Author Topic: Trade Irving for the sake of the team  (Read 53315 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: Trade Irving for the sake of the team
« Reply #345 on: January 19, 2019, 09:30:29 AM »

Offline Chris22

  • Rajon Rondo
  • *****
  • Posts: 5081
  • Tommy Points: 460
Baynes was a plus 21 tonight.

Irving was a plus 4.

Interior defense and rebounding matters.

https://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/BOS/2019/lineups/#lineups_3-man_::3

Kyrie is in 5 of top 6.

This is plus/minus for the entire season.

Sorry, you missed the point. We have been losing because without Baynes we are too small and too weak.

Re: Trade Irving for the sake of the team
« Reply #346 on: January 19, 2019, 10:10:51 AM »

Offline BringToughnessBack

  • Don Nelson
  • ********
  • Posts: 8088
  • Tommy Points: 941
Baynes was a plus 21 tonight.

Irving was a plus 4. :-*

Interior defense and rebounding matters.

https://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/BOS/2019/lineups/#lineups_3-man_::3

Kyrie is in 5 of top 6.

This is plus/minus for the entire season.

Sorry, you missed the point. We have been losing because without Baynes we are too small and too weak.

It is true, good rebounding coupled with a super star usually becomes titles. Even Jordan had Rodman for 3 of his titles. We face some tall players in our division who can real havoc on us if players like Baynes are out, come playoffs we need all hands on deck for Kyrie to truly flourish like he has been doing all season long.

Re: Trade Irving for the sake of the team
« Reply #347 on: January 19, 2019, 10:29:46 AM »

Offline RockinRyA

  • Rajon Rondo
  • *****
  • Posts: 5572
  • Tommy Points: 699
Baynes was a plus 21 tonight.

Irving was a plus 4.

Interior defense and rebounding matters.

https://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/BOS/2019/lineups/#lineups_3-man_::3

Kyrie is in 5 of top 6.

This is plus/minus for the entire season.

Sorry, you missed the point. We have been losing because without Baynes we are too small and too weak.

Missing Baynes was even more pronounced with Al not being 100% and the team being cautious with him.

Re: Trade Irving for the sake of the team
« Reply #348 on: January 19, 2019, 10:30:30 AM »

Offline SHAQATTACK

  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 36776
  • Tommy Points: 2961
Baynes was a plus 21 tonight.

Irving was a plus 4.

Interior defense and rebounding matters.

https://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/BOS/2019/lineups/#lineups_3-man_::3

Kyrie is in 5 of top 6.

This is plus/minus for the entire season.

Sorry, you missed the point. We have been losing because without Baynes we are too small and too weak.

thats an understatement.   we just get flat out punked from 10 feet in .

Re: Trade Irving for the sake of the team
« Reply #349 on: January 19, 2019, 10:47:24 AM »

Offline Moranis

  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 33461
  • Tommy Points: 1533
No sure about anyone else but I’m sure glad we haven’t traded Kyrie yet  :angel:
Lol. Glad this thread got revived
Fabulous game again and yet Boston was actually better again without him on the floor, just as they were in the Toronto game i.e. +4 in 36 minutes is worse than +2 in 12 minutes, just as +4 in 38 minutes is worse than +5 in 10 minutes.  This is where it is always tricky in these things and were many of the same arguments being made when IT4 was torching people, especially in the 4th quarter, yet the team often performed better in the only place it really matters when IT4 was on the bench.

Moranis, you seriously need to let this go already. Irving is a great player and you're simply going to have to concede that and stop these silly math gymnastics you use to try in order to stick with your odd take. No one is buying it.

I’ll edit this to just say I find it really baffling someone can watch Irving these last few games and think we are better without him. He absolutely dominated in the 4th last night against a top notch team.

It's all about his style of play. He's a score-first PG. Assuming our starting lineup going forward is Kyrie - Brown - Hayward - Tatum - Horford, the C's have 5 legit offensive options on the floor. Each and everyone of these guys needs touches. With that much firepower, it's better to have a pass-first PG running the show in order for everyone to get their shots. I'm guessing that's what Moranis is trying to say.

Personally speaking, I admit I'm not the biggest fan of Kyrie. Having said that, Kyrie is hands down our most talented player. Assuming we are facing chemistry issues (and I believe we do), I'd rather trade someone else instead of our best player. Kyrie with a couple of off-ball specialists next to him would be absolutely lethal, plus he would elevate his teammates as well.

Remember our starting lineup when we had IT?

IT - Bradley - Crowder - Amir - Horford

In other words, 4 above average defenders + 3 guys who thrived playing off the ball. It was the perfect lineup in order for us to capitalize on IT's skill set. IT could play no D and he needed the ball in his hands on offense. Bingo. A match made in heaven (minus probably Amir, but meh whatever).

That's what we gotta do imo. Reshuffle the pieces around Kyrie in order to maximize his effectiveness whenever he's on the court. Not trade Kyrie himself.

Another thing is, I don't think we can find fair value for Kyrie cause he is about to hit free agency. Chances are that most teams wouldn't feel confident about re-signing him next summer, hence we'd have to find a team willing to take that risk. Good luck with that.
This is a summary of the on-court, but there are a number of reasons I wouldn't really want to build the team around Irving. 

First, Irving just isn't a good enough player in the grand scheme of things to be the best player on a multi-year contender.  He doesn't do enough, especially defensively, to be someone you can rely on that way.  I mean look at the Rockets and Harden.   They've built their team around Harden, who is better than Irving, but they've flamed out a lot in the playoffs because at the end of the day, Harden isn't a good enough player, and Harden is better than Irving.  You should absolutely build your team around your best player, but your best player has to be good enough or what is the point. 

Second, we've now seen enough that Irving isn't a great fit with many of the young players, young players that this team needs to actually win a title and I don't think Irving fits well with them.  I'd much rather build a team around Tatum than Irving, because Tatum could in fact be a player good enough to anchor a multi-title team.  He isn't now and he may never get there, but I do think the odds of him reaching that potential would be increased without Irving on the team as they really aren't a great fit.  That says nothing for Brown or Rozier, who have both been a lot better without Irving on the team. 

Third, speaking of Irving not being on the team.  Boston has won approximately 60% of the games Irving hasn't played, including reaching game 7 of the ECF without him.  That is with just removing Irving and not adding any assets or pieces for him.  The team is better with Irving, but they haven't been appreciably better either, and certainly haven't shown enough to be considered a real title threat with him.  If you can get assets for him and build the team around the young guys, I think that is the better route to go.  Which circles back to building the team around Tatum.

Fourth, Irving has had multiple knee surgeries and has missed a number of games with other ailments as well.  He has missed 20% of the regular season games in his career and missed a greater percentage of possible playoff games (missing entirely or large portions of 2 of his 4 possible playoff appearances).  He is going to command a 5 year maximum of 188 million or 38 million a year.  That is a lot of money to shell out for a player that quite frankly misses a lot of games and isn't in that first tier of talent.  You can miss 20% of your regular season if your Shaq in your prime and are healthy for the playoffs, that hasn't been Irving.  That is a huge contract to give a guy that is likely at best going to miss 1 in 5 games, including playoff games.  Those are the type of contracts that look like John Wall's an awful lot of the time.  They can hamstring a franchise.


If you could tell me right now that Boston is going to acquire Anthony Davis this summer, then sure keeping Irving is the sound thing to do because Davis actually is a player good enough to build around and I do think Irving would be an excellent running mate for Davis.  Add to that duo whatever you don't trade for Davis and some quality vets and that team could most definitely be a multi-year title contender with a great chance at winning the title, but outside of someone better than Irving joining the team, I'd rather build the team around Tatum, as I think he gives Boston the best chance of winning a title of anyone currently on the Celtics.

Let’s be honest here....

Your self admitted ties to the Cleveland area are probably the reason you constantly bash and understate Irving and his upper echelon talent. Again, where you reside is probably also the reason you said Cleveland would surprise people this season. The point is that when it comes to Irving, or anything coming out of Cleveland, you aren’t the most impartial of parties and your opinions should be marked with a huge asterisk.
I have no idea why you think me living in Northeast Ohio would alter my opinion on Irving.  My opinion of him hasn't changed since he was a Cav.  You can go back and see my countless posts on Irving, where I stated similar positions i.e. he is a good but not great player overall.  If anything, my closer exposure to him for many more years should actually have my opinion hold more merit since I've seen him more closely for far more years.  Plenty of people in this thread now singing his praises were the same people that wouldn't traded IT straight up for him (you can go to any number of threads from the summer of 17 and find those posts).  I wasn't one of those posters, I've always said I would have made a trade for him.  Even before Boston was officially linked to him, I think my early iteration of a trade was Thomas, Crowder, and Rozier for Irving and I would have thrown in Boston's own 2018 1st for him if necessary.  That in my mind was a good value trade for both teams.  I wasn't a fan of the ultimate trade as I would have liked to have kept the Brooklyn pick and that was with me even believing it wouldn't be a top 5 pick (I actually thought the Lakers pick was going to be in the top 5 while Brooklyn wasn't going to be so if one was traded I though BKN was the better one to trade - turns out the Lakers would have been better as it ultimately ended up at 10 instead of 8 for the BKN).  There was just too much uncertainty with Irving in my mind to give up a lottery pick.  that uncertainty was his contract length (and a future 5 year max), his health, and his actual on-court performance for me to want that risk at the expense of a top 10 pick.  Ultimately with Thomas ending up where he was, it was a good value trade even with the top 10 pick transferring, but all of those questions I had about Irving still exist today. 
2023 Historical Draft - Brooklyn Nets - 9th pick

Bigs - Pau, Amar'e, Issel, McGinnis, Roundfield
Wings - Dantley, Bowen, J. Jackson
Guards - Cheeks, Petrovic, Buse, Rip

Re: Trade Irving for the sake of the team
« Reply #350 on: January 19, 2019, 11:10:47 AM »

Offline Tr1boy

  • Paul Pierce
  • ***************************
  • Posts: 27260
  • Tommy Points: 867
No sure about anyone else but I’m sure glad we haven’t traded Kyrie yet  :angel:
Lol. Glad this thread got revived
Fabulous game again and yet Boston was actually better again without him on the floor, just as they were in the Toronto game i.e. +4 in 36 minutes is worse than +2 in 12 minutes, just as +4 in 38 minutes is worse than +5 in 10 minutes.  This is where it is always tricky in these things and were many of the same arguments being made when IT4 was torching people, especially in the 4th quarter, yet the team often performed better in the only place it really matters when IT4 was on the bench.

Moranis, you seriously need to let this go already. Irving is a great player and you're simply going to have to concede that and stop these silly math gymnastics you use to try in order to stick with your odd take. No one is buying it.

I’ll edit this to just say I find it really baffling someone can watch Irving these last few games and think we are better without him. He absolutely dominated in the 4th last night against a top notch team.

It's all about his style of play. He's a score-first PG. Assuming our starting lineup going forward is Kyrie - Brown - Hayward - Tatum - Horford, the C's have 5 legit offensive options on the floor. Each and everyone of these guys needs touches. With that much firepower, it's better to have a pass-first PG running the show in order for everyone to get their shots. I'm guessing that's what Moranis is trying to say.

Personally speaking, I admit I'm not the biggest fan of Kyrie. Having said that, Kyrie is hands down our most talented player. Assuming we are facing chemistry issues (and I believe we do), I'd rather trade someone else instead of our best player. Kyrie with a couple of off-ball specialists next to him would be absolutely lethal, plus he would elevate his teammates as well.

Remember our starting lineup when we had IT?

IT - Bradley - Crowder - Amir - Horford

In other words, 4 above average defenders + 3 guys who thrived playing off the ball. It was the perfect lineup in order for us to capitalize on IT's skill set. IT could play no D and he needed the ball in his hands on offense. Bingo. A match made in heaven (minus probably Amir, but meh whatever).

That's what we gotta do imo. Reshuffle the pieces around Kyrie in order to maximize his effectiveness whenever he's on the court. Not trade Kyrie himself.

Another thing is, I don't think we can find fair value for Kyrie cause he is about to hit free agency. Chances are that most teams wouldn't feel confident about re-signing him next summer, hence we'd have to find a team willing to take that risk. Good luck with that.
This is a summary of the on-court, but there are a number of reasons I wouldn't really want to build the team around Irving. 

First, Irving just isn't a good enough player in the grand scheme of things to be the best player on a multi-year contender.  He doesn't do enough, especially defensively, to be someone you can rely on that way.  I mean look at the Rockets and Harden.   They've built their team around Harden, who is better than Irving, but they've flamed out a lot in the playoffs because at the end of the day, Harden isn't a good enough player, and Harden is better than Irving.  You should absolutely build your team around your best player, but your best player has to be good enough or what is the point. 

Second, we've now seen enough that Irving isn't a great fit with many of the young players, young players that this team needs to actually win a title and I don't think Irving fits well with them.  I'd much rather build a team around Tatum than Irving, because Tatum could in fact be a player good enough to anchor a multi-title team.  He isn't now and he may never get there, but I do think the odds of him reaching that potential would be increased without Irving on the team as they really aren't a great fit.  That says nothing for Brown or Rozier, who have both been a lot better without Irving on the team. 

Third, speaking of Irving not being on the team.  Boston has won approximately 60% of the games Irving hasn't played, including reaching game 7 of the ECF without him.  That is with just removing Irving and not adding any assets or pieces for him.  The team is better with Irving, but they haven't been appreciably better either, and certainly haven't shown enough to be considered a real title threat with him.  If you can get assets for him and build the team around the young guys, I think that is the better route to go.  Which circles back to building the team around Tatum.

Fourth, Irving has had multiple knee surgeries and has missed a number of games with other ailments as well.  He has missed 20% of the regular season games in his career and missed a greater percentage of possible playoff games (missing entirely or large portions of 2 of his 4 possible playoff appearances).  He is going to command a 5 year maximum of 188 million or 38 million a year.  That is a lot of money to shell out for a player that quite frankly misses a lot of games and isn't in that first tier of talent.  You can miss 20% of your regular season if your Shaq in your prime and are healthy for the playoffs, that hasn't been Irving.  That is a huge contract to give a guy that is likely at best going to miss 1 in 5 games, including playoff games.  Those are the type of contracts that look like John Wall's an awful lot of the time.  They can hamstring a franchise.


If you could tell me right now that Boston is going to acquire Anthony Davis this summer, then sure keeping Irving is the sound thing to do because Davis actually is a player good enough to build around and I do think Irving would be an excellent running mate for Davis.  Add to that duo whatever you don't trade for Davis and some quality vets and that team could most definitely be a multi-year title contender with a great chance at winning the title, but outside of someone better than Irving joining the team, I'd rather build the team around Tatum, as I think he gives Boston the best chance of winning a title of anyone currently on the Celtics.

Let’s be honest here....

Your self admitted ties to the Cleveland area are probably the reason you constantly bash and understate Irving and his upper echelon talent. Again, where you reside is probably also the reason you said Cleveland would surprise people this season. The point is that when it comes to Irving, or anything coming out of Cleveland, you aren’t the most impartial of parties and your opinions should be marked with a huge asterisk.
I have no idea why you think me living in Northeast Ohio would alter my opinion on Irving.  My opinion of him hasn't changed since he was a Cav.  You can go back and see my countless posts on Irving, where I stated similar positions i.e. he is a good but not great player overall.  If anything, my closer exposure to him for many more years should actually have my opinion hold more merit since I've seen him more closely for far more years.  Plenty of people in this thread now singing his praises were the same people that wouldn't traded IT straight up for him (you can go to any number of threads from the summer of 17 and find those posts).  I wasn't one of those posters, I've always said I would have made a trade for him.  Even before Boston was officially linked to him, I think my early iteration of a trade was Thomas, Crowder, and Rozier for Irving and I would have thrown in Boston's own 2018 1st for him if necessary.  That in my mind was a good value trade for both teams.  I wasn't a fan of the ultimate trade as I would have liked to have kept the Brooklyn pick and that was with me even believing it wouldn't be a top 5 pick (I actually thought the Lakers pick was going to be in the top 5 while Brooklyn wasn't going to be so if one was traded I though BKN was the better one to trade - turns out the Lakers would have been better as it ultimately ended up at 10 instead of 8 for the BKN).  There was just too much uncertainty with Irving in my mind to give up a lottery pick.  that uncertainty was his contract length (and a future 5 year max), his health, and his actual on-court performance for me to want that risk at the expense of a top 10 pick.  Ultimately with Thomas ending up where he was, it was a good value trade even with the top 10 pick transferring, but all of those questions I had about Irving still exist today.

If the 2018 pick (8th pick) was kept, who would you have drafted?

Re: Trade Irving for the sake of the team
« Reply #351 on: January 19, 2019, 12:24:39 PM »

Offline Moranis

  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 33461
  • Tommy Points: 1533
No sure about anyone else but I’m sure glad we haven’t traded Kyrie yet  :angel:
Lol. Glad this thread got revived
Fabulous game again and yet Boston was actually better again without him on the floor, just as they were in the Toronto game i.e. +4 in 36 minutes is worse than +2 in 12 minutes, just as +4 in 38 minutes is worse than +5 in 10 minutes.  This is where it is always tricky in these things and were many of the same arguments being made when IT4 was torching people, especially in the 4th quarter, yet the team often performed better in the only place it really matters when IT4 was on the bench.

Moranis, you seriously need to let this go already. Irving is a great player and you're simply going to have to concede that and stop these silly math gymnastics you use to try in order to stick with your odd take. No one is buying it.

I’ll edit this to just say I find it really baffling someone can watch Irving these last few games and think we are better without him. He absolutely dominated in the 4th last night against a top notch team.

It's all about his style of play. He's a score-first PG. Assuming our starting lineup going forward is Kyrie - Brown - Hayward - Tatum - Horford, the C's have 5 legit offensive options on the floor. Each and everyone of these guys needs touches. With that much firepower, it's better to have a pass-first PG running the show in order for everyone to get their shots. I'm guessing that's what Moranis is trying to say.

Personally speaking, I admit I'm not the biggest fan of Kyrie. Having said that, Kyrie is hands down our most talented player. Assuming we are facing chemistry issues (and I believe we do), I'd rather trade someone else instead of our best player. Kyrie with a couple of off-ball specialists next to him would be absolutely lethal, plus he would elevate his teammates as well.

Remember our starting lineup when we had IT?

IT - Bradley - Crowder - Amir - Horford

In other words, 4 above average defenders + 3 guys who thrived playing off the ball. It was the perfect lineup in order for us to capitalize on IT's skill set. IT could play no D and he needed the ball in his hands on offense. Bingo. A match made in heaven (minus probably Amir, but meh whatever).

That's what we gotta do imo. Reshuffle the pieces around Kyrie in order to maximize his effectiveness whenever he's on the court. Not trade Kyrie himself.

Another thing is, I don't think we can find fair value for Kyrie cause he is about to hit free agency. Chances are that most teams wouldn't feel confident about re-signing him next summer, hence we'd have to find a team willing to take that risk. Good luck with that.
This is a summary of the on-court, but there are a number of reasons I wouldn't really want to build the team around Irving. 

First, Irving just isn't a good enough player in the grand scheme of things to be the best player on a multi-year contender.  He doesn't do enough, especially defensively, to be someone you can rely on that way.  I mean look at the Rockets and Harden.   They've built their team around Harden, who is better than Irving, but they've flamed out a lot in the playoffs because at the end of the day, Harden isn't a good enough player, and Harden is better than Irving.  You should absolutely build your team around your best player, but your best player has to be good enough or what is the point. 

Second, we've now seen enough that Irving isn't a great fit with many of the young players, young players that this team needs to actually win a title and I don't think Irving fits well with them.  I'd much rather build a team around Tatum than Irving, because Tatum could in fact be a player good enough to anchor a multi-title team.  He isn't now and he may never get there, but I do think the odds of him reaching that potential would be increased without Irving on the team as they really aren't a great fit.  That says nothing for Brown or Rozier, who have both been a lot better without Irving on the team. 

Third, speaking of Irving not being on the team.  Boston has won approximately 60% of the games Irving hasn't played, including reaching game 7 of the ECF without him.  That is with just removing Irving and not adding any assets or pieces for him.  The team is better with Irving, but they haven't been appreciably better either, and certainly haven't shown enough to be considered a real title threat with him.  If you can get assets for him and build the team around the young guys, I think that is the better route to go.  Which circles back to building the team around Tatum.

Fourth, Irving has had multiple knee surgeries and has missed a number of games with other ailments as well.  He has missed 20% of the regular season games in his career and missed a greater percentage of possible playoff games (missing entirely or large portions of 2 of his 4 possible playoff appearances).  He is going to command a 5 year maximum of 188 million or 38 million a year.  That is a lot of money to shell out for a player that quite frankly misses a lot of games and isn't in that first tier of talent.  You can miss 20% of your regular season if your Shaq in your prime and are healthy for the playoffs, that hasn't been Irving.  That is a huge contract to give a guy that is likely at best going to miss 1 in 5 games, including playoff games.  Those are the type of contracts that look like John Wall's an awful lot of the time.  They can hamstring a franchise.


If you could tell me right now that Boston is going to acquire Anthony Davis this summer, then sure keeping Irving is the sound thing to do because Davis actually is a player good enough to build around and I do think Irving would be an excellent running mate for Davis.  Add to that duo whatever you don't trade for Davis and some quality vets and that team could most definitely be a multi-year title contender with a great chance at winning the title, but outside of someone better than Irving joining the team, I'd rather build the team around Tatum, as I think he gives Boston the best chance of winning a title of anyone currently on the Celtics.

Let’s be honest here....

Your self admitted ties to the Cleveland area are probably the reason you constantly bash and understate Irving and his upper echelon talent. Again, where you reside is probably also the reason you said Cleveland would surprise people this season. The point is that when it comes to Irving, or anything coming out of Cleveland, you aren’t the most impartial of parties and your opinions should be marked with a huge asterisk.
I have no idea why you think me living in Northeast Ohio would alter my opinion on Irving.  My opinion of him hasn't changed since he was a Cav.  You can go back and see my countless posts on Irving, where I stated similar positions i.e. he is a good but not great player overall.  If anything, my closer exposure to him for many more years should actually have my opinion hold more merit since I've seen him more closely for far more years.  Plenty of people in this thread now singing his praises were the same people that wouldn't traded IT straight up for him (you can go to any number of threads from the summer of 17 and find those posts).  I wasn't one of those posters, I've always said I would have made a trade for him.  Even before Boston was officially linked to him, I think my early iteration of a trade was Thomas, Crowder, and Rozier for Irving and I would have thrown in Boston's own 2018 1st for him if necessary.  That in my mind was a good value trade for both teams.  I wasn't a fan of the ultimate trade as I would have liked to have kept the Brooklyn pick and that was with me even believing it wouldn't be a top 5 pick (I actually thought the Lakers pick was going to be in the top 5 while Brooklyn wasn't going to be so if one was traded I though BKN was the better one to trade - turns out the Lakers would have been better as it ultimately ended up at 10 instead of 8 for the BKN).  There was just too much uncertainty with Irving in my mind to give up a lottery pick.  that uncertainty was his contract length (and a future 5 year max), his health, and his actual on-court performance for me to want that risk at the expense of a top 10 pick.  Ultimately with Thomas ending up where he was, it was a good value trade even with the top 10 pick transferring, but all of those questions I had about Irving still exist today.

If the 2018 pick (8th pick) was kept, who would you have drafted?
I would have tried to move up but if that wasn't an option I would have probably taken a flyer on Porter as he has the most top end potential though without seeing the medicals that is all guessing. I think Ainge would have probably taken Bridges if he couldn't move up
2023 Historical Draft - Brooklyn Nets - 9th pick

Bigs - Pau, Amar'e, Issel, McGinnis, Roundfield
Wings - Dantley, Bowen, J. Jackson
Guards - Cheeks, Petrovic, Buse, Rip

Re: Trade Irving for the sake of the team
« Reply #352 on: January 19, 2019, 02:37:30 PM »

Offline nickagneta

  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 48120
  • Tommy Points: 8794
  • President of Jaylen Brown Fan Club
Can we trade him now when his value is higher after 2 games?
Absolutely because as we all know you absolutely must trade a player when their value is highest and not actually just reap the benefits of a player playing at their highest level.😁

Re: Trade Irving for the sake of the team
« Reply #353 on: January 19, 2019, 03:13:39 PM »

Offline tenn_smoothie

  • Paul Silas
  • ******
  • Posts: 6131
  • Tommy Points: 722
Irving is currently having big stat lines and, of course, came up huge vs Toronto late to basically win the game for the Celts.

My concern, which will not be heard because of my "bias" regarding Irving is, that short term, he produces some great moments but long term, I think he hurts a team's chances towards consistent championship contention.

What you have to look at is, when Irving posts these big numbers, points & assists, what are the other players producing ? The Celtics are at their best when assists and points are spread among several players. That means the ball is moving and not being dribbled. When Irving gets 18 assists, everyone wants to kneel and worship the guy. Problem is, those 18 assists come after he dominates the ball for much of the shot clock and then makes ONE pass for a basket. When a lot of players get assists, it means the ball is moving, everyone is involved and much more active, both offensively and defensively. Irving is often great for a team the last 2 minutes of a game. It's the first 46 minutes that I worry about.

His basic self-centered nature has been discussed at length already. Anyone who responds to a coach's directive with, "That's not my job" is obviously more concerned with themselves than the team.
The Four Celtic Generals:
Russell - Cowens - Bird - Garnett

The Four Celtic Lieutenants:
Cousy - Havlicek - McHale - Pierce

Re: Trade Irving for the sake of the team
« Reply #354 on: January 19, 2019, 03:28:12 PM »

Offline tazzmaniac

  • Don Nelson
  • ********
  • Posts: 8113
  • Tommy Points: 549
Irving is currently having big stat lines and, of course, came up huge vs Toronto late to basically win the game for the Celts.

My concern, which will not be heard because of my "bias" regarding Irving is, that short term, he produces some great moments but long term, I think he hurts a team's chances towards consistent championship contention.

What you have to look at is, when Irving posts these big numbers, points & assists, what are the other players producing ? The Celtics are at their best when assists and points are spread among several players. That means the ball is moving and not being dribbled. When Irving gets 18 assists, everyone wants to kneel and worship the guy. Problem is, those 18 assists come after he dominates the ball for much of the shot clock and then makes ONE pass for a basket. When a lot of players get assists, it means the ball is moving, everyone is involved and much more active, both offensively and defensively. Irving is often great for a team the last 2 minutes of a game. It's the first 46 minutes that I worry about.

His basic self-centered nature has been discussed at length already. Anyone who responds to a coach's directive with, "That's not my job" is obviously more concerned with themselves than the team.
Ball movement is overrated.  Player movement is more important.  Stars win championships not systems.  Stars should dominate the ball more than role players.  Get your stars and then build the system and role players around them. 

Re: Trade Irving for the sake of the team
« Reply #355 on: January 19, 2019, 03:29:21 PM »

Offline Monkhouse

  • Paul Silas
  • ******
  • Posts: 6932
  • Tommy Points: 814
  • A true Celtic plays with heart.
Irving is currently having big stat lines and, of course, came up huge vs Toronto late to basically win the game for the Celts.

My concern, which will not be heard because of my "bias" regarding Irving is, that short term, he produces some great moments but long term, I think he hurts a team's chances towards consistent championship contention.

What you have to look at is, when Irving posts these big numbers, points & assists, what are the other players producing ? The Celtics are at their best when assists and points are spread among several players. That means the ball is moving and not being dribbled. When Irving gets 18 assists, everyone wants to kneel and worship the guy. Problem is, those 18 assists come after he dominates the ball for much of the shot clock and then makes ONE pass for a basket. When a lot of players get assists, it means the ball is moving, everyone is involved and much more active, both offensively and defensively. Irving is often great for a team the last 2 minutes of a game. It's the first 46 minutes that I worry about.

His basic self-centered nature has been discussed at length already. Anyone who responds to a coach's directive with, "That's not my job" is obviously more concerned with themselves than the team.

Larry Bird had career average USG rate of 26.5%, and Irving has 29.3%, which isn't that far fetched to believe in the percentage difference, considering Irving is a PG/SG combo guard, and generally will have the ball in his hands for far longer.

Bird also had consecutive games where he had 20+ PPG, and 10+ APG. Did he also deter his other teammates from being involved and scoring? Did we hear the same glaring complaints with Irving, APPLY to Bird? Sure, two different players, and two entirely different positions, but it's always alarming to me that you guys continuously talk about him having 18 assists as if that's a bad thing. Like Bird never just took over the game, and led the team to a win. Why is it such a problematic issue if Irving does the same?

Offensively, he's our clear cut go to scorer, and probably the best player on the team.
Is he not allowed to be given the luxury to do so, when he has been nothing short of excellent; in fixing and improving upon his most immediate deficiencies.

Like seriously, it's like you guys just try to pluck away any achievements, or anything impactful that Irving has done. Every time, I come into this forums, I've seen some users who really have it out for Irving, and just whine and complain about everything that he does, and never EVER talk about whatever good he accomplished. You guys really are some negative nancy's. 

It's also telling that you chose the one sentence that marks him out as a bad guy, but none of the other 100 great ones mentioned in his post game interviews; taking blame for losses, stepping us as a leader.
"I bomb atomically, Socrates' philosophies and hypotheses
Can't define how I be dropping these mockeries."

Is the glass half-full or half-empty?
It's based on your perspective, quite simply
We're the same and we're not; know what I'm saying? Listen
Son, I ain't better than you, I just think different

Re: Trade Irving for the sake of the team
« Reply #356 on: January 19, 2019, 03:29:26 PM »

Offline RJ87

  • NCE
  • Ed Macauley
  • ***********
  • Posts: 11685
  • Tommy Points: 1406
  • Let's Go Celtics!
When Irving gets 18 assists, everyone wants to kneel and worship the guy. Problem is, those 18 assists come after he dominates the ball for much of the shot clock and then makes ONE pass for a basket.

Okay. Now I know you're not watching the games. Because this is not based on anything that actually happened in that Toronto game.
2021 Houston Rockets
PG: Kyrie Irving/Patty Mills/Jalen Brunson
SG: OG Anunoby/Norman Powell/Matisse Thybulle
SF: Gordon Hayward/Demar Derozan
PF: Giannis Antetokounmpo/Robert Covington
C: Kristaps Porzingis/Bobby Portis/James Wiseman

Re: Trade Irving for the sake of the team
« Reply #357 on: January 19, 2019, 03:32:18 PM »

Offline Monkhouse

  • Paul Silas
  • ******
  • Posts: 6932
  • Tommy Points: 814
  • A true Celtic plays with heart.
I don't even get it. Irving is extremely exciting to watch... He's great for the NBA, well spoken individual, one of the best handlers in the history of the NBA, vegan, and just loves basketball...

Like, why do people dislike him? I used to, but I believed he was a selfish scorer who rarely passed. This and last year has changed my view points immensely.
"I bomb atomically, Socrates' philosophies and hypotheses
Can't define how I be dropping these mockeries."

Is the glass half-full or half-empty?
It's based on your perspective, quite simply
We're the same and we're not; know what I'm saying? Listen
Son, I ain't better than you, I just think different

Re: Trade Irving for the sake of the team
« Reply #358 on: January 19, 2019, 03:32:59 PM »

Offline nickagneta

  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 48120
  • Tommy Points: 8794
  • President of Jaylen Brown Fan Club
Irving is currently having big stat lines and, of course, came up huge vs Toronto late to basically win the game for the Celts.

My concern, which will not be heard because of my "bias" regarding Irving is, that short term, he produces some great moments but long term, I think he hurts a team's chances towards consistent championship contention.

What you have to look at is, when Irving posts these big numbers, points & assists, what are the other players producing ? The Celtics are at their best when assists and points are spread among several players. That means the ball is moving and not being dribbled. When Irving gets 18 assists, everyone wants to kneel and worship the guy. Problem is, those 18 assists come after he dominates the ball for much of the shot clock and then makes ONE pass for a basket. When a lot of players get assists, it means the ball is moving, everyone is involved and much more active, both offensively and defensively. Irving is often great for a team the last 2 minutes of a game. It's the first 46 minutes that I worry about.

His basic self-centered nature has been discussed at length already. Anyone who responds to a coach's directive with, "That's not my job" is obviously more concerned with themselves than the team.

Before last night, in their last 5 games at home the Celtics had gotten 32 or more assists per game, the longest such streak since 1989. 19 times this year the Celtics have gotten 29 or more assists in a game.

During the first 16 games of the season  the Celtics had 29 or more assists in a game 3 times. Boston averaged 23 assists per game during those first 16 games.They averaged 28 assists per game in the 29 games since then with 16 games of 29 or more assists.

The team struggled as a whole to start the season but since then their ball movement has been great.

Your claim that Kyrie inhibits ball movement is simply not true. The ball movement problem was a Celtic problem, not a Kyrie problem

Re: Trade Irving for the sake of the team
« Reply #359 on: January 19, 2019, 03:41:46 PM »

Kiorrik

  • Guest
This thread is so, oh so very weird.

I dunno man.

Kyrie; 38/7/11
Tatum; 2pts 0/6 shooting
Morris: 8pts 4/12 shooting

Game before that:

Kyrie; 27/5/18
Morris+Brown; 13pts 4/18 shooting (22%)

Fans: KYRIE'S FAULT!!!

Yeh, nah.