If we traded IT I would expect something along the lines of the Rondo deal. A decent draft pick and a player that we probably aren't too familiar with (like Crowder at the time) who Ainge and company see a lot of value in.
Still looks like a step back to me.
It's great the way Crowder has turned into a critical piece of the puzzle, but the Celtics now need a star, and shouldn't give up a star like Thomas unless getting back a better star.
Of course it's a step back. If we can't move the needle past Cleveland/Golden State we might as well take a step back, don't you think?
I do not.
The short version is basically: taking a step back would mean having to take the same step forward later.
I'm not persuaded by the argument that: Cleveland and Golden State are unbeatable, therefore there's no point. Of course they are not unbeatable. You make the team better, not trade top assets for the 22nd pick or whatever.
1) You add assets - Boston is in a uniquely privileged position to improve its roster.
2) You make your franchise a destination - it has crossed the minds of every potential free agent that they might be the one to put the Celtics over the top.
3) You get better by competing - by advancing in the playoffs, fighting like hell to beat the good teams.
4) You develop young players by having them compete with mature, experienced players - not by replacing your leadership with more rookies.
Bigger picture:
Why step back when you're adding three top picks anyway? The long-term future is bright indeed. Even if you buy the argument that "GS/Cavs are too good, there's no point in trying to get better", Boston is set up to bring along the Bk3 picks so that they hit their primes as today's power teams decline - as they inevitably will.