (lol)
Now I'm giving it a B+ ;D
I'm actually surprised that so many Cavaliers fans are mad. #8 pick isn't horrible.
-
The pick was a dead cost the minute we traded it. Don't see whether Cleveland ends up with the 1st pick or the 9th pick that it effects the grade on this trade.
I don't agree. That's like saying that Isaiah's injury or Crowder's disappointing performance in Cleveland doesn't effect the grade because those things happened post-trade.
If the pick tonight ends up being #1 and that guy ends up being the next Lebron or Bird, then history will rightfully crucify the Celtics for making the deal. It's not a second or third order impact, this is directly related to this deal.
You can disagree all you want, but that's not how a business looks at things. If you made an accurate assessment at the time, you move on. They rightfully graded the odds of Brooklyn drafting a LeBron/ Bird as very small. Right now they have a 2.8% chance of getting the #1 pick, and the odds of Ayton/Doncic becoming LeBron/Bird are small on top of that.
This is more like getting a bad beat at the poker table- there's nothing you can do about bad luck.
Logic fail. You can't talk about a 2.8% chance NOW as a "bad beat" when most people thought that pick was a virtual lock for a top 5 spot. Logically you can't have it both ways. If you factor in the 2.8% now then the actual pick slot and player selected follows. If you don't consider the pick probability then this was always going to be valued as a top 5 pick. And in that regard Ainge traded away a top pick in what has appeared for the last two years to be a very talented draft, especially at the top of it.
Projection has always been part of this evaluation. Otherwise, Ainge traded a 28 year old guy for the exact same production from a 25 year old guy (stats don't lie), plus a solid starter plus a likely top 5 pick. That trade sucks on the face of it.
Except then you take into account Kyrie's ability to grow his game, IT's likelihood to maintain that level (not), IT's extra year of higher salary due to his impending contract (though over 2 years that Kyrie would cost more), Crowder's replacement already being on the team, needing to free up minutes for young players and the likely position of that draft pick. That's all based on projection, not on the information at that very moment. What none of us could foresee - including Cleveland apparently - was the severity of IT's injury and how that would impact him long into the season.
And as much as fans here don't like it, if that selection becomes a premier-type pick then it will always be "the Celtics traded away the rights to get that guy" much like we've seen the constant references around here about Tatum and Brown could/should be in Nets uniforms. But since it won't - the Cavs are picking 8th - then it's a different evaluation.
Danny said soon after the trade that they evaluated the Brooklyn pick as very likely to end up falling between 5th and 9th. I personally had it in the 4-8 range. There were to many likely tankers in a very good draft year to ever believe, let alone expect that to be a top 5 pick.
There should be NO expectation that Brown or Tatum (or even similar quality players) would have ever ended up playing for the Nets had they chosen not to make the trade. The Nets may have remained mediocre or better, chosen differently or traded the picks away to someone else at a later date. It is nonsensical to refer of them as assets the Nets should have.
-
I give it an A now assuming Irving recovers fully.
-
Did this trade really come down to:
Kyrie Irving for
#24 pick
#8 pick
Jordan Clarkson
Larry Nance Jr.
Zizic
George Hill
#56 2nd round pick
Is that it? Am I missing something?
Classic quantity for quality trade!
Just like the KG trade ;D!
-
He shut himself down without an injury, consistent with all of his other character issues. He failed to live up to his predecessor's regular season alone, and his successor has been awesome. He has a huge hole in his game that detracts from our biggest strength. Our 20 year old is a more efficient iso scorer and better defender, and our 21 year old is already a better all around player and leader. We are probably going to the Finals without him.
Who cares what you gave up for him? The trade was a fail because you wasted a lot of solid assets for a poor return. The hope is that he and his bruised ego can adjust to not being the best player on the team next year. If he can't, everyone suffers.
-
He shut himself down without an injury, consistent with all of his other character issues. He failed to live up to his predecessor's regular season alone, and his successor has been awesome. He has a huge hole in his game that detracts from our biggest strength. Our 20 year old is a more efficient iso scorer and better defender, and our 21 year old is already a better all around player and leader. We are probably going to the Finals without him.
Who cares what you gave up for him? The trade was a fail because you wasted a lot of solid assets for a poor return. The hope is that he and his bruised ego can adjust to not being the best player on the team next year. If he can't, everyone suffers.
LOL, wow. Hilarious take. Are you serious?
Actually, I remembered all the irrational Kyrie hate you've spewed all season long. You are serious. Yikes
-
He shut himself down without an injury, consistent with all of his other character issues. He failed to live up to his predecessor's regular season alone, and his successor has been awesome. He has a huge hole in his game that detracts from our biggest strength. Our 20 year old is a more efficient iso scorer and better defender, and our 21 year old is already a better all around player and leader. We are probably going to the Finals without him.
Who cares what you gave up for him? The trade was a fail because you wasted a lot of solid assets for a poor return. The hope is that he and his bruised ego can adjust to not being the best player on the team next year. If he can't, everyone suffers.
This is why what you post about Kyrie feels like trolling. It goes without saying you're entitled to whatever opinion you want but this is factually wrong, you know its wrong, and you continue to post it. You're either hating or trolling.
-
Time to put in my final grade. Since it appears that this trade boiled down to:
Kyrie Irving for
#24 pick (Cleveland traded this to get Clarkson)
#8 pick
Jordan Clarkson
Larry Nance Jr.
Zizic
George Hill
#56 2nd round pick
Then there's no question that's a "A". Ainge wins again. From a returns standpoint that's an insane trade.
It's no secret that I wasn't overjoyed with the deal. I didn't hate it and I understood it but I wasn't exceptionally pleased with it. Some people misinterpret this as being an IT homer. I understood why it made sense to ship him off (even before we knew the extent of his injury). It's because I had, and still have, serious reservations about Irving's true value. I don't value him nearly as highly as others here. There's an argument to be made that he's not even the best PG on this team. He'll outscore and outshoot Rozier and neither is a particularly good passer; but Terry is a far better rebound and miles better on the defensive end. If Rozier is as good as these playoffs suggest then that's a much closer battle than some will admit. Kyrie is a big name but I don't think he plays like a superstar. I don't think he showed much growth with his game this year either.
However, Irving has far more value then anything else we gave away. IT appears to be broken. Crowder looks like a (valuable) bench contributor for Utah. The pick ended up being worse than most of us expected. Meanwhile, if we wanted to pair Irving with a pick we could swing a deal for another superstar (Leonard? Cousins?). Meanwhile, even if we keep Irving the value is far higher for this team than what we ultimately disposed of.
So yeah, this was ultimately a deal that really hurt the Cs biggest competitor and didn't hurt the Celtics at all. That's an A in my book.
-
He shut himself down without an injury, consistent with all of his other character issues. He failed to live up to his predecessor's regular season alone, and his successor has been awesome. He has a huge hole in his game that detracts from our biggest strength. Our 20 year old is a more efficient iso scorer and better defender, and our 21 year old is already a better all around player and leader. We are probably going to the Finals without him.
Who cares what you gave up for him? The trade was a fail because you wasted a lot of solid assets for a poor return. The hope is that he and his bruised ego can adjust to not being the best player on the team next year. If he can't, everyone suffers.
He shut himself down? I don't remember it that way, could somebody confirm?
-
Kyrie > 8 th pick Crowder , Cripple IT
Kyrie is a special tatent . Not even close
Danny fleeces The Cavs ......Bingo
-
Rachel Nichols
Verified account
@Rachel__Nichols
So the Kyrie Irving deal is complete - the Cavs traded a top-10 NBA player to Boston for...Isaiah Thomas (turned into Jordan Clarkson & Larry Nance Jr), Jae Crowder (turned into Rodney Hood) and the 8th-overall pick in this year’s draft. Judge it as you will.
5:22 PM - 15 May 2018
This kind of sums it up. Also got George Hill from the Crowder deal.
Also, I think Kyrie is Top-15 NBA Player, NOT Top-10. But yeah, this sums it up lol.
Not too bad. My grade as of now is a B+ for the trade. A lot depends on Kyrie's health going forward, whether he re-signs, and if CLE wins it all this year (latter seems doubtful, even if they comeback this series, no way in hell they beat Golden State).
-
Time to put in my final grade. Since it appears that this trade boiled down to:
Kyrie Irving for
#24 pick (Cleveland traded this to get Clarkson)
#8 pick
Jordan Clarkson
Larry Nance Jr.
Zizic
George Hill
#56 2nd round pick
Then there's no question that's a "A". Ainge wins again. From a returns standpoint that's an insane trade.
It's no secret that I wasn't overjoyed with the deal. I didn't hate it and I understood it but I wasn't exceptionally pleased with it. Some people misinterpret this as being an IT homer. I understood why it made sense to ship him off (even before we knew the extent of his injury). It's because I had, and still have, serious reservations about Irving's true value. I don't value him nearly as highly as others here. There's an argument to be made that he's not even the best PG on this team. He'll outscore and outshoot Rozier and neither is a particularly good passer; but Terry is a far better rebound and miles better on the defensive end. If Rozier is as good as these playoffs suggest then that's a much closer battle than some will admit. Kyrie is a big name but I don't think he plays like a superstar. I don't think he showed much growth with his game this year either.
However, Irving has far more value then anything else we gave away. IT appears to be broken. Crowder looks like a (valuable) bench contributor for Utah. The pick ended up being worse than most of us expected. Meanwhile, if we wanted to pair Irving with a pick we could swing a deal for another superstar (Leonard? Cousins?). Meanwhile, even if we keep Irving the value is far higher for this team than what we ultimately disposed of.
So yeah, this was ultimately a deal that really hurt the Cs biggest competitor and didn't hurt the Celtics at all. That's an A in my book.
I agree with this take. Even if you're not the biggest Irving fan - from a value standpoint - this is a fantastic deal. We will either be able to trade Irving for a much better return or retain his services for like the next 6 years on a deserved max contract.
And, while tarheels take is a little out of left field, one can't help but realize that the end of IT's and Irving's seasons look exactly the same (injured for the playoffs). And that is disappointing when your team is so close to reaching the NBA Finals.
-
Time to put in my final grade. Since it appears that this trade boiled down to:
Kyrie Irving for
#24 pick (Cleveland traded this to get Clarkson)
#8 pick
Jordan Clarkson
Larry Nance Jr.
Zizic
George Hill
#56 2nd round pick
Then there's no question that's a "A". Ainge wins again. From a returns standpoint that's an insane trade.
It's no secret that I wasn't overjoyed with the deal. I didn't hate it and I understood it but I wasn't exceptionally pleased with it. Some people misinterpret this as being an IT homer. I understood why it made sense to ship him off (even before we knew the extent of his injury). It's because I had, and still have, serious reservations about Irving's true value. I don't value him nearly as highly as others here. There's an argument to be made that he's not even the best PG on this team. He'll outscore and outshoot Rozier and neither is a particularly good passer; but Terry is a far better rebound and miles better on the defensive end. If Rozier is as good as these playoffs suggest then that's a much closer battle than some will admit. Kyrie is a big name but I don't think he plays like a superstar. I don't think he showed much growth with his game this year either.
However, Irving has far more value then anything else we gave away. IT appears to be broken. Crowder looks like a (valuable) bench contributor for Utah. The pick ended up being worse than most of us expected. Meanwhile, if we wanted to pair Irving with a pick we could swing a deal for another superstar (Leonard? Cousins?). Meanwhile, even if we keep Irving the value is far higher for this team than what we ultimately disposed of.
So yeah, this was ultimately a deal that really hurt the Cs biggest competitor and didn't hurt the Celtics at all. That's an A in my book.
TP. Basically
-
Sorry if I angeredamyone. Not bad intent. Respect ur opinions, hope u do mine. I love u.
-
Sorry if I angeredamyone. Not bad intent. Respect ur opinions, hope u do mine. I love u.
Lol for some reason I thought that was some vocabulary word I didn't know and tried looking it up. Then I realized it was just a mistake (supposed to be, "angered anyone") :P :laugh:
-
Sorry if I angeredamyone. Not bad intent. Respect ur opinions, hope u do mine. I love u.
Lol for some reason I thought that was some vocabulary word I didn't know and tried looking it up. Then I realized it was just a mistake (supposed to be, "angered anyone") :P :laugh:
Yes. Anesthesia. Maybe u can talk nick into adding me to the friend circle. Hes lovely.
No baiting here, just opinion. May e I. Wrong and ktrie will win me over. Jaylen said Marcus was born with his hands dirty. That's great
-
I gave this trade a B+ when it was made.
I was wrong.
Danny gets an A+.
-
God bless, people still think knee inflammation/soreness and a positive bacterial biopsy is a character flaw.
Celticsblog. Celticsblog never changes.
(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSjNpZnrhZ1Aa9jclAJZ2YAKb5M0UXIwmuz1IHImLhMlprlYrw6)
-
Its definitely an A++ with hindsight. The pick wasn't a great slot, and it didn't jump into the top 3. The upside of the pick was the big cost of the trade at this point, now we know it didn't happen.
The Crowder had the best season of the players we gave up and his replacement had a better season than he did. Kyrie was a clear upgrade on IT and is younger with an additional year of team control.
I was skeptical about the trade because I love IT and what he did while with the C's but the trade has been a home run.
-
Its definitely an A++ with hindsight. The pick wasn't a great slot, and it didn't jump into the top 3. The upside of the pick was the big cost of the trade at this point, now we know it didn't happen.
The Crowder had the best season of the players we gave up and his replacement had a better season than he did. Kyrie was a clear upgrade on IT and is younger with an additional year of team control.
I was skeptical about the trade because I love IT and what he did while with the C's but the trade has been a home run.
Yeah, plus the #8 pick might not be as sexy a trade asset. Meaning, you could still use it in a package to maybe acquire someone like Lowry, Beal or McCollum, but unless you package it with Kevin Love and another piece, you may not get someone like Kawhi Leonard (though even that Love + BKN Pick package might not get Kawhi either).
If the pick was Top-3, it would be an extremely sexy trade asset for Kawhi or another bonafide star/superstar (if it meant keeping Lebron in Cleveland).
As for the trade grade, I originally said C/C-. Danny proved me wrong (again). It's now at a B+. Still depends on Kyrie's long term health AND whether he re-signs with us or not (no guarantee though I think he does).
-
The 8th pick could still land a very good player in this draft but it wasn’t a top-3 pick so we shouldn’t be too upset losing it.
That said, there are still the injuries to both stars that have to work themselves out. I have hopes that both return to pain-free basketball with no loss of athleticism/explosiveness. But Kyrie does have a knee issue and IT a hip one. Hopefully both are now fully resolved and they can resume All-NBA caliber basketball. .
I don’t see it as a real issue (or at least not to the extent that IT’s extension would have been), but resigning Kyrie is something that still needs to be done.
I still feel this trade is incomplete until we see who is there at 8 (if someone like Porter is still there, wow) and how both stars return from their respective injuries.
Sure is looking like an A, though.
-
I'm shocked to see it mentioned in this thread that the last #8 pick to become an All-Star was Vin Baker ('93)
;D
-
So Kyrie for Zizic, Hood, Clarkson, Nance, Hill & Sexton.
Originally said C/C-, now it's a very solid B+ from me ;D
-
So Kyrie for Zizic, Hood, Clarkson, Nance, Hill & Sexton.
Originally said C/C-, now it's a very solid B+ from me ;D
But I thought we got fleeced by Cleveland? :angel: :angel: :angel: :angel:
-
#8 became Sexton...all pieces of deal now known!
-
So Kyrie for Zizic, Hood, Clarkson, Nance, Hill & Sexton.
Originally said C/C-, now it's a very solid B+ from me ;D
But I thought we got fleeced by Cleveland? :angel: :angel: :angel: :angel:
Lets calm down a bit. I think we keep Kyrie long-term, but there is still the risk he bolts after this season (even if it's a small risk)
-
Think about the nightmare scenarios about this trade. The Nets pick turning into Ayton, Bagley, or Doncic. IT gelling with Lebron and leading the Cavs to a title. Crowder shutting down the Celtic wings in the playoffs. Zizic developing into solid big.
Of course none of that happened and everything blew up in the Cavs faces. The Cavs HAD to get back at least one allstar level player and it looks like they got none. Maybe a couple solid players and some garbage.
The trade is an easy A and a A++++ if you sign Kyrie. You got a legitimate star and top 20 player in the league for a bunch of meh. Yes, it sucked Kyrie got hurt and cost the Celtics a trip to the finals. But when you look what they ended up trading for him it is ridiculous.
-
Think about the nightmare scenarios about this trade. The Nets pick turning into Ayton, Bagley, or Doncic. IT gelling with Lebron and leading the Cavs to a title. Crowder shutting down the Celtic wings in the playoffs. Zizic developing into solid big.
Of course none of that happened and everything blew up in the Cavs faces. The Cavs HAD to get back at least one allstar level player and it looks like they got none. Maybe a couple solid players and some garbage.
The trade is an easy A and a A++++ if you sign Kyrie. You got a legitimate star and top 20 player in the league for a bunch of meh. Yes, it sucked Kyrie got hurt and cost the Celtics a trip to the finals. But when you look what they ended up trading for him it is ridiculous.
The trade was always an A because the Celtics got the best player in the deal. The draft is a crapshoot. Nothing is guaranteed. The Celtics got the best player in the deal. Thats called winning a trade.
-
B+, lol. Sexton will need to be a HOFer for this not to be an A+. You win championships with stars...
-
Danny's fleecing the Cavs have gone full circle
cavs traded kyrie for it, crowder, zizic and bkn 18 pick (colin sexton)
-crowder was traded just to acquire rodney hood's contract
-IT was traded to the Lakers. Purpose is to clear cap space by trading clarkson and nance.
-the cap space was used by lakers to sign... lebron.
Go figure.
-
Think about the nightmare scenarios about this trade. The Nets pick turning into Ayton, Bagley, or Doncic. IT gelling with Lebron and leading the Cavs to a title. Crowder shutting down the Celtic wings in the playoffs. Zizic developing into solid big.
Of course none of that happened and everything blew up in the Cavs faces. The Cavs HAD to get back at least one allstar level player and it looks like they got none. Maybe a couple solid players and some garbage.
The trade is an easy A and a A++++ if you sign Kyrie. You got a legitimate star and top 20 player in the league for a bunch of meh. Yes, it sucked Kyrie got hurt and cost the Celtics a trip to the finals. But when you look what they ended up trading for him it is ridiculous.
The trade was always an A because the Celtics got the best player in the deal. The draft is a crapshoot. Nothing is guaranteed. The Celtics got the best player in the deal. Thats called winning a trade.
So then Brooklyn won the trade with us in 2013?
It’s not so black and white. Future picks need to be sorted out.
If you look at what we were in 2017 and got smoked, to almost pulling it out against the, without Kyrie (and Hayward, and Theis) to now the Cavs having to blow it up while we prepare to take the reigns of the East.
The trade signaled the end of the Cavs as we knew them, and tonight was an emphatic exclamation point on what that trade did to Cleveland.
-
So has anyone's "grades/thoughts" for the trade changed or...?
-
So has anyone's "grades/thoughts" for the trade changed or...?
Yes, it was not worth it.
-
So has anyone's "grades/thoughts" for the trade changed or...?
F-
😁
-
So has anyone's "grades/thoughts" for the trade changed or...?
Hell no. Thought it was a steal and in my opinion it still is. If we hadn't done it we would have lost IT for most of last year with his injury anyway.
-
So has anyone's "grades/thoughts" for the trade changed or...?
Hell no. Thought it was a steal and in my opinion it still is. If we hadn't done it we would have lost IT for most of last year with his injury anyway.
Yeah that injury unfortunately really hurt IT's career in general. Didn't think it was that bad until we found out more later :(
-
A+++
-
So has anyone's "grades/thoughts" for the trade changed or...?
F-
😁
hee hee. a tp for being an eternal optimist. ;D
-
Still think we need to see what Irving does in free agency. If he leaves it changes the trade a great deal
-
Still think we need to see what Irving does in free agency. If he leaves it changes the trade a great deal
Nah we won it. We are good. IT blew up the cavaliers and made Lebron go west. We won
-
Still think we need to see what Irving does in free agency. If he leaves it changes the trade a great deal
Nah we won it. We are good. IT blew up the cavaliers and made Lebron go west. We won
Seemed like Lebron was going west no matter what though. The Cavs still made the Finals after all. If Irving leaves this summer then I'd say Boston lost the trade because all of those assets could have been turned into other things, especially the Brooklyn pick, which could have been useful to the C's title aspirations going forward.
-
IT can't get on the floor because of injury, Zizic can't get on the floor with one of the worst teams in the NBA because he's not good, Crowder isn't a starter in the NBA.
Even if Kyrie were to leave this summer (in spite of every indication he's staying) I think 2 years of all star PG play for the 10th overall pick, a backup forward and nothing else of value is still a good deal.
-
IT can't get on the floor because of injury, Zizic can't get on the floor with one of the worst teams in the NBA because he's not good, Crowder isn't a starter in the NBA.
Even if Kyrie were to leave this summer (in spite of every indication he's staying) I think 2 years of all star PG play for the 10th overall pick, a backup forward and nothing else of value is still a good deal.
It's a spectacular deal.
I kinda' like Collin Sexton, but I'd say there is a way better chance he becomes Jordan Clarkson than he becomes Eric Bledsoe.
-
IT can't get on the floor because of injury, Zizic can't get on the floor with one of the worst teams in the NBA because he's not good, Crowder isn't a starter in the NBA.
Even if Kyrie were to leave this summer (in spite of every indication he's staying) I think 2 years of all star PG play for the 10th overall pick, a backup forward and nothing else of value is still a good deal.
It's a spectacular deal.
I kinda' like Collin Sexton, but I'd say there is a way better chance he becomes Jordan Clarkson than he becomes Eric Bledsoe.
And he certainly will never be Kyrie Irving.
-
Right now
A
-
IT can't get on the floor because of injury, Zizic can't get on the floor with one of the worst teams in the NBA because he's not good, Crowder isn't a starter in the NBA.
Even if Kyrie were to leave this summer (in spite of every indication he's staying) I think 2 years of all star PG play for the 10th overall pick, a backup forward and nothing else of value is still a good deal.
It's a spectacular deal.
I kinda' like Collin Sexton, but I'd say there is a way better chance he becomes Jordan Clarkson than he becomes Eric Bledsoe.
And he certainly will never be Kyrie Irving.
sure but at least 8 years of him is probably worth more than 2 years (and at most 1 playoff run) of Irving. Of course who knows if Boston would have even kept that pick and not tried to move it had it kept it. That is why it absolutely matters if Irving re-signs. It was the same argument with the Cavs and Love. Had Love not re-signed in Cleveland that would have been a terrible trade, but the minute Love reupped the trade solidified as a clear win for them.
-
The thread should be turned around
Kyrie should be giving Celtics team a letter grade ...
i suspect it would be very low right now.
-
Sexton has looked pretty darn good the last 6 games for the Cavs including a dominant performance in the Cavs upset of the Rockets today. This is why Irving re-signing is key to the trade for the Celtics. You can't trade an injury riddled 2 seasons (and at best 1 post season) for the likely at least 8 years of a top rookie, not to mention the other players given up. Irving has to re-sign or it is a bad trade for the C's
-
Sexton has looked pretty darn good the last 6 games for the Cavs including a dominant performance in the Cavs upset of the Rockets today. This is why Irving re-signing is key to the trade for the Celtics. You can't trade an injury riddled 2 seasons (and at best 1 post season) for the likely at least 8 years of a top rookie, not to mention the other players given up. Irving has to re-sign or it is a bad trade for the C's
You keep trying to create doubt that somehow Kyrie isn't going to sign when the coaching staff and front office love Kyrie and Irving has said he will be in Boston long term. The trade is a steal, Kyrie will be here long term.
-
Sexton has looked pretty darn good the last 6 games for the Cavs including a dominant performance in the Cavs upset of the Rockets today. This is why Irving re-signing is key to the trade for the Celtics. You can't trade an injury riddled 2 seasons (and at best 1 post season) for the likely at least 8 years of a top rookie, not to mention the other players given up. Irving has to re-sign or it is a bad trade for the C's
Even if he does resign, at his cost, is he not better as a trade asset? He's so marketable and talented, but equally frail and overrated, with a clearly limited impact on winning.
-
Sexton has looked pretty darn good the last 6 games for the Cavs including a dominant performance in the Cavs upset of the Rockets today. This is why Irving re-signing is key to the trade for the Celtics. You can't trade an injury riddled 2 seasons (and at best 1 post season) for the likely at least 8 years of a top rookie, not to mention the other players given up. Irving has to re-sign or it is a bad trade for the C's
Even if he does resign, at his cost, is he not better as a trade asset? He's so marketable and talented, but equally frail and overrated, with a clearly limited impact on winning.
Is that why he a championship in Cleveland?
-
Sexton has looked pretty darn good the last 6 games for the Cavs including a dominant performance in the Cavs upset of the Rockets today. This is why Irving re-signing is key to the trade for the Celtics. You can't trade an injury riddled 2 seasons (and at best 1 post season) for the likely at least 8 years of a top rookie, not to mention the other players given up. Irving has to re-sign or it is a bad trade for the C's
Even if he does resign, at his cost, is he not better as a trade asset? He's so marketable and talented, but equally frail and overrated, with a clearly limited impact on winning.
Is that why he a championship in Cleveland?
LeBron won him a championship in Cleveland, without any let down after trading him. Last year's CLE roster was probably the worst team to reach the Finals in recent memory.
-
Sexton has looked pretty darn good the last 6 games for the Cavs including a dominant performance in the Cavs upset of the Rockets today. This is why Irving re-signing is key to the trade for the Celtics. You can't trade an injury riddled 2 seasons (and at best 1 post season) for the likely at least 8 years of a top rookie, not to mention the other players given up. Irving has to re-sign or it is a bad trade for the C's
Even if he does resign, at his cost, is he not better as a trade asset? He's so marketable and talented, but equally frail and overrated, with a clearly limited impact on winning.
Is that why he a championship in Cleveland?
LeBron won him a championship in Cleveland, without any let down after trading him. Last year's CLE roster was probably the worst team to reach the Finals in recent memory.
The mental gymnastics that you go through to justify your Kyrie hate is astounding.
And saying “without any let down” is nonsense. Last year was by far the most difficult time that Cavs team had getting to the Finals, barely getting there by squeaking out two game 7 wins. And it’s funny that you point that out, because Kyrie being injured for the C’s is probably the only reason the Cavs even got to to game 7 with us.
And Kyrie put up 25.2 points, 4.7 assists, 3.0 rebounds, and 1.7 steals on 48% fg% and 44% 3pfg%, along with sealing the championship with the dagger three. Lebron doesn’t win a championship in Cleveland without Kyrie, and to suggest otherwise is ludicrous.
-
Sexton has looked pretty darn good the last 6 games for the Cavs including a dominant performance in the Cavs upset of the Rockets today. This is why Irving re-signing is key to the trade for the Celtics. You can't trade an injury riddled 2 seasons (and at best 1 post season) for the likely at least 8 years of a top rookie, not to mention the other players given up. Irving has to re-sign or it is a bad trade for the C's
Even if he does resign, at his cost, is he not better as a trade asset? He's so marketable and talented, but equally frail and overrated, with a clearly limited impact on winning.
Is that why he a championship in Cleveland?
LeBron won him a championship in Cleveland, without any let down after trading him. Last year's CLE roster was probably the worst team to reach the Finals in recent memory.
The mental gymnastics that you go through to justify your Kyrie hate is astounding.
And saying “without any let down” is nonsense. Last year was by far the most difficult time that Cavs team had getting to the Finals, barely getting there by squeaking out two game 7 wins. And it’s funny that you point that out, because Kyrie being injured for the C’s is probably the only reason the Cavs even got to to game 7 with us.
And Kyrie put up 25.2 points, 4.7 assists, 3.0 rebounds, and 1.7 steals on 48% fg% and 44% 3pfg%, along with sealing the championship with the dagger three. Lebron doesn’t win a championship in Cleveland without Kyrie, and to suggest otherwise is ludicrous.
LeBron dragging that horrible team to the Finals speaks to his utter dominance. Kyrie was a 2nd fiddle in Cleveland that could've been replaced by more than 20 other guys in the league. His locker room issues near the end suggest he was aware of that.
Those are empty stats, and I don't consider a low-percentage chuck after several scoreless minutes to be a "dagger." He has not won before or after LeBron. But you suggest that is coming?
For gymnastics, that felt pretty easy, pots.
-
Sexton has looked pretty darn good the last 6 games for the Cavs including a dominant performance in the Cavs upset of the Rockets today. This is why Irving re-signing is key to the trade for the Celtics. You can't trade an injury riddled 2 seasons (and at best 1 post season) for the likely at least 8 years of a top rookie, not to mention the other players given up. Irving has to re-sign or it is a bad trade for the C's
You keep trying to create doubt that somehow Kyrie isn't going to sign when the coaching staff and front office love Kyrie and Irving has said he will be in Boston long term. The trade is a steal, Kyrie will be here long term.
I absolutely expect Irving to sign a max extension this summer but it doesn't mean he will either. You can't really grade the trade until he does though because it is vastly different grades based on that decision.
-
Sexton has looked pretty darn good the last 6 games for the Cavs including a dominant performance in the Cavs upset of the Rockets today. This is why Irving re-signing is key to the trade for the Celtics. You can't trade an injury riddled 2 seasons (and at best 1 post season) for the likely at least 8 years of a top rookie, not to mention the other players given up. Irving has to re-sign or it is a bad trade for the C's
Even if he does resign, at his cost, is he not better as a trade asset? He's so marketable and talented, but equally frail and overrated, with a clearly limited impact on winning.
Is that why he a championship in Cleveland?
LeBron won him a championship in Cleveland, without any let down after trading him. Last year's CLE roster was probably the worst team to reach the Finals in recent memory.
The mental gymnastics that you go through to justify your Kyrie hate is astounding.
And saying “without any let down” is nonsense. Last year was by far the most difficult time that Cavs team had getting to the Finals, barely getting there by squeaking out two game 7 wins. And it’s funny that you point that out, because Kyrie being injured for the C’s is probably the only reason the Cavs even got to to game 7 with us.
And Kyrie put up 25.2 points, 4.7 assists, 3.0 rebounds, and 1.7 steals on 48% fg% and 44% 3pfg%, along with sealing the championship with the dagger three. Lebron doesn’t win a championship in Cleveland without Kyrie, and to suggest otherwise is ludicrous.
LeBron dragging that horrible team to the Finals speaks to his utter dominance. Kyrie was a 2nd fiddle in Cleveland that could've been replaced by more than 20 other guys in the league. His locker room issues near the end suggest he was aware of that.
Those are empty stats, and I don't consider a low-percentage chuck after several scoreless minutes to be a "dagger." He has not won before or after LeBron. But you suggest that is coming?
For gymnastics, that felt pretty easy, pots.
The root of all Tarheels irrational hate explained:
https://www.google.com/amp/s/articles.masslive.com/celtics/index.ssf/2018/09/kyrie_irving_boston_celtics_st_21.amp
Kyrie Irving: Boston Celtics star considered teaming up with Harrison Barnes at UNC in college
-
Sexton has looked pretty darn good the last 6 games for the Cavs including a dominant performance in the Cavs upset of the Rockets today. This is why Irving re-signing is key to the trade for the Celtics. You can't trade an injury riddled 2 seasons (and at best 1 post season) for the likely at least 8 years of a top rookie, not to mention the other players given up. Irving has to re-sign or it is a bad trade for the C's
Even if he does resign, at his cost, is he not better as a trade asset? He's so marketable and talented, but equally frail and overrated, with a clearly limited impact on winning.
Is that why he a championship in Cleveland?
LeBron won him a championship in Cleveland, without any let down after trading him. Last year's CLE roster was probably the worst team to reach the Finals in recent memory.
The mental gymnastics that you go through to justify your Kyrie hate is astounding.
And saying “without any let down” is nonsense. Last year was by far the most difficult time that Cavs team had getting to the Finals, barely getting there by squeaking out two game 7 wins. And it’s funny that you point that out, because Kyrie being injured for the C’s is probably the only reason the Cavs even got to to game 7 with us.
And Kyrie put up 25.2 points, 4.7 assists, 3.0 rebounds, and 1.7 steals on 48% fg% and 44% 3pfg%, along with sealing the championship with the dagger three. Lebron doesn’t win a championship in Cleveland without Kyrie, and to suggest otherwise is ludicrous.
LeBron dragging that horrible team to the Finals speaks to his utter dominance. Kyrie was a 2nd fiddle in Cleveland that could've been replaced by more than 20 other guys in the league. His locker room issues near the end suggest he was aware of that.
Those are empty stats, and I don't consider a low-percentage chuck after several scoreless minutes to be a "dagger." He has not won before or after LeBron. But you suggest that is coming?
For gymnastics, that felt pretty easy, pots.
What a stale, baseless argument. Aside from the Cavs championship, Lebron has only won a championship with at least 2 other hall of famers playing beside him. The Cavs championship came with only 1 probable hall of famer next to him (Kyrie). He was the clear #2 on that Cavs team and was a lot better than the #3 man (Love).
Your weird hate of Kyrie just gets weirder as time goes on.
-
Sexton has looked pretty darn good the last 6 games for the Cavs including a dominant performance in the Cavs upset of the Rockets today. This is why Irving re-signing is key to the trade for the Celtics. You can't trade an injury riddled 2 seasons (and at best 1 post season) for the likely at least 8 years of a top rookie, not to mention the other players given up. Irving has to re-sign or it is a bad trade for the C's
Even if he does resign, at his cost, is he not better as a trade asset? He's so marketable and talented, but equally frail and overrated, with a clearly limited impact on winning.
Is that why he a championship in Cleveland?
LeBron won him a championship in Cleveland, without any let down after trading him. Last year's CLE roster was probably the worst team to reach the Finals in recent memory.
The mental gymnastics that you go through to justify your Kyrie hate is astounding.
And saying “without any let down” is nonsense. Last year was by far the most difficult time that Cavs team had getting to the Finals, barely getting there by squeaking out two game 7 wins. And it’s funny that you point that out, because Kyrie being injured for the C’s is probably the only reason the Cavs even got to to game 7 with us.
And Kyrie put up 25.2 points, 4.7 assists, 3.0 rebounds, and 1.7 steals on 48% fg% and 44% 3pfg%, along with sealing the championship with the dagger three. Lebron doesn’t win a championship in Cleveland without Kyrie, and to suggest otherwise is ludicrous.
LeBron dragging that horrible team to the Finals speaks to his utter dominance. Kyrie was a 2nd fiddle in Cleveland that could've been replaced by more than 20 other guys in the league. His locker room issues near the end suggest he was aware of that.
Those are empty stats, and I don't consider a low-percentage chuck after several scoreless minutes to be a "dagger." He has not won before or after LeBron. But you suggest that is coming?
For gymnastics, that felt pretty easy, pots.
What a stale, baseless argument. Aside from the Cavs championship, Lebron has only won a championship with at least 2 other hall of famers playing beside him. The Cavs championship came with only 1 probable hall of famer next to him (Kyrie). He was the clear #2 on that Cavs team and was a lot better than the #3 man (Love).
Your weird hate of Kyrie just gets weirder as time goes on.
Lebron has also dragged perhaps the worst Finals team ever to the Finals (I mean have you actually looked at that 07 Cavs roster). Irving gets hurt and Boston goes to the ECF without him and the Cavs still ended up in the Finals without him (even with that trainwreck of a season). Boston's record with and without Irving last year was only slightly worse without him. Including this year in the regular season Boston is 54-28 with him (65.9%) and 14-9 without him (60.8%) so only about 4 games worse over the course of a season when Irving doesn't play. There is plenty of evidence to support the notion that Irving's contribution to winning aren't nearly as good as many on this board would try to claim.
-
Sexton has looked pretty darn good the last 6 games for the Cavs including a dominant performance in the Cavs upset of the Rockets today. This is why Irving re-signing is key to the trade for the Celtics. You can't trade an injury riddled 2 seasons (and at best 1 post season) for the likely at least 8 years of a top rookie, not to mention the other players given up. Irving has to re-sign or it is a bad trade for the C's
Even if he does resign, at his cost, is he not better as a trade asset? He's so marketable and talented, but equally frail and overrated, with a clearly limited impact on winning.
Is that why he a championship in Cleveland?
LeBron won him a championship in Cleveland, without any let down after trading him. Last year's CLE roster was probably the worst team to reach the Finals in recent memory.
The mental gymnastics that you go through to justify your Kyrie hate is astounding.
And saying “without any let down” is nonsense. Last year was by far the most difficult time that Cavs team had getting to the Finals, barely getting there by squeaking out two game 7 wins. And it’s funny that you point that out, because Kyrie being injured for the C’s is probably the only reason the Cavs even got to to game 7 with us.
And Kyrie put up 25.2 points, 4.7 assists, 3.0 rebounds, and 1.7 steals on 48% fg% and 44% 3pfg%, along with sealing the championship with the dagger three. Lebron doesn’t win a championship in Cleveland without Kyrie, and to suggest otherwise is ludicrous.
LeBron dragging that horrible team to the Finals speaks to his utter dominance. Kyrie was a 2nd fiddle in Cleveland that could've been replaced by more than 20 other guys in the league. His locker room issues near the end suggest he was aware of that.
Those are empty stats, and I don't consider a low-percentage chuck after several scoreless minutes to be a "dagger." He has not won before or after LeBron. But you suggest that is coming?
For gymnastics, that felt pretty easy, pots.
What a stale, baseless argument. Aside from the Cavs championship, Lebron has only won a championship with at least 2 other hall of famers playing beside him. The Cavs championship came with only 1 probable hall of famer next to him (Kyrie). He was the clear #2 on that Cavs team and was a lot better than the #3 man (Love).
Your weird hate of Kyrie just gets weirder as time goes on.
Lebron has also dragged perhaps the worst Finals team ever to the Finals (I mean have you actually looked at that 07 Cavs roster). Irving gets hurt and Boston goes to the ECF without him and the Cavs still ended up in the Finals without him (even with that trainwreck of a season). Boston's record with and without Irving last year was only slightly worse without him. Including this year in the regular season Boston is 54-28 with him (65.9%) and 14-9 without him (60.8%) so only about 4 games worse over the course of a season when Irving doesn't play. There is plenty of evidence to support the notion that Irving's contribution to winning aren't nearly as good as many on this board would try to claim.
TP for the stats. Personal attacks dont hold up well to evidence, though it's painful to see how the evidence needs to be repeatedly shared for any of it to stick at times.
-
Sexton has looked pretty darn good the last 6 games for the Cavs including a dominant performance in the Cavs upset of the Rockets today. This is why Irving re-signing is key to the trade for the Celtics. You can't trade an injury riddled 2 seasons (and at best 1 post season) for the likely at least 8 years of a top rookie, not to mention the other players given up. Irving has to re-sign or it is a bad trade for the C's
Even if he does resign, at his cost, is he not better as a trade asset? He's so marketable and talented, but equally frail and overrated, with a clearly limited impact on winning.
Is that why he a championship in Cleveland?
LeBron won him a championship in Cleveland, without any let down after trading him. Last year's CLE roster was probably the worst team to reach the Finals in recent memory.
The mental gymnastics that you go through to justify your Kyrie hate is astounding.
And saying “without any let down” is nonsense. Last year was by far the most difficult time that Cavs team had getting to the Finals, barely getting there by squeaking out two game 7 wins. And it’s funny that you point that out, because Kyrie being injured for the C’s is probably the only reason the Cavs even got to to game 7 with us.
And Kyrie put up 25.2 points, 4.7 assists, 3.0 rebounds, and 1.7 steals on 48% fg% and 44% 3pfg%, along with sealing the championship with the dagger three. Lebron doesn’t win a championship in Cleveland without Kyrie, and to suggest otherwise is ludicrous.
LeBron dragging that horrible team to the Finals speaks to his utter dominance. Kyrie was a 2nd fiddle in Cleveland that could've been replaced by more than 20 other guys in the league. His locker room issues near the end suggest he was aware of that.
Those are empty stats, and I don't consider a low-percentage chuck after several scoreless minutes to be a "dagger." He has not won before or after LeBron. But you suggest that is coming?
For gymnastics, that felt pretty easy, pots.
What a stale, baseless argument. Aside from the Cavs championship, Lebron has only won a championship with at least 2 other hall of famers playing beside him. The Cavs championship came with only 1 probable hall of famer next to him (Kyrie). He was the clear #2 on that Cavs team and was a lot better than the #3 man (Love).
Your weird hate of Kyrie just gets weirder as time goes on.
Lebron has also dragged perhaps the worst Finals team ever to the Finals (I mean have you actually looked at that 07 Cavs roster). Irving gets hurt and Boston goes to the ECF without him and the Cavs still ended up in the Finals without him (even with that trainwreck of a season). Boston's record with and without Irving last year was only slightly worse without him. Including this year in the regular season Boston is 54-28 with him (65.9%) and 14-9 without him (60.8%) so only about 4 games worse over the course of a season when Irving doesn't play. There is plenty of evidence to support the notion that Irving's contribution to winning aren't nearly as good as many on this board would try to claim.
Even a four game difference makes a difference. In a tight top 6 in the East, a 4 game win differential could be the difference between a 2 seed and a 5th seed in the playoffs. That's quite a difference. And in the playoffs that could translate to one extra win in a 7game series which could be the difference between winning and losing a 7 game Finals series. That's a big difference. And I suspect the winning percentage of the Cs without Kyrie would only get worse if Kyrie actually missed an entire year, so the difference he makes could actually be many more than 4 games.
-
Sexton has looked pretty darn good the last 6 games for the Cavs including a dominant performance in the Cavs upset of the Rockets today. This is why Irving re-signing is key to the trade for the Celtics. You can't trade an injury riddled 2 seasons (and at best 1 post season) for the likely at least 8 years of a top rookie, not to mention the other players given up. Irving has to re-sign or it is a bad trade for the C's
Even if he does resign, at his cost, is he not better as a trade asset? He's so marketable and talented, but equally frail and overrated, with a clearly limited impact on winning.
Is that why he a championship in Cleveland?
LeBron won him a championship in Cleveland, without any let down after trading him. Last year's CLE roster was probably the worst team to reach the Finals in recent memory.
The mental gymnastics that you go through to justify your Kyrie hate is astounding.
And saying “without any let down” is nonsense. Last year was by far the most difficult time that Cavs team had getting to the Finals, barely getting there by squeaking out two game 7 wins. And it’s funny that you point that out, because Kyrie being injured for the C’s is probably the only reason the Cavs even got to to game 7 with us.
And Kyrie put up 25.2 points, 4.7 assists, 3.0 rebounds, and 1.7 steals on 48% fg% and 44% 3pfg%, along with sealing the championship with the dagger three. Lebron doesn’t win a championship in Cleveland without Kyrie, and to suggest otherwise is ludicrous.
LeBron dragging that horrible team to the Finals speaks to his utter dominance. Kyrie was a 2nd fiddle in Cleveland that could've been replaced by more than 20 other guys in the league. His locker room issues near the end suggest he was aware of that.
Those are empty stats, and I don't consider a low-percentage chuck after several scoreless minutes to be a "dagger." He has not won before or after LeBron. But you suggest that is coming?
For gymnastics, that felt pretty easy, pots.
What a stale, baseless argument. Aside from the Cavs championship, Lebron has only won a championship with at least 2 other hall of famers playing beside him. The Cavs championship came with only 1 probable hall of famer next to him (Kyrie). He was the clear #2 on that Cavs team and was a lot better than the #3 man (Love).
Your weird hate of Kyrie just gets weirder as time goes on.
Lebron has also dragged perhaps the worst Finals team ever to the Finals (I mean have you actually looked at that 07 Cavs roster). Irving gets hurt and Boston goes to the ECF without him and the Cavs still ended up in the Finals without him (even with that trainwreck of a season). Boston's record with and without Irving last year was only slightly worse without him. Including this year in the regular season Boston is 54-28 with him (65.9%) and 14-9 without him (60.8%) so only about 4 games worse over the course of a season when Irving doesn't play. There is plenty of evidence to support the notion that Irving's contribution to winning aren't nearly as good as many on this board would try to claim.
Even a four game difference makes a difference. In a tight top 6 in the East, a 4 game win differential could be the difference between a 2 seed and a 5th seed in the playoffs. That's quite a difference. And in the playoffs that could translate to one extra win in a 7game series which could be the difference between winning and losing a 7 game Finals series. That's a big difference. And I suspect the winning percentage of the Cs without Kyrie would only get worse if Kyrie actually missed an entire year, so the difference he makes could actually be many more than 4 games.
It's even a bigger difference than that as Moranis's analysis includes games that shouldn't factor in. The C's were beating Indy by 10 at halftime when Kyrie ended his season and without him the C's ended up losing the game. The games without Kyrie also include beating the Nets without most of the C's main rotation playing in the last game of the year. The C's only outscored opponents by 8 points in those final 15 games last year and that's with being +13 in that final game against Brooklyn.
The C's shot very well down the stretch and probably won a few games they wouldn't in an average sample without Kyrie, that's the problem with using extremely small sample sizes in the manner that Moranis is here. The C's were +257 in 1931 minutes with Kyrie last year and +37 in 2030 minutes without him. This year the C's are +106 in 707 minutes with Kyrie and -5 in 407 minutes without him.
The offensive rating was 8.8 points worse without Kyrie last year and 14.6 points worse so far this year. The net rating was 5.4 points worse last year and 7.4 points worse so far this year without Kyrie. No single statistic can tell the whole story and when you look at them all with context Kyrie's positive impact is crystal clear.
-
During my deep statistical analysis I discovered that there is 0% chance we win 18. this year without Kyrie.
With him chances rise above 0%, so mathematically he infinitely increases our title odds.
-
I want to see how IT plays when healthy, and hopefully it’s this year (and soon).
I know many are counting him out, but if he returns anywhere close to the caliber he was for us, that Nets pick would have been huge.
In an alternate universe, we have a now-healthy IT (had surgery sooner than March), a never-injured Hayward, Horford, and possibly Davis (via some combo of the 8th pick, Tatum, Brown, picks).
IT wouldn’t have gotten the truck he expected, so we are in better shape salary-wise too.
Starters: IT/Smart/Hayward/Davis/Horford
Bench: Rozier/Tatum/Morris/Baynes
-
Sexton has looked pretty darn good the last 6 games for the Cavs including a dominant performance in the Cavs upset of the Rockets today. This is why Irving re-signing is key to the trade for the Celtics. You can't trade an injury riddled 2 seasons (and at best 1 post season) for the likely at least 8 years of a top rookie, not to mention the other players given up. Irving has to re-sign or it is a bad trade for the C's
Even if he does resign, at his cost, is he not better as a trade asset? He's so marketable and talented, but equally frail and overrated, with a clearly limited impact on winning.
Is that why he a championship in Cleveland?
LeBron won him a championship in Cleveland, without any let down after trading him. Last year's CLE roster was probably the worst team to reach the Finals in recent memory.
The mental gymnastics that you go through to justify your Kyrie hate is astounding.
And saying “without any let down” is nonsense. Last year was by far the most difficult time that Cavs team had getting to the Finals, barely getting there by squeaking out two game 7 wins. And it’s funny that you point that out, because Kyrie being injured for the C’s is probably the only reason the Cavs even got to to game 7 with us.
And Kyrie put up 25.2 points, 4.7 assists, 3.0 rebounds, and 1.7 steals on 48% fg% and 44% 3pfg%, along with sealing the championship with the dagger three. Lebron doesn’t win a championship in Cleveland without Kyrie, and to suggest otherwise is ludicrous.
LeBron dragging that horrible team to the Finals speaks to his utter dominance. Kyrie was a 2nd fiddle in Cleveland that could've been replaced by more than 20 other guys in the league. His locker room issues near the end suggest he was aware of that.
Those are empty stats, and I don't consider a low-percentage chuck after several scoreless minutes to be a "dagger." He has not won before or after LeBron. But you suggest that is coming?
For gymnastics, that felt pretty easy, pots.
What a stale, baseless argument. Aside from the Cavs championship, Lebron has only won a championship with at least 2 other hall of famers playing beside him. The Cavs championship came with only 1 probable hall of famer next to him (Kyrie). He was the clear #2 on that Cavs team and was a lot better than the #3 man (Love).
Your weird hate of Kyrie just gets weirder as time goes on.
Lebron has also dragged perhaps the worst Finals team ever to the Finals (I mean have you actually looked at that 07 Cavs roster). Irving gets hurt and Boston goes to the ECF without him and the Cavs still ended up in the Finals without him (even with that trainwreck of a season). Boston's record with and without Irving last year was only slightly worse without him. Including this year in the regular season Boston is 54-28 with him (65.9%) and 14-9 without him (60.8%) so only about 4 games worse over the course of a season when Irving doesn't play. There is plenty of evidence to support the notion that Irving's contribution to winning aren't nearly as good as many on this board would try to claim.
Even a four game difference makes a difference. In a tight top 6 in the East, a 4 game win differential could be the difference between a 2 seed and a 5th seed in the playoffs. That's quite a difference. And in the playoffs that could translate to one extra win in a 7game series which could be the difference between winning and losing a 7 game Finals series. That's a big difference. And I suspect the winning percentage of the Cs without Kyrie would only get worse if Kyrie actually missed an entire year, so the difference he makes could actually be many more than 4 games.
It might, it might not. That also includes the 15-2 unsustainable start to last season as well (Irving missed 1 of the games). If you take that crazy start to the season the win percentages are nearly identical at 39-26 (60%) vs. 13-9 (59.1%). That is less than a game different. Now obviously we had that crazy 16 game winning streak, but it also wasn't an accurate representation of what that team was. Boston was 11-8 in the playoffs and was 1 game away from the NBA Finals without Irving playing a single second of playoff basketball.
There is plenty of evidence to support the idea that Irving just doesn't affect wins all that much. The Cavs won basically the same amount games without him as with him. The Celtics didn't miss a beat when he got hurt.
-
Sexton has looked pretty darn good the last 6 games for the Cavs including a dominant performance in the Cavs upset of the Rockets today. This is why Irving re-signing is key to the trade for the Celtics. You can't trade an injury riddled 2 seasons (and at best 1 post season) for the likely at least 8 years of a top rookie, not to mention the other players given up. Irving has to re-sign or it is a bad trade for the C's
Even if he does resign, at his cost, is he not better as a trade asset? He's so marketable and talented, but equally frail and overrated, with a clearly limited impact on winning.
Is that why he a championship in Cleveland?
LeBron won him a championship in Cleveland, without any let down after trading him. Last year's CLE roster was probably the worst team to reach the Finals in recent memory.
The mental gymnastics that you go through to justify your Kyrie hate is astounding.
And saying “without any let down” is nonsense. Last year was by far the most difficult time that Cavs team had getting to the Finals, barely getting there by squeaking out two game 7 wins. And it’s funny that you point that out, because Kyrie being injured for the C’s is probably the only reason the Cavs even got to to game 7 with us.
And Kyrie put up 25.2 points, 4.7 assists, 3.0 rebounds, and 1.7 steals on 48% fg% and 44% 3pfg%, along with sealing the championship with the dagger three. Lebron doesn’t win a championship in Cleveland without Kyrie, and to suggest otherwise is ludicrous.
LeBron dragging that horrible team to the Finals speaks to his utter dominance. Kyrie was a 2nd fiddle in Cleveland that could've been replaced by more than 20 other guys in the league. His locker room issues near the end suggest he was aware of that.
Those are empty stats, and I don't consider a low-percentage chuck after several scoreless minutes to be a "dagger." He has not won before or after LeBron. But you suggest that is coming?
For gymnastics, that felt pretty easy, pots.
What a stale, baseless argument. Aside from the Cavs championship, Lebron has only won a championship with at least 2 other hall of famers playing beside him. The Cavs championship came with only 1 probable hall of famer next to him (Kyrie). He was the clear #2 on that Cavs team and was a lot better than the #3 man (Love).
Your weird hate of Kyrie just gets weirder as time goes on.
Lebron has also dragged perhaps the worst Finals team ever to the Finals (I mean have you actually looked at that 07 Cavs roster). Irving gets hurt and Boston goes to the ECF without him and the Cavs still ended up in the Finals without him (even with that trainwreck of a season). Boston's record with and without Irving last year was only slightly worse without him. Including this year in the regular season Boston is 54-28 with him (65.9%) and 14-9 without him (60.8%) so only about 4 games worse over the course of a season when Irving doesn't play. There is plenty of evidence to support the notion that Irving's contribution to winning aren't nearly as good as many on this board would try to claim.
Even a four game difference makes a difference. In a tight top 6 in the East, a 4 game win differential could be the difference between a 2 seed and a 5th seed in the playoffs. That's quite a difference. And in the playoffs that could translate to one extra win in a 7game series which could be the difference between winning and losing a 7 game Finals series. That's a big difference. And I suspect the winning percentage of the Cs without Kyrie would only get worse if Kyrie actually missed an entire year, so the difference he makes could actually be many more than 4 games.
It's even a bigger difference than that as Moranis's analysis includes games that shouldn't factor in. The C's were beating Indy by 10 at halftime when Kyrie ended his season and without him the C's ended up losing the game. The games without Kyrie also include beating the Nets without most of the C's main rotation playing in the last game of the year. The C's only outscored opponents by 8 points in those final 15 games last year and that's with being +13 in that final game against Brooklyn.
The C's shot very well down the stretch and probably won a few games they wouldn't in an average sample without Kyrie, that's the problem with using extremely small sample sizes in the manner that Moranis is here. The C's were +257 in 1931 minutes with Kyrie last year and +37 in 2030 minutes without him. This year the C's are +106 in 707 minutes with Kyrie and -5 in 407 minutes without him.
The offensive rating was 8.8 points worse without Kyrie last year and 14.6 points worse so far this year. The net rating was 5.4 points worse last year and 7.4 points worse so far this year without Kyrie. No single statistic can tell the whole story and when you look at them all with context Kyrie's positive impact is crystal clear.
Irving's on/off differential was 3.1 last year, so obviously the team was better with him on the floor, but that also isn't a very good on/off differential for a supposed superstar. That 3.1 was also well behind Brown, Tatum, Horford, Baynes, and Smart. This year the on/off differential for Irving is only 2.3 again behind Tatum, Baynes, and Smart. And it isn't just Boston where his numbers are so low (as in maybe the team is so deep there isn't much of a drop off). He has only had 2 seasons in his career above 7 (his first and last year with Lebron). He even had a negative differential while playing on a team and a lot of his minutes with Lebron his second year with him. The year before Lebron got there, the Cavs were 4.3 points per 100 possession worse with Irving on the floor then when he was off the floor.
Irving is a good player. At times he is a great player, but he far too often lacks effort defensively (and even when he tries he isn't a + defender) and goes cold offensively. He is one of the best ever at creating a shot for himself, but is subpar at creating for others.
He is absolutely better than Thomas and if he re-signs Boston will have won the trade, though also might regret giving him that 5 year max contract at some point down the line, given his injury history and all of those deficiencies in his game. Boston will not win a title with Irving as the team's best player, which right now he is. Hopefully Hayward returns to form and takes that mantel while keeping it warm a couple of seasons for Tatum, or whomever Tatum gets traded for. For Boston to really create the type of team we want, Boston needs a gold medal superstar and it doesn't currently have one (though hopefully Tatum gets there).
-
At times he is a great player, but he far too often lacks effort defensively (and even when he tries he isn't a + defender) and goes cold offensively. He is one of the best ever at creating a shot for himself, but is subpar at creating for others.
This was more true last year than this year.
He is 9th in steals this year with 1.73 a game
http://www.espn.com/nba/statistics/player/_/stat/steals/sort/avgSteals/year/2019/seasontype/2
I think he is trying more this year on D.
-
At times he is a great player, but he far too often lacks effort defensively (and even when he tries he isn't a + defender) and goes cold offensively. He is one of the best ever at creating a shot for himself, but is subpar at creating for others.
This was more true last year than this year.
He is 9th in steals this year with 1.73 a game
http://www.espn.com/nba/statistics/player/_/stat/steals/sort/avgSteals/year/2019/seasontype/2
I think he is trying more this year on D.
Thus far this is his career best in the steal generation department, but it isn't appreciably better then several other seasons in his career (he had 3 straight years of 1.5 spg, for example). And while steal generation often shows effort, it doesn't always and certainly doesn't always mean consistent effort (a gamble or two every once in awhile doesn't equate to consistent defensive effort). Steal generation also isn't always a great indicator of great defense. Many of the leaders in steals often gamble and hurt overall team defense. That said, Irving's advanced defensive metrics are career bests thus far and he does appear to be giving more consistent effort. He will always be a poor defender though and expecting much more from him will only let people down.
-
Sexton has looked pretty darn good the last 6 games for the Cavs including a dominant performance in the Cavs upset of the Rockets today. This is why Irving re-signing is key to the trade for the Celtics. You can't trade an injury riddled 2 seasons (and at best 1 post season) for the likely at least 8 years of a top rookie, not to mention the other players given up. Irving has to re-sign or it is a bad trade for the C's
Even if he does resign, at his cost, is he not better as a trade asset? He's so marketable and talented, but equally frail and overrated, with a clearly limited impact on winning.
Is that why he a championship in Cleveland?
LeBron won him a championship in Cleveland, without any let down after trading him. Last year's CLE roster was probably the worst team to reach the Finals in recent memory.
The mental gymnastics that you go through to justify your Kyrie hate is astounding.
And saying “without any let down” is nonsense. Last year was by far the most difficult time that Cavs team had getting to the Finals, barely getting there by squeaking out two game 7 wins. And it’s funny that you point that out, because Kyrie being injured for the C’s is probably the only reason the Cavs even got to to game 7 with us.
And Kyrie put up 25.2 points, 4.7 assists, 3.0 rebounds, and 1.7 steals on 48% fg% and 44% 3pfg%, along with sealing the championship with the dagger three. Lebron doesn’t win a championship in Cleveland without Kyrie, and to suggest otherwise is ludicrous.
LeBron dragging that horrible team to the Finals speaks to his utter dominance. Kyrie was a 2nd fiddle in Cleveland that could've been replaced by more than 20 other guys in the league. His locker room issues near the end suggest he was aware of that.
Those are empty stats, and I don't consider a low-percentage chuck after several scoreless minutes to be a "dagger." He has not won before or after LeBron. But you suggest that is coming?
For gymnastics, that felt pretty easy, pots.
What a stale, baseless argument. Aside from the Cavs championship, Lebron has only won a championship with at least 2 other hall of famers playing beside him. The Cavs championship came with only 1 probable hall of famer next to him (Kyrie). He was the clear #2 on that Cavs team and was a lot better than the #3 man (Love).
Your weird hate of Kyrie just gets weirder as time goes on.
Lebron has also dragged perhaps the worst Finals team ever to the Finals (I mean have you actually looked at that 07 Cavs roster). Irving gets hurt and Boston goes to the ECF without him and the Cavs still ended up in the Finals without him (even with that trainwreck of a season). Boston's record with and without Irving last year was only slightly worse without him. Including this year in the regular season Boston is 54-28 with him (65.9%) and 14-9 without him (60.8%) so only about 4 games worse over the course of a season when Irving doesn't play. There is plenty of evidence to support the notion that Irving's contribution to winning aren't nearly as good as many on this board would try to claim.
Even a four game difference makes a difference. In a tight top 6 in the East, a 4 game win differential could be the difference between a 2 seed and a 5th seed in the playoffs. That's quite a difference. And in the playoffs that could translate to one extra win in a 7game series which could be the difference between winning and losing a 7 game Finals series. That's a big difference. And I suspect the winning percentage of the Cs without Kyrie would only get worse if Kyrie actually missed an entire year, so the difference he makes could actually be many more than 4 games.
It's even a bigger difference than that as Moranis's analysis includes games that shouldn't factor in. The C's were beating Indy by 10 at halftime when Kyrie ended his season and without him the C's ended up losing the game. The games without Kyrie also include beating the Nets without most of the C's main rotation playing in the last game of the year. The C's only outscored opponents by 8 points in those final 15 games last year and that's with being +13 in that final game against Brooklyn.
The C's shot very well down the stretch and probably won a few games they wouldn't in an average sample without Kyrie, that's the problem with using extremely small sample sizes in the manner that Moranis is here. The C's were +257 in 1931 minutes with Kyrie last year and +37 in 2030 minutes without him. This year the C's are +106 in 707 minutes with Kyrie and -5 in 407 minutes without him.
The offensive rating was 8.8 points worse without Kyrie last year and 14.6 points worse so far this year. The net rating was 5.4 points worse last year and 7.4 points worse so far this year without Kyrie. No single statistic can tell the whole story and when you look at them all with context Kyrie's positive impact is crystal clear.
Irving's on/off differential was 3.1 last year, so obviously the team was better with him on the floor, but that also isn't a very good on/off differential for a supposed superstar. That 3.1 was also well behind Brown, Tatum, Horford, Baynes, and Smart. This year the on/off differential for Irving is only 2.3 again behind Tatum, Baynes, and Smart. And it isn't just Boston where his numbers are so low (as in maybe the team is so deep there isn't much of a drop off). He has only had 2 seasons in his career above 7 (his first and last year with Lebron). He even had a negative differential while playing on a team and a lot of his minutes with Lebron his second year with him. The year before Lebron got there, the Cavs were 4.3 points per 100 possession worse with Irving on the floor then when he was off the floor.
Irving is a good player. At times he is a great player, but he far too often lacks effort defensively (and even when he tries he isn't a + defender) and goes cold offensively. He is one of the best ever at creating a shot for himself, but is subpar at creating for others.
He is absolutely better than Thomas and if he re-signs Boston will have won the trade, though also might regret giving him that 5 year max contract at some point down the line, given his injury history and all of those deficiencies in his game. Boston will not win a title with Irving as the team's best player, which right now he is. Hopefully Hayward returns to form and takes that mantel while keeping it warm a couple of seasons for Tatum, or whomever Tatum gets traded for. For Boston to really create the type of team we want, Boston needs a gold medal superstar and it doesn't currently have one (though hopefully Tatum gets there).
It gets incredibly confusing when people quote numbers off of BBREF rather than just using the official numbers from NBA.com. BBREF estimates some of their info (like possessions) and many of their numbers are therefor vastly different than NBA.com.
In regard to the on/off differential numbers you simply are putting way to much stock in them. The C's have an extremely strong bench and when Kyrie is out of the game they don't drop a lot numbers wise against opposing benches. The offense drops off a lot but the defense takes a large step forward against weaker benches. When Kyrie was in Cleveland he could not carry the team as well as Lebron could when they were not in the game together, there is no shame in that as nobody can. When Lebron is not in the game his replacement is always a massive drop off. Having a strong bench kills great players/starters on/off differential in some instances. Having another great player that you are often on the floor without/is on the floor without you, can also kill your numbers.
Kyrie primarily plays starter minutes and comparing success against other starting lineups, to the benches success against other benches, tells you next to nothing by itself without context. Some players like Tatum get pulled early and come back with the bench a lot, on a team with a great bench this will bolster his on/off diff., if the bench was terrible it would crush his numbers just the same. Hayward now playing with the bench is going to likely amplify the benches numbers and make the starters on/off numbers look worse. There are a million variables that affect a given players on/off numbers and using them as an indictment against said player without a ton of context is way off base.
-
Sexton has looked pretty darn good the last 6 games for the Cavs including a dominant performance in the Cavs upset of the Rockets today. This is why Irving re-signing is key to the trade for the Celtics. You can't trade an injury riddled 2 seasons (and at best 1 post season) for the likely at least 8 years of a top rookie, not to mention the other players given up. Irving has to re-sign or it is a bad trade for the C's
Even if he does resign, at his cost, is he not better as a trade asset? He's so marketable and talented, but equally frail and overrated, with a clearly limited impact on winning.
Is that why he a championship in Cleveland?
LeBron won him a championship in Cleveland, without any let down after trading him. Last year's CLE roster was probably the worst team to reach the Finals in recent memory.
The mental gymnastics that you go through to justify your Kyrie hate is astounding.
And saying “without any let down” is nonsense. Last year was by far the most difficult time that Cavs team had getting to the Finals, barely getting there by squeaking out two game 7 wins. And it’s funny that you point that out, because Kyrie being injured for the C’s is probably the only reason the Cavs even got to to game 7 with us.
And Kyrie put up 25.2 points, 4.7 assists, 3.0 rebounds, and 1.7 steals on 48% fg% and 44% 3pfg%, along with sealing the championship with the dagger three. Lebron doesn’t win a championship in Cleveland without Kyrie, and to suggest otherwise is ludicrous.
LeBron dragging that horrible team to the Finals speaks to his utter dominance. Kyrie was a 2nd fiddle in Cleveland that could've been replaced by more than 20 other guys in the league. His locker room issues near the end suggest he was aware of that.
Those are empty stats, and I don't consider a low-percentage chuck after several scoreless minutes to be a "dagger." He has not won before or after LeBron. But you suggest that is coming?
For gymnastics, that felt pretty easy, pots.
What a stale, baseless argument. Aside from the Cavs championship, Lebron has only won a championship with at least 2 other hall of famers playing beside him. The Cavs championship came with only 1 probable hall of famer next to him (Kyrie). He was the clear #2 on that Cavs team and was a lot better than the #3 man (Love).
Your weird hate of Kyrie just gets weirder as time goes on.
Lebron has also dragged perhaps the worst Finals team ever to the Finals (I mean have you actually looked at that 07 Cavs roster). Irving gets hurt and Boston goes to the ECF without him and the Cavs still ended up in the Finals without him (even with that trainwreck of a season). Boston's record with and without Irving last year was only slightly worse without him. Including this year in the regular season Boston is 54-28 with him (65.9%) and 14-9 without him (60.8%) so only about 4 games worse over the course of a season when Irving doesn't play. There is plenty of evidence to support the notion that Irving's contribution to winning aren't nearly as good as many on this board would try to claim.
Even a four game difference makes a difference. In a tight top 6 in the East, a 4 game win differential could be the difference between a 2 seed and a 5th seed in the playoffs. That's quite a difference. And in the playoffs that could translate to one extra win in a 7game series which could be the difference between winning and losing a 7 game Finals series. That's a big difference. And I suspect the winning percentage of the Cs without Kyrie would only get worse if Kyrie actually missed an entire year, so the difference he makes could actually be many more than 4 games.
It's even a bigger difference than that as Moranis's analysis includes games that shouldn't factor in. The C's were beating Indy by 10 at halftime when Kyrie ended his season and without him the C's ended up losing the game. The games without Kyrie also include beating the Nets without most of the C's main rotation playing in the last game of the year. The C's only outscored opponents by 8 points in those final 15 games last year and that's with being +13 in that final game against Brooklyn.
The C's shot very well down the stretch and probably won a few games they wouldn't in an average sample without Kyrie, that's the problem with using extremely small sample sizes in the manner that Moranis is here. The C's were +257 in 1931 minutes with Kyrie last year and +37 in 2030 minutes without him. This year the C's are +106 in 707 minutes with Kyrie and -5 in 407 minutes without him.
The offensive rating was 8.8 points worse without Kyrie last year and 14.6 points worse so far this year. The net rating was 5.4 points worse last year and 7.4 points worse so far this year without Kyrie. No single statistic can tell the whole story and when you look at them all with context Kyrie's positive impact is crystal clear.
Irving's on/off differential was 3.1 last year, so obviously the team was better with him on the floor, but that also isn't a very good on/off differential for a supposed superstar. That 3.1 was also well behind Brown, Tatum, Horford, Baynes, and Smart. This year the on/off differential for Irving is only 2.3 again behind Tatum, Baynes, and Smart. And it isn't just Boston where his numbers are so low (as in maybe the team is so deep there isn't much of a drop off). He has only had 2 seasons in his career above 7 (his first and last year with Lebron). He even had a negative differential while playing on a team and a lot of his minutes with Lebron his second year with him. The year before Lebron got there, the Cavs were 4.3 points per 100 possession worse with Irving on the floor then when he was off the floor.
Irving is a good player. At times he is a great player, but he far too often lacks effort defensively (and even when he tries he isn't a + defender) and goes cold offensively. He is one of the best ever at creating a shot for himself, but is subpar at creating for others.
He is absolutely better than Thomas and if he re-signs Boston will have won the trade, though also might regret giving him that 5 year max contract at some point down the line, given his injury history and all of those deficiencies in his game. Boston will not win a title with Irving as the team's best player, which right now he is. Hopefully Hayward returns to form and takes that mantel while keeping it warm a couple of seasons for Tatum, or whomever Tatum gets traded for. For Boston to really create the type of team we want, Boston needs a gold medal superstar and it doesn't currently have one (though hopefully Tatum gets there).
It gets incredibly confusing when people quote numbers off of BBREF rather than just using the official numbers from NBA.com. BBREF estimates some of their info (like possessions) and many of their numbers are therefor vastly different than NBA.com.
In regard to the on/off differential numbers you simply are putting way to much stock in them. The C's have an extremely strong bench and when Kyrie is out of the game they don't drop a lot numbers wise against opposing benches. The offense drops off a lot but the defense takes a large step forward against weaker benches. When Kyrie was in Cleveland he could not carry the team as well as Lebron could when they were not in the game together, there is no shame in that as nobody can. When Lebron is not in the game his replacement is always a massive drop off. Having a strong bench kills great players/starters on/off differential in some instances. Having another great player that you are often on the floor without/is on the floor without you, can also kill your numbers.
Kyrie primarily plays starter minutes and comparing success against other starting lineups, to the benches success against other benches, tells you next to nothing by itself without context. Some players like Tatum get pulled early and come back with the bench a lot, on a team with a great bench this will bolster his on/off diff., if the bench was terrible it would crush his numbers just the same. Hayward now playing with the bench is going to likely amplify the benches numbers and make the starters on/off numbers look worse. There are a million variables that affect a given players on/off numbers and using them as an indictment against said player without a ton of context is way off base.
Irving is behind Baynes, Smart, and Tatum this year in actual +- though. Last year he was behind those 3 as well as Horford and Brown.
The team is better when he is on the court, but not like you would expect from a guy that is supposed to be a superstar and your best player.
-
Sexton has looked pretty darn good the last 6 games for the Cavs including a dominant performance in the Cavs upset of the Rockets today. This is why Irving re-signing is key to the trade for the Celtics. You can't trade an injury riddled 2 seasons (and at best 1 post season) for the likely at least 8 years of a top rookie, not to mention the other players given up. Irving has to re-sign or it is a bad trade for the C's
Even if he does resign, at his cost, is he not better as a trade asset? He's so marketable and talented, but equally frail and overrated, with a clearly limited impact on winning.
Is that why he a championship in Cleveland?
LeBron won him a championship in Cleveland, without any let down after trading him. Last year's CLE roster was probably the worst team to reach the Finals in recent memory.
The mental gymnastics that you go through to justify your Kyrie hate is astounding.
And saying “without any let down” is nonsense. Last year was by far the most difficult time that Cavs team had getting to the Finals, barely getting there by squeaking out two game 7 wins. And it’s funny that you point that out, because Kyrie being injured for the C’s is probably the only reason the Cavs even got to to game 7 with us.
And Kyrie put up 25.2 points, 4.7 assists, 3.0 rebounds, and 1.7 steals on 48% fg% and 44% 3pfg%, along with sealing the championship with the dagger three. Lebron doesn’t win a championship in Cleveland without Kyrie, and to suggest otherwise is ludicrous.
LeBron dragging that horrible team to the Finals speaks to his utter dominance. Kyrie was a 2nd fiddle in Cleveland that could've been replaced by more than 20 other guys in the league. His locker room issues near the end suggest he was aware of that.
Those are empty stats, and I don't consider a low-percentage chuck after several scoreless minutes to be a "dagger." He has not won before or after LeBron. But you suggest that is coming?
For gymnastics, that felt pretty easy, pots.
What a stale, baseless argument. Aside from the Cavs championship, Lebron has only won a championship with at least 2 other hall of famers playing beside him. The Cavs championship came with only 1 probable hall of famer next to him (Kyrie). He was the clear #2 on that Cavs team and was a lot better than the #3 man (Love).
Your weird hate of Kyrie just gets weirder as time goes on.
Lebron has also dragged perhaps the worst Finals team ever to the Finals (I mean have you actually looked at that 07 Cavs roster). Irving gets hurt and Boston goes to the ECF without him and the Cavs still ended up in the Finals without him (even with that trainwreck of a season). Boston's record with and without Irving last year was only slightly worse without him. Including this year in the regular season Boston is 54-28 with him (65.9%) and 14-9 without him (60.8%) so only about 4 games worse over the course of a season when Irving doesn't play. There is plenty of evidence to support the notion that Irving's contribution to winning aren't nearly as good as many on this board would try to claim.
Even a four game difference makes a difference. In a tight top 6 in the East, a 4 game win differential could be the difference between a 2 seed and a 5th seed in the playoffs. That's quite a difference. And in the playoffs that could translate to one extra win in a 7game series which could be the difference between winning and losing a 7 game Finals series. That's a big difference. And I suspect the winning percentage of the Cs without Kyrie would only get worse if Kyrie actually missed an entire year, so the difference he makes could actually be many more than 4 games.
It's even a bigger difference than that as Moranis's analysis includes games that shouldn't factor in. The C's were beating Indy by 10 at halftime when Kyrie ended his season and without him the C's ended up losing the game. The games without Kyrie also include beating the Nets without most of the C's main rotation playing in the last game of the year. The C's only outscored opponents by 8 points in those final 15 games last year and that's with being +13 in that final game against Brooklyn.
The C's shot very well down the stretch and probably won a few games they wouldn't in an average sample without Kyrie, that's the problem with using extremely small sample sizes in the manner that Moranis is here. The C's were +257 in 1931 minutes with Kyrie last year and +37 in 2030 minutes without him. This year the C's are +106 in 707 minutes with Kyrie and -5 in 407 minutes without him.
The offensive rating was 8.8 points worse without Kyrie last year and 14.6 points worse so far this year. The net rating was 5.4 points worse last year and 7.4 points worse so far this year without Kyrie. No single statistic can tell the whole story and when you look at them all with context Kyrie's positive impact is crystal clear.
Irving's on/off differential was 3.1 last year, so obviously the team was better with him on the floor, but that also isn't a very good on/off differential for a supposed superstar. That 3.1 was also well behind Brown, Tatum, Horford, Baynes, and Smart. This year the on/off differential for Irving is only 2.3 again behind Tatum, Baynes, and Smart. And it isn't just Boston where his numbers are so low (as in maybe the team is so deep there isn't much of a drop off). He has only had 2 seasons in his career above 7 (his first and last year with Lebron). He even had a negative differential while playing on a team and a lot of his minutes with Lebron his second year with him. The year before Lebron got there, the Cavs were 4.3 points per 100 possession worse with Irving on the floor then when he was off the floor.
Irving is a good player. At times he is a great player, but he far too often lacks effort defensively (and even when he tries he isn't a + defender) and goes cold offensively. He is one of the best ever at creating a shot for himself, but is subpar at creating for others.
He is absolutely better than Thomas and if he re-signs Boston will have won the trade, though also might regret giving him that 5 year max contract at some point down the line, given his injury history and all of those deficiencies in his game. Boston will not win a title with Irving as the team's best player, which right now he is. Hopefully Hayward returns to form and takes that mantel while keeping it warm a couple of seasons for Tatum, or whomever Tatum gets traded for. For Boston to really create the type of team we want, Boston needs a gold medal superstar and it doesn't currently have one (though hopefully Tatum gets there).
It gets incredibly confusing when people quote numbers off of BBREF rather than just using the official numbers from NBA.com. BBREF estimates some of their info (like possessions) and many of their numbers are therefor vastly different than NBA.com.
In regard to the on/off differential numbers you simply are putting way to much stock in them. The C's have an extremely strong bench and when Kyrie is out of the game they don't drop a lot numbers wise against opposing benches. The offense drops off a lot but the defense takes a large step forward against weaker benches. When Kyrie was in Cleveland he could not carry the team as well as Lebron could when they were not in the game together, there is no shame in that as nobody can. When Lebron is not in the game his replacement is always a massive drop off. Having a strong bench kills great players/starters on/off differential in some instances. Having another great player that you are often on the floor without/is on the floor without you, can also kill your numbers.
Kyrie primarily plays starter minutes and comparing success against other starting lineups, to the benches success against other benches, tells you next to nothing by itself without context. Some players like Tatum get pulled early and come back with the bench a lot, on a team with a great bench this will bolster his on/off diff., if the bench was terrible it would crush his numbers just the same. Hayward now playing with the bench is going to likely amplify the benches numbers and make the starters on/off numbers look worse. There are a million variables that affect a given players on/off numbers and using them as an indictment against said player without a ton of context is way off base.
TP
Using these type of statistics can really show whatever you want if you pick out the ones that look good from side of the argument. This is why statistics are a good piece of an arguement but not necessarily an entire argument. There are always a few crazy stats you see in the off/def rating and net ratings stats, like I remember when it used to say but Avery Bradley and Klay Thompson are bad defenders but the eye test says differently.
You watch Kyrie with this Celtics team and they are a different team offensively when he is on the court, he attracts attention like no one else on our team can. He can creat his own shot better than anyone else on our team as well, I am not shocked that we wouldn't have huge on/off differentials however because Terry and Marcus are quality backups that bring the intensity and can change games.
-
I'm sure most Celtics fans will be happy to know Irving is top ten in BPM and RPM - and leads the team in both categories.
-
I'm sure most Celtics fans will be happy to know Irving is top ten in BPM and RPM - and leads the team in both categories.
Nothing against Kyrie, but RPM is a junk metric.
-
I'm sure most Celtics fans will be happy to know Irving is top ten in BPM and RPM - and leads the team in both categories.
Nothing against Kyrie, but RPM is a junk metric.
What does that mean? Junk at what? It's functionally the best predictive metric available.
-
When you look at where we actually were when this trade took place it looks better and better. We avoided a crippling bullet.
We rid ourselves of a seriously undersized, defensively challenged player (perhaps the least effective defender in the NBA) who was once a very effective scorer. IMO he conspired with the medical staff to hide the severity of his hip so he could first sign a max deal and then announce that he needed surgery. And he almost accomplished the task.
If Kyrie Irving did not want to be traded...THIS TRADE WOULD NEVER HAVE HAPPENED. There is no way that the Cavs would have traded KI for IT.
We got in return a younger player who while he doesn't score at a 28 point clip, is capable of it. He is a much better defender, he is capable of playing at least fair to solid D. Is he perfect?... no, He's not a top five player in the league. Can you win a ring with him? absolutely.
And most importantly we can grow with him...
-
I'm sure most Celtics fans will be happy to know Irving is top ten in BPM and RPM - and leads the team in both categories.
Nothing against Kyrie, but RPM is a junk metric.
What does that mean? Junk at what? It's functionally the best predictive metric available.
The way ESPN uses it is a measure of performance and impact. It's junk, however, in that its formula uses factors such as age, height, and past performance.
A player's age, or height, or past performance have absolutely nothing to do with his current level of play.
If RPM is meant to be purely predictive, then stop using it as an in-season measuring stick (which is how you used it).
-
I'm sure most Celtics fans will be happy to know Irving is top ten in BPM and RPM - and leads the team in both categories.
Nothing against Kyrie, but RPM is a junk metric.
What does that mean? Junk at what? It's functionally the best predictive metric available.
The way ESPN uses it is a measure of performance and impact. It's junk, however, in that its formula uses factors such as age, height, and past performance.
A player's age, or height, or past performance have absolutely nothing to do with his current level of play.
If RPM is meant to be purely predictive, then stop using it as an in-season measuring stick (which is how you used it).
But it is a measure of impact. It's not meant to be purely predictive, and I don't think anyone has said so. But it's accuracy in that regard means that it's also viable for descriptive purposes.
I don't really understand why you'd think utilizing priors is bad, particularly when the co-efficients are hardly substantial. Kyrie, a historically bad defender, is currently a positive in DRPM. He's hardly being punished too harshly for being terrible most of his career.
-
I'm sure most Celtics fans will be happy to know Irving is top ten in BPM and RPM - and leads the team in both categories.
Nothing against Kyrie, but RPM is a junk metric.
What does that mean? Junk at what? It's functionally the best predictive metric available.
The way ESPN uses it is a measure of performance and impact. It's junk, however, in that its formula uses factors such as age, height, and past performance.
A player's age, or height, or past performance have absolutely nothing to do with his current level of play.
If RPM is meant to be purely predictive, then stop using it as an in-season measuring stick (which is how you used it).
But it is a measure of impact. It's not meant to be purely predictive, and I don't think anyone has said so. But it's accuracy in that regard means that it's also viable for descriptive purposes.
I don't really understand why you'd think utilizing priors is bad, particularly when the co-efficients are hardly substantial. Kyrie, a historically bad defender, is currently a positive in DRPM. He's hardly being punished too harshly for being terrible most of his career.
Kyrie’s age and height shouldn’t give him an advantage or disadvantage in determining his current impact. Should a 6’0” PG playing at the exact same level be penalized? Should a 6’7” player playing at Kyrie’s level rank higher than him? Does age matter in measuring current impact? Do last year’s stats matter? The year before?
If we’re measuring 2018 production, 2017 and 2016 production don’t matter. If we’re predicting 2018 production, then keeping a running tally based upon 2018 stats doesn’t make sense
-
I'm sure most Celtics fans will be happy to know Irving is top ten in BPM and RPM - and leads the team in both categories.
Nothing against Kyrie, but RPM is a junk metric.
What does that mean? Junk at what? It's functionally the best predictive metric available.
The way ESPN uses it is a measure of performance and impact. It's junk, however, in that its formula uses factors such as age, height, and past performance.
A player's age, or height, or past performance have absolutely nothing to do with his current level of play.
If RPM is meant to be purely predictive, then stop using it as an in-season measuring stick (which is how you used it).
But it is a measure of impact. It's not meant to be purely predictive, and I don't think anyone has said so. But it's accuracy in that regard means that it's also viable for descriptive purposes.
I don't really understand why you'd think utilizing priors is bad, particularly when the co-efficients are hardly substantial. Kyrie, a historically bad defender, is currently a positive in DRPM. He's hardly being punished too harshly for being terrible most of his career.
Kyrie’s age and height shouldn’t give him an advantage or disadvantage in determining his current impact. Should a 6’0” PG playing at the exact same level be penalized? Should a 6’7” player playing at Kyrie’s level rank higher than him? Does age matter in measuring current impact? Do last year’s stats matter? The year before?
If we’re measuring 2018 production, 2017 and 2016 production don’t matter. If we’re predicting 2018 production, then keeping a running tally based upon 2018 stats doesn’t make sense
I can absolutely see an argument that height is an advantage as even on the off nights you don't lose your size. And while I want to say age shouldn't be a factor, I can even see an argument that a younger player will recover faster, last longer, and be able to go full bore for greater periods of time then an older player. As for prior years, it depends on how they are used. If they are used to create a larger sample size then I can see some merit in using them. After all 20 games doesn't tell you nearly as much as 180 games. Obviously the more recent games should be weighted more heavily, but there is certainly merit in creating a larger sample to pull from.
-
This thread is still going? ::)
-
Paul trade to the Rockets
Lou Williams, Pat Beverly, Sam Dekker, Montrezl Harrell, 1st (became Omari Spellman)
Paul trade to the Clippers
Eric Gordon, Chris Kaman, Al Farouq Aminu, 1st (became Austin Rivers)
Butler trade to the Wolves
Kris Dunn, Lauri Markannen, Zach Lavine
Butler trade to the Sixers
Dario Saric, Robert Covington, Bayless, 2nd rounder
George trade to the Thunder
Oladipo, Sabonis
Ibaka trade to the Magic
Oladipo, Sabonis, Ersan Illyasova
Ibaka trade to the Raptors
Ross, 1st (traded for future draft consideration in 2020)
Leonard trade to the Raptors
Derozan, Poetl
I look at those deals, and I think you could argue that Boston gave the least up for any of those deals. Isaiah Thomas still hasn't proven he remains an NBA player. Jae Crowder is a bench role player, and Collin Sexton could be anywhere from an Elfrid Payton lite to a Eric Bledsoe lite.
Still an A, but is adding a + every time Kyrie Irving continues to add another dimension to his game.
-
Paul trade to the Rockets
Lou Williams, Pat Beverly, Sam Dekker, Montrezl Harrell, 1st (Omari Spellman)
Paul trade to the Clippers
Eric Gordon, Chris Kaman, Al Farouq Aminu, 1st (became Austin Rivers)
Butler trade to the Wolves
Kris Dunn, Lauri Markannen, Zach Lavine
Butler trade to the Sixers
Dario Saric, Robert Covington, Bayless, 2nd rounder
George trade to the Thunder
Oladipo, Sabonis
Ibaka trade to the Magic
Oladipo, Sabonis, Ersan Illyasova
Ibaka trade to the Raptors
Ross, 1st (traded for future draft consideration in 2020)
Leonard trade to the Raptors
Derozan, Poetl
I look at those deals, and I think you could argue that Boston gave the least up for any of those deals. Isaiah Thomas still hasn't proven he remains an NBA player. Jae Crowder is a bench role player, and Collin Sexton could be anywhere from an Elfrid Payton lite to a Eric Bledsoe lite.
Still an A, but is adding a + every time Kyrie Irving continues to add another dimension to his game.
Yes, hindsight has not treated the deal well at all from Cleveland's perspective. Basically, they got the worst case scenario: the Brooklyn pick fell to mid-lottery, Crowder was very poor in Cleveland, and IT never recovered to a starter-level (or even rotation-level, at this point.)
In an alternative universe, there's a scenario where Crowder was an ideal fit next to Lebron, IT's labrum healed up fine, and the Brooklyn pick ended up top-3 and the Cavs got Doncic. The Cavs won the title, Thomas got his Brinks truck, and Lebron stayed in Cleveland.
But, in our universe, Danny came off looking really good. Between the Kyrie and Tatum deals, Danny took risks, and both deals look like absolute no-brainers in hindsight.
-
Paul trade to the Rockets
Lou Williams, Pat Beverly, Sam Dekker, Montrezl Harrell, 1st (Omari Spellman)
Paul trade to the Clippers
Eric Gordon, Chris Kaman, Al Farouq Aminu, 1st (became Austin Rivers)
Butler trade to the Wolves
Kris Dunn, Lauri Markannen, Zach Lavine
Butler trade to the Sixers
Dario Saric, Robert Covington, Bayless, 2nd rounder
George trade to the Thunder
Oladipo, Sabonis
Ibaka trade to the Magic
Oladipo, Sabonis, Ersan Illyasova
Ibaka trade to the Raptors
Ross, 1st (traded for future draft consideration in 2020)
Leonard trade to the Raptors
Derozan, Poetl
I look at those deals, and I think you could argue that Boston gave the least up for any of those deals. Isaiah Thomas still hasn't proven he remains an NBA player. Jae Crowder is a bench role player, and Collin Sexton could be anywhere from an Elfrid Payton lite to a Eric Bledsoe lite.
Still an A, but is adding a + every time Kyrie Irving continues to add another dimension to his game.
Yes, hindsight has not treated the deal well at all from Cleveland's perspective. Basically, they got the worst case scenario: the Brooklyn pick fell to mid-lottery, Crowder was very poor in Cleveland, and IT never recovered to a starter-level (or even rotation-level, at this point.)
In an alternative universe, there's a scenario where Crowder was an ideal fit next to Lebron, IT's labrum healed up fine, and the Brooklyn pick ended up top-3 and the Cavs got Doncic. The Cavs won the title, Thomas got his Brinks truck, and Lebron stayed in Cleveland.
But, in our universe, Danny came off looking really good. Between the Kyrie and Tatum deals, Danny took risks, and both deals look like absolute no-brainers in hindsight.
I get where you are coming from, but even in the moment, everyone knew that Thomas was a 5'7'' guard that relied on quickness approaching 30. Everyone knew that Crowder fit in a motion offense and was, at best, a role player. Most knew that the Nets play hard and did have a little bit of talent to work with.
-
Ibaka trade to the Magic
Oladipo, Sabonis, Ersan Illyasova
Ibaka trade to the Raptors
Ross, 1st (traded for future draft consideration in 2020)
Combine that with the Harris trade (for Ilyasova and Jennings) and Orlando practically traded:
Victor Oladipo, Domantas Sabonis, Tobias Harris for Terrence Ross + 2020 76ers protected draft picks. Talk about doing bad business.
-
I like him alot.
I hear the pilgrims and indians are not happy about his Thanksgiving message. ;D
-
Sexton has looked pretty darn good the last 6 games for the Cavs including a dominant performance in the Cavs upset of the Rockets today. This is why Irving re-signing is key to the trade for the Celtics. You can't trade an injury riddled 2 seasons (and at best 1 post season) for the likely at least 8 years of a top rookie, not to mention the other players given up. Irving has to re-sign or it is a bad trade for the C's
Even if he does resign, at his cost, is he not better as a trade asset? He's so marketable and talented, but equally frail and overrated, with a clearly limited impact on winning.
Is that why he a championship in Cleveland?
LeBron won him a championship in Cleveland, without any let down after trading him. Last year's CLE roster was probably the worst team to reach the Finals in recent memory.
The mental gymnastics that you go through to justify your Kyrie hate is astounding.
And saying “without any let down” is nonsense. Last year was by far the most difficult time that Cavs team had getting to the Finals, barely getting there by squeaking out two game 7 wins. And it’s funny that you point that out, because Kyrie being injured for the C’s is probably the only reason the Cavs even got to to game 7 with us.
And Kyrie put up 25.2 points, 4.7 assists, 3.0 rebounds, and 1.7 steals on 48% fg% and 44% 3pfg%, along with sealing the championship with the dagger three. Lebron doesn’t win a championship in Cleveland without Kyrie, and to suggest otherwise is ludicrous.
LeBron dragging that horrible team to the Finals speaks to his utter dominance. Kyrie was a 2nd fiddle in Cleveland that could've been replaced by more than 20 other guys in the league. His locker room issues near the end suggest he was aware of that.
Those are empty stats, and I don't consider a low-percentage chuck after several scoreless minutes to be a "dagger." He has not won before or after LeBron. But you suggest that is coming?
For gymnastics, that felt pretty easy, pots.
What a stale, baseless argument. Aside from the Cavs championship, Lebron has only won a championship with at least 2 other hall of famers playing beside him. The Cavs championship came with only 1 probable hall of famer next to him (Kyrie). He was the clear #2 on that Cavs team and was a lot better than the #3 man (Love).
Your weird hate of Kyrie just gets weirder as time goes on.
Lebron has also dragged perhaps the worst Finals team ever to the Finals (I mean have you actually looked at that 07 Cavs roster). Irving gets hurt and Boston goes to the ECF without him and the Cavs still ended up in the Finals without him (even with that trainwreck of a season). Boston's record with and without Irving last year was only slightly worse without him. Including this year in the regular season Boston is 54-28 with him (65.9%) and 14-9 without him (60.8%) so only about 4 games worse over the course of a season when Irving doesn't play. There is plenty of evidence to support the notion that Irving's contribution to winning aren't nearly as good as many on this board would try to claim.
Even a four game difference makes a difference. In a tight top 6 in the East, a 4 game win differential could be the difference between a 2 seed and a 5th seed in the playoffs. That's quite a difference. And in the playoffs that could translate to one extra win in a 7game series which could be the difference between winning and losing a 7 game Finals series. That's a big difference. And I suspect the winning percentage of the Cs without Kyrie would only get worse if Kyrie actually missed an entire year, so the difference he makes could actually be many more than 4 games.
It's even a bigger difference than that as Moranis's analysis includes games that shouldn't factor in. The C's were beating Indy by 10 at halftime when Kyrie ended his season and without him the C's ended up losing the game. The games without Kyrie also include beating the Nets without most of the C's main rotation playing in the last game of the year. The C's only outscored opponents by 8 points in those final 15 games last year and that's with being +13 in that final game against Brooklyn.
The C's shot very well down the stretch and probably won a few games they wouldn't in an average sample without Kyrie, that's the problem with using extremely small sample sizes in the manner that Moranis is here. The C's were +257 in 1931 minutes with Kyrie last year and +37 in 2030 minutes without him. This year the C's are +106 in 707 minutes with Kyrie and -5 in 407 minutes without him.
The offensive rating was 8.8 points worse without Kyrie last year and 14.6 points worse so far this year. The net rating was 5.4 points worse last year and 7.4 points worse so far this year without Kyrie. No single statistic can tell the whole story and when you look at them all with context Kyrie's positive impact is crystal clear.
Irving's on/off differential was 3.1 last year, so obviously the team was better with him on the floor, but that also isn't a very good on/off differential for a supposed superstar. That 3.1 was also well behind Brown, Tatum, Horford, Baynes, and Smart. This year the on/off differential for Irving is only 2.3 again behind Tatum, Baynes, and Smart. And it isn't just Boston where his numbers are so low (as in maybe the team is so deep there isn't much of a drop off). He has only had 2 seasons in his career above 7 (his first and last year with Lebron). He even had a negative differential while playing on a team and a lot of his minutes with Lebron his second year with him. The year before Lebron got there, the Cavs were 4.3 points per 100 possession worse with Irving on the floor then when he was off the floor.
Irving is a good player. At times he is a great player, but he far too often lacks effort defensively (and even when he tries he isn't a + defender) and goes cold offensively. He is one of the best ever at creating a shot for himself, but is subpar at creating for others.
He is absolutely better than Thomas and if he re-signs Boston will have won the trade, though also might regret giving him that 5 year max contract at some point down the line, given his injury history and all of those deficiencies in his game. Boston will not win a title with Irving as the team's best player, which right now he is. Hopefully Hayward returns to form and takes that mantel while keeping it warm a couple of seasons for Tatum, or whomever Tatum gets traded for. For Boston to really create the type of team we want, Boston needs a gold medal superstar and it doesn't currently have one (though hopefully Tatum gets there).
It gets incredibly confusing when people quote numbers off of BBREF rather than just using the official numbers from NBA.com. BBREF estimates some of their info (like possessions) and many of their numbers are therefor vastly different than NBA.com.
In regard to the on/off differential numbers you simply are putting way to much stock in them. The C's have an extremely strong bench and when Kyrie is out of the game they don't drop a lot numbers wise against opposing benches. The offense drops off a lot but the defense takes a large step forward against weaker benches. When Kyrie was in Cleveland he could not carry the team as well as Lebron could when they were not in the game together, there is no shame in that as nobody can. When Lebron is not in the game his replacement is always a massive drop off. Having a strong bench kills great players/starters on/off differential in some instances. Having another great player that you are often on the floor without/is on the floor without you, can also kill your numbers.
Kyrie primarily plays starter minutes and comparing success against other starting lineups, to the benches success against other benches, tells you next to nothing by itself without context. Some players like Tatum get pulled early and come back with the bench a lot, on a team with a great bench this will bolster his on/off diff., if the bench was terrible it would crush his numbers just the same. Hayward now playing with the bench is going to likely amplify the benches numbers and make the starters on/off numbers look worse. There are a million variables that affect a given players on/off numbers and using them as an indictment against said player without a ton of context is way off base.
TP
Using these type of statistics can really show whatever you want if you pick out the ones that look good from side of the argument. This is why statistics are a good piece of an arguement but not necessarily an entire argument. There are always a few crazy stats you see in the off/def rating and net ratings stats, like I remember when it used to say but Avery Bradley and Klay Thompson are bad defenders but the eye test says differently.
You watch Kyrie with this Celtics team and they are a different team offensively when he is on the court, he attracts attention like no one else on our team can. He can creat his own shot better than anyone else on our team as well, I am not shocked that we wouldn't have huge on/off differentials however because Terry and Marcus are quality backups that bring the intensity and can change games.
Moranis is the Vizzini of the Kyrie argument.
"The +/- numbers you keep citing... I don't think they mean, what you think they mean."
-
Yes, hindsight has not treated the deal well at all from Cleveland's perspective. Basically, they got the worst case scenario: the Brooklyn pick fell to mid-lottery, Crowder was very poor in Cleveland, and IT never recovered to a starter-level (or even rotation-level, at this point.)
I just want to say, as an aside, not that this is news -- it's so sad how things have worked out for Isaiah.
His 2016-2017 was one of the most fun and enjoyable individual player seasons I've seen, and we got to watch it one a nightly basis with the player in question wearing our preferred colors.
Did not seem possible to me back then that a single non-catastophric injury could derail him this completely, i.e. he goes from being a league leader in scoring and the most important offensive player on a Conference Finalist to a guy that is struggling to get healthy enough to get minutes as a backup.
I'm really hoping Isaiah can make it back and at least become a J.J. Barea type sparkplug for somebody again.
-
Time to put in my final grade. Since it appears that this trade boiled down to:
Kyrie Irving for
#24 pick (Cleveland traded this to get Clarkson)
#8 pick
Jordan Clarkson
Larry Nance Jr.
Zizic
George Hill
#56 2nd round pick
Then there's no question that's a "A". Ainge wins again. From a returns standpoint that's an insane trade.
It's no secret that I wasn't overjoyed with the deal. I didn't hate it and I understood it but I wasn't exceptionally pleased with it. Some people misinterpret this as being an IT homer. I understood why it made sense to ship him off (even before we knew the extent of his injury). It's because I had, and still have, serious reservations about Irving's true value. I don't value him nearly as highly as others here. There's an argument to be made that he's not even the best PG on this team. He'll outscore and outshoot Rozier and neither is a particularly good passer; but Terry is a far better rebound and miles better on the defensive end. If Rozier is as good as these playoffs suggest then that's a much closer battle than some will admit. Kyrie is a big name but I don't think he plays like a superstar. I don't think he showed much growth with his game this year either.
However, Irving has far more value then anything else we gave away. IT appears to be broken. Crowder looks like a (valuable) bench contributor for Utah. The pick ended up being worse than most of us expected. Meanwhile, if we wanted to pair Irving with a pick we could swing a deal for another superstar (Leonard? Cousins?). Meanwhile, even if we keep Irving the value is far higher for this team than what we ultimately disposed of.
So yeah, this was ultimately a deal that really hurt the Cs biggest competitor and didn't hurt the Celtics at all. That's an A in my book.
So if we keep adjusting this trade do we have to include the Cavs moves around the deadline this year.
Hood for Stauskas, Baldwin, and 2 2nd's. Then 2 days later traded Stauskas, Baldwin, Burks, and 1 2nd for Knight, Chriss, HOU 1st, and a 2nd. Then re-sign Stauskas after he is waived (since he kept getting traded).
Hill, Dekker, and a 2nd for Dellavedova, Henson, MIL 1st, and 2 2nd's.
So new trade
Kyrie Irving
#24 pick (Cleveland traded this to get Clarkson)
Rose
Shumpert
Burks
Dekker
#8 pick
2021 Milwaukee 1st (protected but likely to transfer before it becomes 2nd's in '24 and '25)
2019 Houston 1st
Jordan Clarkson
Larry Nance Jr.
Zizic
Chriss
Knight
Delly
Henson
Stauskas
#56 2nd round pick
2 future 2nd's
So the Cavs were able to use remnants from the trade (Hill and Hood) along with Burks (who they got with 2 2nd's for Korver) to pick up 2 more 1st round picks, a 3rd year lottery pick (Chriss), a recent lottery pick (Stauskas), some decent bench veterans (Delly/Henson).
Overall the Cavs haul is getting bigger. Trade still comes down to whether or not Irving re-signs in my mind.
-
Time to put in my final grade. Since it appears that this trade boiled down to:
Kyrie Irving for
#24 pick (Cleveland traded this to get Clarkson)
#8 pick
Jordan Clarkson
Larry Nance Jr.
Zizic
George Hill
#56 2nd round pick
Then there's no question that's a "A". Ainge wins again. From a returns standpoint that's an insane trade.
It's no secret that I wasn't overjoyed with the deal. I didn't hate it and I understood it but I wasn't exceptionally pleased with it. Some people misinterpret this as being an IT homer. I understood why it made sense to ship him off (even before we knew the extent of his injury). It's because I had, and still have, serious reservations about Irving's true value. I don't value him nearly as highly as others here. There's an argument to be made that he's not even the best PG on this team. He'll outscore and outshoot Rozier and neither is a particularly good passer; but Terry is a far better rebound and miles better on the defensive end. If Rozier is as good as these playoffs suggest then that's a much closer battle than some will admit. Kyrie is a big name but I don't think he plays like a superstar. I don't think he showed much growth with his game this year either.
However, Irving has far more value then anything else we gave away. IT appears to be broken. Crowder looks like a (valuable) bench contributor for Utah. The pick ended up being worse than most of us expected. Meanwhile, if we wanted to pair Irving with a pick we could swing a deal for another superstar (Leonard? Cousins?). Meanwhile, even if we keep Irving the value is far higher for this team than what we ultimately disposed of.
So yeah, this was ultimately a deal that really hurt the Cs biggest competitor and didn't hurt the Celtics at all. That's an A in my book.
So if we keep adjusting this trade do we have to include the Cavs moves around the deadline this year.
Hood for Stauskas, Baldwin, and 2 2nd's. Then 2 days later traded Stauskas, Baldwin, Burks, and 1 2nd for Knight, Chriss, HOU 1st, and a 2nd. Then re-sign Stauskas after he is waived (since he kept getting traded).
Hill, Dekker, and a 2nd for Dellavedova, Henson, MIL 1st, and 2 2nd's.
So new trade
Kyrie Irving
#24 pick (Cleveland traded this to get Clarkson)
Rose
Shumpert
Burks
Dekker
#8 pick
2021 Milwaukee 1st (protected but likely to transfer before it becomes 2nd's in '24 and '25)
2019 Houston 1st
Jordan Clarkson
Larry Nance Jr.
Zizic
Chriss
Knight
Delly
Henson
Stauskas
#56 2nd round pick
2 future 2nd's
So the Cavs were able to use remnants from the trade (Hill and Hood) along with Burks (who they got with 2 2nd's for Korver) to pick up 2 more 1st round picks, a 3rd year lottery pick (Chriss), a recent lottery pick (Stauskas), some decent bench veterans (Delly/Henson).
Overall the Cavs haul is getting bigger. Trade still comes down to whether or not Irving re-signs in my mind.
There is no logic to this.
-
So now that is pretty apparent that Irving is leaving. Has your grade on the trade changed?
-
So now that is pretty apparent that Irving is leaving. Has your grade on the trade changed?
We traded Isaiah Thomas, Jae Crowder, Collin Sexton, Ante Zizic, and 2nd rounder for Kemba Walker.
Not bad at all.
-
So now that is pretty apparent that Irving is leaving. Has your grade on the trade changed?
nope. still do that trade. corpse of IT, journeyman Crowder, unknown Zizic and Brooklyn pick (Sexton) for 2 years of Kyrie.
-
So now that is pretty apparent that Irving is leaving. Has your grade on the trade changed?
My thoughts haven't changed.
It was the right move at the time. Some trades work, some don't.
It was the right trade but the player had the wrong attitude.
-
So now that is pretty apparent that Irving is leaving. Has your grade on the trade changed?
nope. still do that trade. corpse of IT, journeyman Crowder, unknown Zizic and Brooklyn pick (Sexton) for 2 years of Kyrie.
Totally agree. If Kyrie had found success here and led the Celts to the finals like he was capable, this would've gone down as the steal of the century.
Imagine Hayward and Kyrie don't get injured in year 1. Imagine there's no Rose Rule, and Ainge trades for AD last season.
We could be talking about two consecutive trips to the finals.
It just didn't work out
-
So now that is pretty apparent that Irving is leaving. Has your grade on the trade changed?
My thoughts haven't changed.
It was the right move at the time. Some trades work, some don't.
It was the right trade but the player had the wrong attitude.
his attitude issues were known at the time. heck the mere fact he wanted out of a team that had been to 3 straight finals was questionable at best.
I gave the trade a C at the time. When IT's greater injury issues became apparent, I moved it to a B+, but with Irving bolting and especially under the circumstances and how the season went, I think I'm now back to my original grade of a C. Losing a top tier pick really hurts, especially after the Kings pick didn't hit, leaving the team with only 2 high end players. I also think Irving being here detrimentally affected not only Rozier, but some of the other young players that are now left on the team. That said, Irving clearly was far and away the best player in the trade, he just wasn't a good enough player to really matter where it counts.
-
So now that is pretty apparent that Irving is leaving. Has your grade on the trade changed?
We traded Isaiah Thomas, Jae Crowder, Collin Sexton, Ante Zizic, and 2nd rounder for Kemba Walker.
Not bad at all.
It is essentially impossible to gauge who Celtics would have picked at the spot but I am pretty sure Ainge wouldn't have chosen Sexton. Given that Ainge knew Irving had many personal 'quirks' he took a chance thinking it could have been situational and was part of a bigger play in getting Davis, it was definitely worth the risk but I do think what could have been if we picked up Huerter or SGA with our main core intact and a fully healthy Hayward...what could have been
-
Initially gave it a B+, but given how IT and Crowder have panned out, I would give it a higher grade. An A from DA, imo
-
Ultimately didn't work out but I would still have done it. You have to take risks sometimes and we ultimately didn't pay that much for this one, other than the missed opportunities with him here.
-
Now that it's all said and done, what do you guys think about the trade?
Should we have traded IT + Crowder + Zizic + Brooklyn 2018 unprotected first + Miami 2020 second for Kyrie?
Which team won the trade?
-
The great mistake was to believe we didn't have to choose, that we could just keep collecting assets and not worry about who was going to get to play. It worked fine until we hit a certain talent density, and then it fell apart.
We should have decided to load up young. We should have SGA or Wendell Carter. We should have let IT go and traded Crowder for whatever.
-
I originally gave the trade a B+. Now that Kyrie is gone, I give it a B-.
One thing I'm starting to wonder, though: would we have made Eastern Conf finals in 2018 if we never made the trade? And would Al Horford still be here?
-
The great mistake was to believe we didn't have to choose, that we could just keep collecting assets and not worry about who was going to get to play. It worked fine until we hit a certain talent density, and then it fell apart.
We should have decided to load up young. We should have SGA or Wendell Carter. We should have let IT go and traded Crowder for whatever.
You are the first one, correctly, not to lump the pick in with the rest of the trade. The alternative to the Kyrie trade should be seen as the #8 pick PLUS whatever came back in another trade.
If Danny didn't want to pay IT, then what would have come back in an IT, Crowder Zizic trade? Another first round pick from someone? A player? So, could have been SGA plus that something else...
but not worth looking at that now. Changes that occur set in motion chains of events that can't be tracked. I was against the trade when it happened because I didn't get a great vibe from Kyrie and was in love with IT, and thought that GH should get a chance to handle the ball a lot and be the leader. Then I was rather supportive and hopeful when I saw how good Kyrie can be. Then back to original thought. Very happy with Kemba now joining. So all is good.
-
My issue with Ainge (and this trade in particular) was I never felt Irving was the right person to spend the assets on. Having lived in Ohio my whole life and northeast Ohio for several years now, I saw Irving a lot and knew he wasn't a build around type player. He just wasn't good enough. So acquiring him to be the focal point was always a mistake. Ainge needed to follow that trade up with another larger scale move and he just never did it. I get that he thought Davis might be that move, but it became apparent that Davis (and probably Irving) didn't want to be here, yet Ainge still did nothing. I mean aside from some rookies, Ainge didn't make a single move of any kind for an entire year. Not a single one. He did this knowing the lockerroom was a mess and the team wasn't a real contender, yet he still did nothing.
So I gave the trade a C originally (mostly because I didn't think Irving was the right player), moved it to a B+ when IT's injury issues were more apparent/pronounced, and then moved it back to a C when Irving bolted. But the real travesty has always been Ainge's indecision. He wanted to grow for the future and build a contemporaneous championship contender at the same time, and he failed on both fronts. Even if Tatum/Brown end up being good enough to be the main components of a contender, Ainge blew it by not adding players around them that could help them grow or be components of that title contender. I mean how nice would SGA, Bridges, or Porter be.
-
Considering IT never returned to form and the Brooklyn pick ended up 8th, we gave surprisingly little for an elite player.
Also at the time Irving was p enthusiastic about re-signing in Boston. I get it, he left in the end, but what were the Celtics supposed to do? Not trust the guy bcs he´s a headcase? This is hindsight used the wrong way.
-
Interesting that it ended up being a bad trade for both sides.
We traded them damaged goods and they traded us poison in return.
-
A triple A plus for that trade. The alternative would have been close to max deal for IT and keeping that Nets pick. We would still be saddled with IT contract with no hope of him ever coming close to the amazing player he was.
I guess one could argue we would have been a lottery team or close to it the past few years with no Kyrie but that is a big stretch as well.
We got a top 15 player for an injured IT, a center from Europe and one Nets pick with chance of convincing Kyrie to stay. Amazing trade, even now that he bolted.
-
It seems that some are judging based on what we knew at the time and some are looking at end result. Based on end result, it was a horrible deal. It was a two year detour and while it's easy to measure the cost of what we gave up in the trade, the actual cost to the franchise is harder to quantify. How do measure the negativity, the hit in our franchise's perception, the hit to Brad's reputation? Did adding Kyrie prevent us from other opportunities? Did it affect Horford and Rozier's decisions to depart? We'll never know how things would have played out.
There was also the negative publicity cost of trading Thomas while he was injured. That was a hit on Ainge and the franchise's reputation, fairly or unfairly. Things ended up looking even worse when Irving turned out to represent everything that was the opposite of Thomas in terms of attitude, leadership, and buying in to the city of Boston.
They didn't want to take a risk on certain stars who were older, or ones who were rumored to be rentals (George, Leonard, Butler, etc.). They ended up taking the risk on a player who was the biggest head case of them all and one who didn't even have the courtesy to keep quiet and pretend like he might stay, affecting the team's play on court.
Anyway my main point is that the trade not "costing" them much in assets is misleading. There were definite, immeasurable costs to what happened this past season.
-
I gave the trade a B/B- originally as I was excited about the potential of Kyrie and knew IT was never going to lead us to the promise land and was very nervous about us potentially giving him the Brinks truck. On the other hand I was sad about the loss of Crowder and was worried the Brooklyn pick could have been a franchise changer.
I keep my grade the same. Kyrie's presence I think set us back to some extent from the trajectory we were on (our game 7 in ECF was without him), but I still think it was worth the gamble. You can never perfectly plan how everything is going to happen. Keep our heads up high and keep looking forward.
-
My reaction now is F. But who knew Irving was such a head case. He isn’t eating any team to the promised land. Even with KD they will not. Ever win a championship with KI. He is lucky he went along for the LeBron train ride to the top because it wont happen again.
-
Considering IT never returned to form and the Brooklyn pick ended up 8th, we gave surprisingly little for an elite player.
Also at the time Irving was p enthusiastic about re-signing in Boston. I get it, he left in the end, but what were the Celtics supposed to do? Not trust the guy bcs he´s a headcase? This is hindsight used the wrong way.
Yes, that is the appropriate approach to a headcase - you do not trust them.