Author Topic: Would you rather have 2 years of Kyrie or Collin Sexton  (Read 3509 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: Would you rather have 2 years of Kyrie or Collin Sexton
« Reply #30 on: July 16, 2019, 02:35:17 PM »

Online jambr380

  • Satch Sanders
  • *********
  • Posts: 9249
  • Tommy Points: 1111
  • Sometimes there's no sane reason for optimism.
I still don't consider that we lost Kyrie for nothing after two years. His leaving allowed Kemba to essentially slide into that spot (with some maneuvering, but nothing that might not have happened anyway). So two years of Kyrie kept the spot warm for Kemba. Would you take 2 years of Kyrie, plus the ability to sign Kemba after those two years in exchange for Sexton?
Horford leaving is what allowed Kemba to be signed.  If Horford had merely opted in, I don't know that Walker is here.

Mechanically, but not in terms of assets and roster. If Kyrie stayed, the Celtics still would not have been able to find anything close to a Horford replacement, whereas I see Kemba as a Kyrie replacement. I see Horford as the irreplaceable loss.

I think everybody thinks of Kemba as the Kyrie replacement (and rightfully so), but what Moranis is saying is that it would have been impossible to sign or trade for him if Horford had just opted in.

If Kyrie still leaves, we are left with Rozier as our starting PG and you are saying the Kyrie is the irreplaceable loss (a stretch, I know, but he is considerably better than Rozier). It basically comes down to Rozier vs Kanter and who you think can better hold down the fort.
yes that is what I was saying.  That if Horford opted in, I don't believe Kemba Walker is on the Celtics.

Wouldn't we have just worked on some sort of sign and trade with Charlotte? There has to be a way that could have happened given we just switched point guards (obviously it would have cost us assets)

In yet another dumb CBA rule, that would actually have been impossible due to both teams being above the cap. Hypothetically, if two teams were over the cap and each wanted to s&t a player to a $20M/year contract, they would not be able to do so since the outgoing salary would count as only $10M while the incoming salary would still count as $20M.

In this case, CHA would have been able to absorb Rozier, but we would have had to shed some major salary to take back Kemba. It would have been crazy if we were giving up assets for someone to take on Smart's contract. I suppose another solution to this would be to sign said players and then make a trade Dec 15th when teams wouldn't be beholden to the s&t rules.

Re: Would you rather have 2 years of Kyrie or Collin Sexton
« Reply #31 on: July 16, 2019, 03:41:05 PM »

Offline celticsclay

  • Ed Macauley
  • ***********
  • Posts: 11002
  • Tommy Points: 1163
I still don't consider that we lost Kyrie for nothing after two years. His leaving allowed Kemba to essentially slide into that spot (with some maneuvering, but nothing that might not have happened anyway). So two years of Kyrie kept the spot warm for Kemba. Would you take 2 years of Kyrie, plus the ability to sign Kemba after those two years in exchange for Sexton?
Horford leaving is what allowed Kemba to be signed.  If Horford had merely opted in, I don't know that Walker is here.

Mechanically, but not in terms of assets and roster. If Kyrie stayed, the Celtics still would not have been able to find anything close to a Horford replacement, whereas I see Kemba as a Kyrie replacement. I see Horford as the irreplaceable loss.

I think everybody thinks of Kemba as the Kyrie replacement (and rightfully so), but what Moranis is saying is that it would have been impossible to sign or trade for him if Horford had just opted in.

If Kyrie still leaves, we are left with Rozier as our starting PG and you are saying the Kyrie is the irreplaceable loss (a stretch, I know, but he is considerably better than Rozier). It basically comes down to Rozier vs Kanter and who you think can better hold down the fort.
yes that is what I was saying.  That if Horford opted in, I don't believe Kemba Walker is on the Celtics.

Wouldn't we have just worked on some sort of sign and trade with Charlotte? There has to be a way that could have happened given we just switched point guards (obviously it would have cost us assets)

In yet another dumb CBA rule, that would actually have been impossible due to both teams being above the cap. Hypothetically, if two teams were over the cap and each wanted to s&t a player to a $20M/year contract, they would not be able to do so since the outgoing salary would count as only $10M while the incoming salary would still count as $20M.

In this case, CHA would have been able to absorb Rozier, but we would have had to shed some major salary to take back Kemba. It would have been crazy if we were giving up assets for someone to take on Smart's contract. I suppose another solution to this would be to sign said players and then make a trade Dec 15th when teams wouldn't be beholden to the s&t rules.

They have to loosen this sign and trade rules. I get it can be a bit ridiculous to circumvent the cap if there are no limitations, but if two teams each have point guards and want to switch the, they should be able to do that.

Re: Would you rather have 2 years of Kyrie or Collin Sexton
« Reply #32 on: July 16, 2019, 04:46:15 PM »

Offline CelticsElite

  • NCE
  • Satch Sanders
  • *********
  • Posts: 9763
  • Tommy Points: 713
If sexton is so good, why did Cleveland draft garland

Re: Would you rather have 2 years of Kyrie or Collin Sexton
« Reply #33 on: July 16, 2019, 05:21:14 PM »

Offline KG Living Legend

  • Tiny Archibald
  • *******
  • Posts: 7319
  • Tommy Points: 1027
If sexton is so good, why did Cleveland draft garland



 Cavs. What a joke. He was supposed to be the best player on the board.

 I don't see it either.

Re: Would you rather have 2 years of Kyrie or Collin Sexton
« Reply #34 on: July 17, 2019, 12:39:11 AM »

Offline droopdog7

  • Paul Silas
  • ******
  • Posts: 6025
  • Tommy Points: 394
The only risk in that trade was the potential for the pick to be in the top 2-3.  Once it fell to #8, then it was a no brainer even now.

Re: Would you rather have 2 years of Kyrie or Collin Sexton
« Reply #35 on: July 17, 2019, 05:44:09 AM »

Offline Csfan1984

  • Paul Silas
  • ******
  • Posts: 6408
  • Tommy Points: 116
Sexton because there wouldn't have been regression on this team or a need to keep guys like Rozier and Morris. Irving set the team back.
But Sexton is a very average player

Yes he is and we just gave a player who is marginally better a 4 year max contract.
« Last Edit: July 17, 2019, 06:01:21 AM by Csfan1984 »
Trade deadline mock team: Celtics,
Irving, Rozier, Wanna
Smart, Robinson, Dozier
Tatum, Morris, Semi
Griffin, Theis, Yab
Horford, Baynes, Williams

Re: Would you rather have 2 years of Kyrie or Collin Sexton
« Reply #36 on: July 17, 2019, 06:06:23 AM »

Offline gouki88

  • Global Moderator
  • Danny Ainge
  • **********
  • Posts: 10437
  • Tommy Points: 479
Sexton because there wouldn't have been regression on this team or a need to keep guys like Rozier and Morris. Irving set the team back.
But Sexton is a very average player

Yes he is and we just gave a player who is marginally better a 4 year max contract.
Rofl. Completely off talent assessment. Please tell me what exactly is marginal about the difference between a 3x All-Star & All-NBA point guard vs a guy who put up a very inefficient 17PPG on one of the worst teams in the league, who also can't pass?

This is one of the most laughably wrong comparisons I've seen here in a while. Not quite Tacko = Wilt, but it's bad.
2019 CS Historical Draft:
Philadelphia 76ers
Players: Larry Bird, Karl Malone
Picks: 3:1, 3:4, 4:12, 6:12, 7:1, 8:12, 9:1, 10:12, 11:1, 12:12

Re: Would you rather have 2 years of Kyrie or Collin Sexton
« Reply #37 on: July 17, 2019, 06:49:15 AM »

Offline Csfan1984

  • Paul Silas
  • ******
  • Posts: 6408
  • Tommy Points: 116
Sexton because there wouldn't have been regression on this team or a need to keep guys like Rozier and Morris. Irving set the team back.
But Sexton is a very average player

Yes he is and we just gave a player who is marginally better a 4 year max contract.
Rofl. Completely off talent assessment. Please tell me what exactly is marginal about the difference between a 3x All-Star & All-NBA point guard vs a guy who put up a very inefficient 17PPG on one of the worst teams in the league, who also can't pass?

This is one of the most laughably wrong comparisons I've seen here in a while. Not quite Tacko = Wilt, but it's bad.
Take a look at the numbers not the awards. They are clearly closer than you think.
Trade deadline mock team: Celtics,
Irving, Rozier, Wanna
Smart, Robinson, Dozier
Tatum, Morris, Semi
Griffin, Theis, Yab
Horford, Baynes, Williams

Re: Would you rather have 2 years of Kyrie or Collin Sexton
« Reply #38 on: July 17, 2019, 06:52:58 AM »

Offline gouki88

  • Global Moderator
  • Danny Ainge
  • **********
  • Posts: 10437
  • Tommy Points: 479
Sexton because there wouldn't have been regression on this team or a need to keep guys like Rozier and Morris. Irving set the team back.
But Sexton is a very average player

Yes he is and we just gave a player who is marginally better a 4 year max contract.
Rofl. Completely off talent assessment. Please tell me what exactly is marginal about the difference between a 3x All-Star & All-NBA point guard vs a guy who put up a very inefficient 17PPG on one of the worst teams in the league, who also can't pass?

This is one of the most laughably wrong comparisons I've seen here in a while. Not quite Tacko = Wilt, but it's bad.
Take a look at the numbers not the awards. They are clearly closer than you think.
Ah yes, I forgot basketball is in fact all about stats! Silly me. Even if you were right and the stats were close (which they aren't) it wouldn't tell the story. Kemba nearly willed what is frankly a garbage roster to the playoffs.

https://www.basketball-reference.com/play-index/pcm_finder.fcgi?request=1&sum=0&player_id1_hint=kemba+Walker&player_id1_select=Kemba+Walker&y1=2019&player_id1=walkeke02&idx=players&player_id2_hint=Collin+Sexton&player_id2_select=Collin+Sexton&y2=2019&player_id2=sextoco01&idx=players
2019 CS Historical Draft:
Philadelphia 76ers
Players: Larry Bird, Karl Malone
Picks: 3:1, 3:4, 4:12, 6:12, 7:1, 8:12, 9:1, 10:12, 11:1, 12:12

Re: Would you rather have 2 years of Kyrie or Collin Sexton
« Reply #39 on: July 17, 2019, 06:56:53 AM »

Offline ChillyWilly

  • Kyrie Irving
  • Posts: 786
  • Tommy Points: 243
I'll take 2 years of having my Celtics memory erased.
I love basketball I love the Celtics I Hate August and October

Re: Would you rather have 2 years of Kyrie or Collin Sexton
« Reply #40 on: July 17, 2019, 07:15:45 AM »

Offline Csfan1984

  • Paul Silas
  • ******
  • Posts: 6408
  • Tommy Points: 116
Sexton because there wouldn't have been regression on this team or a need to keep guys like Rozier and Morris. Irving set the team back.
But Sexton is a very average player

Yes he is and we just gave a player who is marginally better a 4 year max contract.
Rofl. Completely off talent assessment. Please tell me what exactly is marginal about the difference between a 3x All-Star & All-NBA point guard vs a guy who put up a very inefficient 17PPG on one of the worst teams in the league, who also can't pass?

This is one of the most laughably wrong comparisons I've seen here in a while. Not quite Tacko = Wilt, but it's bad.
Take a look at the numbers not the awards. They are clearly closer than you think.
Ah yes, I forgot basketball is in fact all about stats! Silly me. Even if you were right and the stats were close (which they aren't) it wouldn't tell the story. Kemba nearly willed what is frankly a garbage roster to the playoffs.

https://www.basketball-reference.com/play-index/pcm_finder.fcgi?request=1&sum=0&player_id1_hint=kemba+Walker&player_id1_select=Kemba+Walker&y1=2019&player_id1=walkeke02&idx=players&player_id2_hint=Collin+Sexton&player_id2_select=Collin+Sexton&y2=2019&player_id2=sextoco01&idx=players
Like the Cavs aren't a bad team.

Look at that usage rate and fg%. Sexton would score just as much and nearly as many ast with that usage.
« Last Edit: July 17, 2019, 07:41:33 AM by Csfan1984 »
Trade deadline mock team: Celtics,
Irving, Rozier, Wanna
Smart, Robinson, Dozier
Tatum, Morris, Semi
Griffin, Theis, Yab
Horford, Baynes, Williams

Re: Would you rather have 2 years of Kyrie or Collin Sexton
« Reply #41 on: July 17, 2019, 08:10:27 AM »

Offline gift

  • Don Chaney
  • *
  • Posts: 1979
  • Tommy Points: 182
I still don't consider that we lost Kyrie for nothing after two years. His leaving allowed Kemba to essentially slide into that spot (with some maneuvering, but nothing that might not have happened anyway). So two years of Kyrie kept the spot warm for Kemba. Would you take 2 years of Kyrie, plus the ability to sign Kemba after those two years in exchange for Sexton?
Horford leaving is what allowed Kemba to be signed.  If Horford had merely opted in, I don't know that Walker is here.

Mechanically, but not in terms of assets and roster. If Kyrie stayed, the Celtics still would not have been able to find anything close to a Horford replacement, whereas I see Kemba as a Kyrie replacement. I see Horford as the irreplaceable loss.

I think everybody thinks of Kemba as the Kyrie replacement (and rightfully so), but what Moranis is saying is that it would have been impossible to sign or trade for him if Horford had just opted in.

If Kyrie still leaves, we are left with Rozier as our starting PG and you are saying the Kyrie is the irreplaceable loss (a stretch, I know, but he is considerably better than Rozier). It basically comes down to Rozier vs Kanter and who you think can better hold down the fort.

I know, but he didn't opt in which allowed the Celtics to get Kemba. I guess you can consider Kemba the Horford replacement, but that makes less sense in terms of on-court value. Much cleaner to see Kemba as the Kyrie replacement and Horford as the loss.

Re: Would you rather have 2 years of Kyrie or Collin Sexton
« Reply #42 on: July 17, 2019, 08:53:23 AM »

Online action781

  • Antoine Walker
  • ****
  • Posts: 4619
  • Tommy Points: 423
Without hindsight, which obviously shows SGA as the right pick there, I would have taken Michael Porter Jr with that pick.   With hindsight, I'd probably rather have him than Kyrie?  Unsure.  Hard to imagine how everything else plays out... does IT stay and get the brinks truck disabling us from signing Kemba?  Does Rozier have a great 1.5 seasons and get extended?  How has the team looked?

In a vacuum, if the question is "Would I rather agree to a 2 year rental of Kyrie or have Collin Sexton on a rookie contract plus RFA rights?" then the answer is 2 year rental of Kyrie.  Even as maddening as he was, Sexton is that bad.
2019 CS Historical Draft Utah Jazz
Players: Michael Jordan, Bill Walton
Picks: 4(4), 5(1), 5(4), 6(9), 7(4), 8(9), 9(4), 10(9), 11(4), 12(9)

Re: Would you rather have 2 years of Kyrie or Collin Sexton
« Reply #43 on: July 17, 2019, 09:52:12 AM »

Online Moranis

  • Global Moderator
  • Sam Jones
  • **********************
  • Posts: 22016
  • Tommy Points: 1054
I still don't consider that we lost Kyrie for nothing after two years. His leaving allowed Kemba to essentially slide into that spot (with some maneuvering, but nothing that might not have happened anyway). So two years of Kyrie kept the spot warm for Kemba. Would you take 2 years of Kyrie, plus the ability to sign Kemba after those two years in exchange for Sexton?
Horford leaving is what allowed Kemba to be signed.  If Horford had merely opted in, I don't know that Walker is here.

Mechanically, but not in terms of assets and roster. If Kyrie stayed, the Celtics still would not have been able to find anything close to a Horford replacement, whereas I see Kemba as a Kyrie replacement. I see Horford as the irreplaceable loss.

I think everybody thinks of Kemba as the Kyrie replacement (and rightfully so), but what Moranis is saying is that it would have been impossible to sign or trade for him if Horford had just opted in.

If Kyrie still leaves, we are left with Rozier as our starting PG and you are saying the Kyrie is the irreplaceable loss (a stretch, I know, but he is considerably better than Rozier). It basically comes down to Rozier vs Kanter and who you think can better hold down the fort.

I know, but he didn't opt in which allowed the Celtics to get Kemba. I guess you can consider Kemba the Horford replacement, but that makes less sense in terms of on-court value. Much cleaner to see Kemba as the Kyrie replacement and Horford as the loss.
the bolded is the part I was specifically commenting on.  If Horford opts in (or even opted out and then re-signed), Kemba Walker is not a Celtic without a ton of moves including the trading of Smart, the sign and trade of Rozier, and a lot of other salary moves (perhaps even Hayward).  I just don't see that likely at all if Horford had opted in and thus it really was Horford leaving that allowed Walker to be signed.  Obviously, Walker is an Irving replacement on the court, but Irving leaving without Horford and Walker isn't here.   Thus, I disagree completely with the premise of your opening post i.e. Irving was just keeping the seat warm.  Irving and Horford were keeping the seat warm and when thought of like that the value changes tremendously.

Re: Would you rather have 2 years of Kyrie or Collin Sexton
« Reply #44 on: July 17, 2019, 10:20:02 AM »

Offline gift

  • Don Chaney
  • *
  • Posts: 1979
  • Tommy Points: 182
I still don't consider that we lost Kyrie for nothing after two years. His leaving allowed Kemba to essentially slide into that spot (with some maneuvering, but nothing that might not have happened anyway). So two years of Kyrie kept the spot warm for Kemba. Would you take 2 years of Kyrie, plus the ability to sign Kemba after those two years in exchange for Sexton?
Horford leaving is what allowed Kemba to be signed.  If Horford had merely opted in, I don't know that Walker is here.

Mechanically, but not in terms of assets and roster. If Kyrie stayed, the Celtics still would not have been able to find anything close to a Horford replacement, whereas I see Kemba as a Kyrie replacement. I see Horford as the irreplaceable loss.

I think everybody thinks of Kemba as the Kyrie replacement (and rightfully so), but what Moranis is saying is that it would have been impossible to sign or trade for him if Horford had just opted in.

If Kyrie still leaves, we are left with Rozier as our starting PG and you are saying the Kyrie is the irreplaceable loss (a stretch, I know, but he is considerably better than Rozier). It basically comes down to Rozier vs Kanter and who you think can better hold down the fort.

I know, but he didn't opt in which allowed the Celtics to get Kemba. I guess you can consider Kemba the Horford replacement, but that makes less sense in terms of on-court value. Much cleaner to see Kemba as the Kyrie replacement and Horford as the loss.
the bolded is the part I was specifically commenting on.  If Horford opts in (or even opted out and then re-signed), Kemba Walker is not a Celtic without a ton of moves including the trading of Smart, the sign and trade of Rozier, and a lot of other salary moves (perhaps even Hayward).  I just don't see that likely at all if Horford had opted in and thus it really was Horford leaving that allowed Walker to be signed.  Obviously, Walker is an Irving replacement on the court, but Irving leaving without Horford and Walker isn't here.   Thus, I disagree completely with the premise of your opening post i.e. Irving was just keeping the seat warm.  Irving and Horford were keeping the seat warm and when thought of like that the value changes tremendously.

I'm speaking now from hindsight. Knowing what happened, I don't really feel a great loss from Irving leaving since he was replaced with somewhat similar role, production, salary. I know it wasn't a one-to-one move. But that's where we are now.

Leading up to free agency, trying to keep Kyrie was a priority because I knew he would be completely lost value. However, things don't happen in a vacuum. Horford left as well and Kyrie was replaced. Horford is the one the team wasn't able to reasonably replace.

As to the bold part, I mean that Kemba slides into Kyrie's spot with slight manuevering, given that Horford opted out. Does that make it more palatable for you?

 

Hello! Guest

Welcome to the CelticsStrong Forums.

Community

Signup to win FREE tickets

* indicates required