Looks like we have a split board on this trade~

[Boston Garden Leprechaun]

Where I land on the Kyrie trade --

If the Celts are gonna lose to LeBron in the ECF, or get murdered by the Warriors in the Finals, I'd rather watch them do it with Isaiah.

Maybe this trade allows them to make the Finals and lose to the Warriors instead.  Or maybe after LeBron moves on, Giannis or somebody else rises, and the Celts remain a 2nd or 3rd place team for a while.

Basically, if the ceiling for the team is gonna be hanging around the top of the East with a small  chance of making the Finals, I'd rather watch a team led by Isaiah Thomas.



What will make or break this trade for me is if Kyrie can become something more than he has been.  If he takes another step forward and becomes a clear cut top 10 player, then the trade makes a lot of sense.

On other hand, if he just continues to be a similar player to Isaiah but a bit younger, and all the Celts get out of it is more cost control and a theoretically higher defensive ceiling in the playoffs, but they never make the Finals .... I will feel that Ainge killed the continuity of a likable team of guys who "made it" together, for .... nothing.  Well, not nothing.  Marginal value.  Just another step in the process of systematically upgrading assets and extending the window of the current core another couple years.

That would be tough to feel good about, even if it makes perfect sense.



The Celts have a higher theoretical ceiling now.  But it's going to take a while for me to come to appreciate the team, especially the guy leading it, in the way I did the last few years.



I mean, if you're not competing for championships, wouldn't you rather watch a team with a consistent cast of guys you like and enjoy?  Sports fandom has to be about more than cold calculating moves of pieces on a chess board.  We spend night after night with these guys during the long regular season. 

If we know going in that they're likely to be behind the Warriors and whatever team LeBron plays for, doesn't it make a difference whether we're emotionally invested in the guys who play the most minutes and take the most shots?


If no championship is coming either way, I'd rather get to watch a full decade or more of Isaiah in a Celtics jersey, as the team changes and grows and develops around him.

But, maybe Isaiah will age as poorly as some people fear.  If that fear ends up being justified, and Kyrie stays healthy while playing at an All-Star level for the next 5-6 years, the trade will be justified, too.


Very much a head vs heart thing for me.  This trade challenges my notions of what matters to me as a fan.

The uniform and winning matter to me.

And players wearing said uniform who make us better.

I don't get attached to individual players.

THIS

[Boston Garden Leprechaun]

Where I land on the Kyrie trade --

If the Celts are gonna lose to LeBron in the ECF, or get murdered by the Warriors in the Finals, I'd rather watch them do it with Isaiah.

Maybe this trade allows them to make the Finals and lose to the Warriors instead.  Or maybe after LeBron moves on, Giannis or somebody else rises, and the Celts remain a 2nd or 3rd place team for a while.

Basically, if the ceiling for the team is gonna be hanging around the top of the East with a small  chance of making the Finals, I'd rather watch a team led by Isaiah Thomas.



What will make or break this trade for me is if Kyrie can become something more than he has been.  If he takes another step forward and becomes a clear cut top 10 player, then the trade makes a lot of sense.

On other hand, if he just continues to be a similar player to Isaiah but a bit younger, and all the Celts get out of it is more cost control and a theoretically higher defensive ceiling in the playoffs, but they never make the Finals .... I will feel that Ainge killed the continuity of a likable team of guys who "made it" together, for .... nothing.  Well, not nothing.  Marginal value.  Just another step in the process of systematically upgrading assets and extending the window of the current core another couple years.

That would be tough to feel good about, even if it makes perfect sense.



The Celts have a higher theoretical ceiling now.  But it's going to take a while for me to come to appreciate the team, especially the guy leading it, in the way I did the last few years.



I mean, if you're not competing for championships, wouldn't you rather watch a team with a consistent cast of guys you like and enjoy?  Sports fandom has to be about more than cold calculating moves of pieces on a chess board.  We spend night after night with these guys during the long regular season. 

If we know going in that they're likely to be behind the Warriors and whatever team LeBron plays for, doesn't it make a difference whether we're emotionally invested in the guys who play the most minutes and take the most shots?


If no championship is coming either way, I'd rather get to watch a full decade or more of Isaiah in a Celtics jersey, as the team changes and grows and develops around him.

But, maybe Isaiah will age as poorly as some people fear.  If that fear ends up being justified, and Kyrie stays healthy while playing at an All-Star level for the next 5-6 years, the trade will be justified, too.


Very much a head vs heart thing for me.  This trade challenges my notions of what matters to me as a fan.

go pull for the cavs then. I root for the team and colors not players like all the clowns who follow lebron to each team.

[mmmmm]

To me, the calculus is very simple.

The C's gave up Thomas plus a lot more to get Irving.

For this trade to be a success, Irving has to be as good as "Thomas plus a lot more" going forward.

Now, if Thomas' hip proves to be an impairment to him or he ages badly and his play drops off signficantly, then maybe that threshold isn't all that high.   Maybe Irving just needs to be the same player he has been.

But if Thomas returns to full health and produces at anywhere close to the rates and efficiencies that he has the last couple of years, then Irving simply _has_ to be massively better than the latter has been in his own recent years.   

Because it isn't going to be just Thomas' lost productivity that he is measured against.   He'll be measured against Thomas plus whatever value the Cavs get from Crowder, Zizic and of course, the BKN18 pick.   The latter doesn't even have to be a top 5 pick to have pretty significant value.

Is the trade a bet ON Irving (that he will elevate his game way beyond what it has been)? 

Or is it a bet against Thomas (that he will decline significantly)?

[PhoSita]

The uniform and winning matter to me.

And players wearing said uniform who make us better.

I don't get attached to individual players.

If I follow this logic, then it wouldn't matter to you if the entire 15 man roster completely turned over year after year, so long as the team won a lot of games every season.

I don't think that's how sports fandom works for most people.


Watching a different team every season, regardless of how successful, wouldn't be the same as getting to watch a certain group of players grow and improve together and ultimately achieve success over the course of several years.

Obviously, watching a championship run is what we all hope for.  That can't be all we care about as fans, though, since almost every season will end in less than a championship.

[Boston Garden Leprechaun]

To me, the calculus is very simple.

The C's gave up Thomas plus a lot more to get Irving.

For this trade to be a success, Irving has to be as good as "Thomas plus a lot more" going forward.

Now, if Thomas' hip proves to be an impairment to him or he ages badly and his play drops off signficantly, then maybe that threshold isn't all that high.   Maybe Irving just needs to be the same player he has been.

But if Thomas returns to full health and produces at anywhere close to the rates and efficiencies that he has the last couple of years, then Irving simply _has_ to be massively better than the latter has been in his own recent years.   

Because it isn't going to be just Thomas' lost productivity that he is measured against.   He'll be measured against Thomas plus whatever value the Cavs get from Crowder, Zizic and of course, the BKN18 pick.   The latter doesn't even have to be a top 5 pick to have pretty significant value.

Is the trade a bet ON Irving (that he will elevate his game way beyond what it has been)? 

Or is it a bet against Thomas (that he will decline significantly)?

no, no no! that is preposterous. You are putting him in a cannot win scenario with those silly preconceptions. WTH is this? royal rumble where he has to beat everybody? LOL All we have to be is BETTER AS A TEAM. THAT IS ALL! and we will be.  If teh trade works for the cavs also then so be it. it WILL work for us. Ever hear of a win-win scenario in business? guess not. nevermind.

[Boston Garden Leprechaun]

To me, the calculus is very simple.

The C's gave up Thomas plus a lot more to get Irving.

For this trade to be a success, Irving has to be as good as "Thomas plus a lot more" going forward.

Now, if Thomas' hip proves to be an impairment to him or he ages badly and his play drops off signficantly, then maybe that threshold isn't all that high.   Maybe Irving just needs to be the same player he has been.

But if Thomas returns to full health and produces at anywhere close to the rates and efficiencies that he has the last couple of years, then Irving simply _has_ to be massively better than the latter has been in his own recent years.   

Because it isn't going to be just Thomas' lost productivity that he is measured against.   He'll be measured against Thomas plus whatever value the Cavs get from Crowder, Zizic and of course, the BKN18 pick.   The latter doesn't even have to be a top 5 pick to have pretty significant value.

Is the trade a bet ON Irving (that he will elevate his game way beyond what it has been)? 

Or is it a bet against Thomas (that he will decline significantly)?

bottom line is proven versus unproven or not that good.

nets pick? unproven

zizic? unproven

jae? not that good

IT? great player who may never be the same going forward and definitely not worth risking it

Kyrie? upgrade at PG, younger and bigger and better playoff performer than IT. You think teams will double team Kyrie and he will wilt due to his size like IT did?

[PhoSita]

To me, the calculus is very simple.

The C's gave up Thomas plus a lot more to get Irving.

For this trade to be a success, Irving has to be as good as "Thomas plus a lot more" going forward.

Now, if Thomas' hip proves to be an impairment to him or he ages badly and his play drops off signficantly, then maybe that threshold isn't all that high.   Maybe Irving just needs to be the same player he has been.

But if Thomas returns to full health and produces at anywhere close to the rates and efficiencies that he has the last couple of years, then Irving simply _has_ to be massively better than the latter has been in his own recent years.   

Because it isn't going to be just Thomas' lost productivity that he is measured against.   He'll be measured against Thomas plus whatever value the Cavs get from Crowder, Zizic and of course, the BKN18 pick.   The latter doesn't even have to be a top 5 pick to have pretty significant value.

Is the trade a bet ON Irving (that he will elevate his game way beyond what it has been)? 

Or is it a bet against Thomas (that he will decline significantly)?

It could be this simple.


Kyrie Irving ~= Isaiah Thomas


Kyrie costs $18 million this year, $20 million the next.  He'll probably cost $28-30 million for the next 5 years after that.


Isaiah Thomas costs $8 million this year, and probably $30 million for the next 4 years after that.


If Ainge thinks Kyrie is going to play at an All-Star level for the next 6 years, while Isaiah will only be at that level for the next 3 years, it's easy to see the math for the value of the trade.



But to me, to justify the emotional gut-punch aspect of the trade, the bad taste it leaves in the mouth to exchange the guy who was the heart of the team for the sourpuss crossover artist on the team that we hate, Kyrie needs to take his game to another level.  He needs to become a James Harden type offensive superstar who can carry a team.

Otherwise all the trade has accomplished is upgrade the team on paper, and extend the window of the core a year or two, while making them significantly less fun to watch and root for.

[Donoghus]

Otherwise all the trade has accomplished is upgrade the team on paper, and extend the window of the core a year or two, while making them significantly less fun to watch and root for.

Maybe for you. I'm excited as hell to see what this team can do.  Like others have echoed around these boards, I root for the laundry and this team, on paper, looks entertaining as hell.   All the other crap involving personalities goes by the wayside if this team is winning.

[PaulP34]

the fact that you have to convince people on this board that this was a good move for this team is proof they're all homers here.

really guys just getting rid of crowder and IT is an improvement.

This entire comment is ridiculous. People disagreeing with you does not mean that they are just homers and haven't thought about the deal. There are plenty of reasons to like and hate the deal, the only illogical stance to take is refusing to really listen to the reasons of the people who disagree with you

And the comment about us being better just by not having IT+Crowder us just so disconnected from reality. Have you seen Crowder's on/off splits? Have you seen our offense without IT?

Yeah ive seen our offense without IT in the playoffs last year n it was the game we won.

But have u seen our offense with Gordon Hayward and Kyrie Irvin ?

No so u cant compare apples to oranges either

[KG Living Legend]

I still think failure to put protection on the pick is unacceptable.

Maybe it is likely that Brooklyn takes a step forward this year and they're out of the bottom 5. OK, then it shouldn't be a steep price to put top3 protection on the pick. If Cleveland demanded the pick unprotected, it means they obviously think there's a pretty good chance Brooklyn is still one of the worst teams in the league next year.

If protection on the pick would have been the deal breaker then don't make the deal. We didn't need to do this.

Another thing is some people are talking about how Irving is going to be wearing a C's uniform for the next 7 years after we max him out. OK, but this guy literally just forced his way out of the Cavs while he was under contract. Given that actually being under contract can't keep him to commit to a team, we really have no idea what he'll do in 2 years.

Agree 100%. We should have really pushed for the protection or no deal. They were the ones needing a trade, not us.

 There was a protection at one point. When the Cavs accepted Tatum was off the table they demanded the protection removed and rightfully so. Per Woj.

[ETNCeltics]

Still a lot of uncertains from this trade to consider which I think is playing a big role in this trade.  Namely, the two biggest (IMO) being;

1)  The BKN pick  (why was it unprotected and will it come back to haunt us?)

2)  Will Kyrie leave after two years?

Until one or both of those are settled, there is gonna be a lot of uncertainty or thought that Danny overpaid and CLE robbed us in many posters' eyes.

If we don't resign Irving, and CLE (or whoever they trade the pick to) gets Porter or Bagley, it could very well be the worst trade in franchise history. It would make Pitino look like a lightweight when it comes to bad trades.

[ETNCeltics]

I'm opposed to the trade simply because as Donoghus notes above, we're giving up a potential superstar in the BRK pick - with all the long term salary benefits that includes - for a guy with a 2 year deal.

If BRK turns out to be better and the pick is only 6th or 8th, and 2 years from now we resign KI to a new 4 yr deal, then the deal will likely have been a good one. A case can be made for us having too many young guys already, but if you get a top 2 pick, then you get rid of your existing young guys, not the pick. But either of those 2 things go against us, and Ainge has made a franchise-crippling mistake.

I'm trying to look for silver linings in this giant turd pile Ainge laid on us, but on the bright side, at least not having IT on the books at $30million and $5million+ for the BRK pick makes resigning Marcus Smart somewhat feasible with luxury tax considerations.

[PhoSita]

Otherwise all the trade has accomplished is upgrade the team on paper, and extend the window of the core a year or two, while making them significantly less fun to watch and root for.

Maybe for you. I'm excited as hell to see what this team can do.  Like others have echoed around these boards, I root for the laundry and this team, on paper, looks entertaining as hell.   All the other crap involving personalities goes by the wayside if this team is winning.

Perhaps, I just think a win means more if it's a bunch of guys you've watched for a while and grown to like, as opposed to somebody who just joined your team yesterday.


I've never really liked Kyrie Irving, whereas I've grown to really enjoy watching Isaiah Thomas.

I'm sure in time I will learn to appreciate Kyrie's game.  And if he takes the Celts to greater heights than Thomas could, that'll be great and it will justify the trade.


If he fails to do so, I think we can still justify the idea behind the trade.  But it will be disappointing.


At the end of the day, laundry is just laundry.  If it's an ever-changing cast of players on the team, what's there to latch onto?  I think basketball, more so than any other sport (perhaps), is about personalities and style of play as much as it is about the strategy of the team on the floor.

I like it when the team as a whole is fun to watch, but I think it's just as important that the team have compelling individual players who are exciting to watch and likable on and off the court.  Part of the fun of being a fan is emotionally investing in the guys on your team.


And you know, you talk about the team being entertaining.  Well, I don't particularly care for heavy iso-ball.  That's part of why I've never really liked Kyrie.  Hopefully he changes how he plays for the better under Stevens.

[mmmmm]

To me, the calculus is very simple.

The C's gave up Thomas plus a lot more to get Irving.

For this trade to be a success, Irving has to be as good as "Thomas plus a lot more" going forward.

Now, if Thomas' hip proves to be an impairment to him or he ages badly and his play drops off signficantly, then maybe that threshold isn't all that high.   Maybe Irving just needs to be the same player he has been.

But if Thomas returns to full health and produces at anywhere close to the rates and efficiencies that he has the last couple of years, then Irving simply _has_ to be massively better than the latter has been in his own recent years.   

Because it isn't going to be just Thomas' lost productivity that he is measured against.   He'll be measured against Thomas plus whatever value the Cavs get from Crowder, Zizic and of course, the BKN18 pick.   The latter doesn't even have to be a top 5 pick to have pretty significant value.

Is the trade a bet ON Irving (that he will elevate his game way beyond what it has been)? 

Or is it a bet against Thomas (that he will decline significantly)?

no, no no! that is preposterous. You are putting him in a cannot win scenario with those silly preconceptions. WTH is this? royal rumble where he has to beat everybody? LOL All we have to be is BETTER AS A TEAM. THAT IS ALL! and we will be.  If teh trade works for the cavs also then so be it. it WILL work for us. Ever hear of a win-win scenario in business? guess not. nevermind.

That's absurd.  We would have been better as a team this year without the trade.  Until Irving made his desire to be traded, the vast majority of folks here were probably super psyched and confident about how strong the team was setting up for this coming season and the following ones.  With Thomas still on the roster.

The comparison can't be between this year's team and last year's team because we have only 4 players remaining from last year's team.

The trade has to be a comparison of what you got versus what you gave.  It is that simple.

[green_bballers13]

This is the part that I don't get: we are not Danny Ainge. While we do have our opinions, they really don't matter. None of us know as much about basketball as Danny. Questioning his decision based on our own analysis of Kyrie is fun, but certainly uninformed, on a relative basis.

He has spoken to both Kyrie and IT. I haven't done this. He got IT onto the team for basically nothing, then traded him with some pieces and a coveted BKN pick for the former #1 pick (and champion) Irving. He turned very little into a lot.

Danny believes that both Kyrie and BKN will improve. Otherwise, he wouldn't have made this trade.

What basis do we have to believe that he is wrong?