Is Kyrie a superstar? (poll)

[Roy H.]

I think the results would have been different  have been different if you had done the poll before Danny traded for him, ha ha.

It obviously depends upon what your definition of superstar is. If there are around five superstars in the league, obviously not. If there are 15 to 20, then yes.

Werent you a fan of Irving? Even before Lebron re joined the Cavs?

Why the change of heart

I'm still a fan of Kyrie, although I was wrong about his defense and passing. Im disappointed they haven't improved.

My problems with the trade are:

1. Kyrie vs. last year's IT is basically a lateral move;

2. We gave up somewhere around a 25% chance to add a generational talent in Bagley or Porter;

3. We passed on deals where we could have retained IT and added another superstar at a cheaper cost;

4. Kyrie has clashed with multiple teammates, even before Lebron got there. Our team had amazing chemistry, which is now an unknown

Kyrie is a game-changing scorer, but he hasn't shown the ability to carry his team, to run an offense, or to play defense. He's a great player, but his game is remarkably similar to the guy he's replacing, minus the leadership and durability.

As argued in other threads, I can't think of a trade in the past 20+ years that involved paying this much value. There's a reasonable chance that we gave up Crowder, Zizic, and the rights to Bagley / Porter for an incremental upgrade.

Now, if the hip injury limits IT going forward, it looks better for us. If Kyrie makes an almost unprecedented leap, it's better for us. If everyone stays at about the level they were last year, though, this is a big loss.

I'm pretty sure retaining IT was not an option. The max is to much and also his age doesn't align with the Celtics plan

It seems weird that a 28-year-old would be aged out of our plan, after giving max contracts to a 30-year-old and a 27-year-old these past two summers.

[CelticSooner]

Wow I'm literally shocked by this poll. C's are some of the most knowledgeable around. No he's not a superstar. He's not even the best PG in the Eastern conference.

[Bucketgetter]

No.  He's got the talent to become one, but so far in his career he's been a superlative individual scorer and that's all.

I put him on a similar level as guys like Damian Lillard and C.J. McCollum.  He's a cut below John Wall and Kyle Lowry, not to mention Westbrook, Curry, Harden, Paul, etc.  I might even put Mike Conley above him.

I can't see him as a superstar until he demonstrates that he's capable of elevating his team, not simply putting on impressive individual scoring displays.

I think it's possible for a pure offensive player to be a superstar, but the production needs to be otherworldly.  Isaiah Thomas arguably hit that level last year.


Again, he's got the talent, but hasn't actually put it together in that way for more than a few games at a time in the playoffs.

I would take Irvin over every guy on your list except maybe Curry. Even that is close given Irvings age. Irving will def win an MVP in this league one day if he stays healthy. Lowry and Conley are lol not even in the same league as Irving.

I would bet my entire bank account against this

[jpotter33]

Wow I'm literally shocked by this poll. C's are some of the most knowledgeable around. No he's not a superstar. He's not even the best PG in the Eastern conference.

People have differing definitions of what a "superstar" is. To me, I think it's a top 10-15 level player, which I think Kyrie definitely is.

[CoachBo]

I think the results would have been different  have been different if you had done the poll before Danny traded for him, ha ha.

It obviously depends upon what your definition of superstar is. If there are around five superstars in the league, obviously not. If there are 15 to 20, then yes.

Werent you a fan of Irving? Even before Lebron re joined the Cavs?

Why the change of heart

I'm still a fan of Kyrie, although I was wrong about his defense and passing. Im disappointed they haven't improved.

My problems with the trade are:

1. Kyrie vs. last year's IT is basically a lateral move;

2. We gave up somewhere around a 25% chance to add a generational talent in Bagley or Porter;

3. We passed on deals where we could have retained IT and added another superstar at a cheaper cost;

4. Kyrie has clashed with multiple teammates, even before Lebron got there. Our team had amazing chemistry, which is now an unknown

Kyrie is a game-changing scorer, but he hasn't shown the ability to carry his team, to run an offense, or to play defense. He's a great player, but his game is remarkably similar to the guy he's replacing, minus the leadership and durability.

As argued in other threads, I can't think of a trade in the past 20+ years that involved paying this much value. There's a reasonable chance that we gave up Crowder, Zizic, and the rights to Bagley / Porter for an incremental upgrade.

Now, if the hip injury limits IT going forward, it looks better for us. If Kyrie makes an almost unprecedented leap, it's better for us. If everyone stays at about the level they were last year, though, this is a big loss.

I'm pretty sure retaining IT was not an option. The max is to much and also his age doesn't align with the Celtics plan

It seems weird that a 28-year-old would be aged out of our plan, after giving max contracts to a 30-year-old and a 27-year-old these past two summers.

Depends on whether you believe in NBA history or not, since no guard under 6-feet has ever made an All-Star appearance aged 30 or older.

[Bucketgetter]

I think the results would have been different  have been different if you had done the poll before Danny traded for him, ha ha.

It obviously depends upon what your definition of superstar is. If there are around five superstars in the league, obviously not. If there are 15 to 20, then yes.

Werent you a fan of Irving? Even before Lebron re joined the Cavs?

Why the change of heart

I'm still a fan of Kyrie, although I was wrong about his defense and passing. Im disappointed they haven't improved.

My problems with the trade are:

1. Kyrie vs. last year's IT is basically a lateral move;

2. We gave up somewhere around a 25% chance to add a generational talent in Bagley or Porter;

3. We passed on deals where we could have retained IT and added another superstar at a cheaper cost;

4. Kyrie has clashed with multiple teammates, even before Lebron got there. Our team had amazing chemistry, which is now an unknown

Kyrie is a game-changing scorer, but he hasn't shown the ability to carry his team, to run an offense, or to play defense. He's a great player, but his game is remarkably similar to the guy he's replacing, minus the leadership and durability.

As argued in other threads, I can't think of a trade in the past 20+ years that involved paying this much value. There's a reasonable chance that we gave up Crowder, Zizic, and the rights to Bagley / Porter for an incremental upgrade.

Now, if the hip injury limits IT going forward, it looks better for us. If Kyrie makes an almost unprecedented leap, it's better for us. If everyone stays at about the level they were last year, though, this is a big loss.

I'm pretty sure retaining IT was not an option. The max is to much and also his age doesn't align with the Celtics plan

It seems weird that a 28-year-old would be aged out of our plan, after giving max contracts to a 30-year-old and a 27-year-old these past two summers.

Depends on whether you believe in NBA history or not, since no guard under 6-feet has ever made an All-Star appearance aged 30 or older.

Allen Iverson...

Dude was definitely under 6 feet, I don’t care what he listed himself as.

[jambr380]

If the Cs had kept IT and traded for another star, they assuredly would have had to trade at least the BKN pick (or the LAL/Sac pick) along with Crowder and AB. During the 2016 draft, I thought the Bulls were pushing for the '17 and '18 BKN picks in return for Butler.

It also would have prevented us from signing Hayward, which seems to be majorly overlooked here.

Going forward, we would have had a core of: IT, Butler, Horford with no '18 BKN pick. If Danny did not want to re-sign IT, then that core dwindles quite a bit, although we would then keep Smart.

Instead, we now have a core of: Irving, Hayward, and Horford with no '18 BKN pick. Along with Tatum, Brown, Rozier, and presumably Baynes (same as above), we also get to keep Smart and have added Marcus Morris.

I understand the reluctance to do this deal and even not necessarily loving Irving, but there is no doubt our core has gotten younger and looks better for the future. That extra year on Irving's contract may not seem like much, but the difference in keeping or losing Smart also matters a lot to people.

[PhoSita]

No.  He's got the talent to become one, but so far in his career he's been a superlative individual scorer and that's all.

I put him on a similar level as guys like Damian Lillard and C.J. McCollum.  He's a cut below John Wall and Kyle Lowry, not to mention Westbrook, Curry, Harden, Paul, etc.  I might even put Mike Conley above him.

I can't see him as a superstar until he demonstrates that he's capable of elevating his team, not simply putting on impressive individual scoring displays.

I think it's possible for a pure offensive player to be a superstar, but the production needs to be otherworldly.  Isaiah Thomas arguably hit that level last year.


Again, he's got the talent, but hasn't actually put it together in that way for more than a few games at a time in the playoffs.

Didn't he hit a game 7 winning three in the Finals?

That's proof enough for me.

Boy, you must be a big Rob Horry fan.

[CoachBo]

I think the results would have been different  have been different if you had done the poll before Danny traded for him, ha ha.

It obviously depends upon what your definition of superstar is. If there are around five superstars in the league, obviously not. If there are 15 to 20, then yes.

Werent you a fan of Irving? Even before Lebron re joined the Cavs?

Why the change of heart

I'm still a fan of Kyrie, although I was wrong about his defense and passing. Im disappointed they haven't improved.

My problems with the trade are:

1. Kyrie vs. last year's IT is basically a lateral move;

2. We gave up somewhere around a 25% chance to add a generational talent in Bagley or Porter;

3. We passed on deals where we could have retained IT and added another superstar at a cheaper cost;

4. Kyrie has clashed with multiple teammates, even before Lebron got there. Our team had amazing chemistry, which is now an unknown

Kyrie is a game-changing scorer, but he hasn't shown the ability to carry his team, to run an offense, or to play defense. He's a great player, but his game is remarkably similar to the guy he's replacing, minus the leadership and durability.

As argued in other threads, I can't think of a trade in the past 20+ years that involved paying this much value. There's a reasonable chance that we gave up Crowder, Zizic, and the rights to Bagley / Porter for an incremental upgrade.

Now, if the hip injury limits IT going forward, it looks better for us. If Kyrie makes an almost unprecedented leap, it's better for us. If everyone stays at about the level they were last year, though, this is a big loss.

I'm pretty sure retaining IT was not an option. The max is to much and also his age doesn't align with the Celtics plan

It seems weird that a 28-year-old would be aged out of our plan, after giving max contracts to a 30-year-old and a 27-year-old these past two summers.

Depends on whether you believe in NBA history or not, since no guard under 6-feet has ever made an All-Star appearance aged 30 or older.

Allen Iverson...

Dude was definitely under 6 feet, I don’t care what he listed himself as.

Nope. I am 6-feet even, and I've met him. He's about a half-inch taller than I am.

[PhoSita]

No.  He's got the talent to become one, but so far in his career he's been a superlative individual scorer and that's all.

I put him on a similar level as guys like Damian Lillard and C.J. McCollum.  He's a cut below John Wall and Kyle Lowry, not to mention Westbrook, Curry, Harden, Paul, etc.  I might even put Mike Conley above him.

I can't see him as a superstar until he demonstrates that he's capable of elevating his team, not simply putting on impressive individual scoring displays.

I think it's possible for a pure offensive player to be a superstar, but the production needs to be otherworldly.  Isaiah Thomas arguably hit that level last year.


Again, he's got the talent, but hasn't actually put it together in that way for more than a few games at a time in the playoffs.

That's ridiculous. I can see the Wall argument, but putting Lowry and Conley over him is laughable. He's also clearly better than McCollum.

God, how did Celticsblog underrate this kid so much?

Lowry and Conley have shown they can actually run an offense and get others involved.

They also play defense.

Irving is clearly better than McCollum, but they're a similar sort of player to this point in their careers.


Again, I want to make clear the distinction here -- there's no question Kyrie has a lot of talent.  It wouldn't shock me if he's much better than Lowry, Conley, even Wall as soon as this year.

But he hasn't shown that over any extended period of time so far in his career.


Look, he's an exceptional one on one scorer.  I just don't place that high a value on isolation scoring, period.  It's a nice skillset to have but to be a lead guy on a good team you need to do more than that.  We'll see if Kyrie can become a more well-rounded team oriented player.

[Bucketgetter]

I think the results would have been different  have been different if you had done the poll before Danny traded for him, ha ha.

It obviously depends upon what your definition of superstar is. If there are around five superstars in the league, obviously not. If there are 15 to 20, then yes.

Werent you a fan of Irving? Even before Lebron re joined the Cavs?

Why the change of heart

I'm still a fan of Kyrie, although I was wrong about his defense and passing. Im disappointed they haven't improved.

My problems with the trade are:

1. Kyrie vs. last year's IT is basically a lateral move;

2. We gave up somewhere around a 25% chance to add a generational talent in Bagley or Porter;

3. We passed on deals where we could have retained IT and added another superstar at a cheaper cost;

4. Kyrie has clashed with multiple teammates, even before Lebron got there. Our team had amazing chemistry, which is now an unknown

Kyrie is a game-changing scorer, but he hasn't shown the ability to carry his team, to run an offense, or to play defense. He's a great player, but his game is remarkably similar to the guy he's replacing, minus the leadership and durability.

As argued in other threads, I can't think of a trade in the past 20+ years that involved paying this much value. There's a reasonable chance that we gave up Crowder, Zizic, and the rights to Bagley / Porter for an incremental upgrade.

Now, if the hip injury limits IT going forward, it looks better for us. If Kyrie makes an almost unprecedented leap, it's better for us. If everyone stays at about the level they were last year, though, this is a big loss.

I'm pretty sure retaining IT was not an option. The max is to much and also his age doesn't align with the Celtics plan

It seems weird that a 28-year-old would be aged out of our plan, after giving max contracts to a 30-year-old and a 27-year-old these past two summers.

Depends on whether you believe in NBA history or not, since no guard under 6-feet has ever made an All-Star appearance aged 30 or older.

Allen Iverson...

Dude was definitely under 6 feet, I don’t care what he listed himself as.

Nope. I am 6-feet even, and I've met him. He's about a half-inch taller than I am.

Lol nope. Im 6 2 and about 3 inches taller than him. Stood right in front of him. And if he really was 6’0.5’’ like you say, he would be listed at least at 6’2’’. There have been many articles written about how Iverson rounded his height up to 6 foot even.

[PhoSita]

Wow I'm literally shocked by this poll. C's are some of the most knowledgeable around. No he's not a superstar. He's not even the best PG in the Eastern conference.

People have differing definitions of what a "superstar" is. To me, I think it's a top 10-15 level player, which I think Kyrie definitely is.

Personally I think any reasonable definition of that term has to take into account how the player affects the game for their teammates.

I think a "superstar" ought to be the kind of guy who could take a group of replacement level teammates and give them a shot at the playoffs, if not more.

There are a lot of guys who score 20+ a game and put on dazzling scoring performances who nonetheless can't necessarily carry a team to the playoffs without high caliber teammates.  Those are the types of players I might characterize as "All-Star" but not quite superstar.

[Ed Hollison]

I almost can't believe this is a question.

By age 25, Irving...

-has been an all star 4 times, winning the MVP in one of those games,
-has won an NBA championship in which he outplayed the league MVP point guard opposite him and hit the biggest shot of the finals, and
-is an Olympic gold medalist and was the MVP of the FIBA world cup in 2014.

Last year he averaged 25ppg on a team that had Lebron James on it , shot 40% from 3 and 60% at the rim.

Yes, he's a superstar.

[CoachBo]

I think the results would have been different  have been different if you had done the poll before Danny traded for him, ha ha.

It obviously depends upon what your definition of superstar is. If there are around five superstars in the league, obviously not. If there are 15 to 20, then yes.

Werent you a fan of Irving? Even before Lebron re joined the Cavs?

Why the change of heart

I'm still a fan of Kyrie, although I was wrong about his defense and passing. Im disappointed they haven't improved.

My problems with the trade are:

1. Kyrie vs. last year's IT is basically a lateral move;

2. We gave up somewhere around a 25% chance to add a generational talent in Bagley or Porter;

3. We passed on deals where we could have retained IT and added another superstar at a cheaper cost;

4. Kyrie has clashed with multiple teammates, even before Lebron got there. Our team had amazing chemistry, which is now an unknown

Kyrie is a game-changing scorer, but he hasn't shown the ability to carry his team, to run an offense, or to play defense. He's a great player, but his game is remarkably similar to the guy he's replacing, minus the leadership and durability.

As argued in other threads, I can't think of a trade in the past 20+ years that involved paying this much value. There's a reasonable chance that we gave up Crowder, Zizic, and the rights to Bagley / Porter for an incremental upgrade.

Now, if the hip injury limits IT going forward, it looks better for us. If Kyrie makes an almost unprecedented leap, it's better for us. If everyone stays at about the level they were last year, though, this is a big loss.

I'm pretty sure retaining IT was not an option. The max is to much and also his age doesn't align with the Celtics plan

It seems weird that a 28-year-old would be aged out of our plan, after giving max contracts to a 30-year-old and a 27-year-old these past two summers.

Depends on whether you believe in NBA history or not, since no guard under 6-feet has ever made an All-Star appearance aged 30 or older.

Allen Iverson...

Dude was definitely under 6 feet, I don’t care what he listed himself as.

Nope. I am 6-feet even, and I've met him. He's about a half-inch taller than I am.

Lol nope. Im 6 2 and about 3 inches taller than him. Stood right in front of him. And if he really was 6’0.5’’ like you say, he would be listed at least at 6’2’’. There have been many articles written about how Iverson rounded his height up to 6 foot even.

Well, I guess that clinches it, then. LOL.

Ainge sold high on Thomas. Period.

[CoachBo]

No.  He's got the talent to become one, but so far in his career he's been a superlative individual scorer and that's all.

I put him on a similar level as guys like Damian Lillard and C.J. McCollum.  He's a cut below John Wall and Kyle Lowry, not to mention Westbrook, Curry, Harden, Paul, etc.  I might even put Mike Conley above him.

I can't see him as a superstar until he demonstrates that he's capable of elevating his team, not simply putting on impressive individual scoring displays.

I think it's possible for a pure offensive player to be a superstar, but the production needs to be otherworldly.  Isaiah Thomas arguably hit that level last year.


Again, he's got the talent, but hasn't actually put it together in that way for more than a few games at a time in the playoffs.

That's ridiculous. I can see the Wall argument, but putting Lowry and Conley over him is laughable. He's also clearly better than McCollum.

God, how did Celticsblog underrate this kid so much?

Lowry and Conley have shown they can actually run an offense and get others involved.

They also play defense.

Irving is clearly better than McCollum, but they're a similar sort of player to this point in their careers.


Again, I want to make clear the distinction here -- there's no question Kyrie has a lot of talent.  It wouldn't shock me if he's much better than Lowry, Conley, even Wall as soon as this year.

But he hasn't shown that over any extended period of time so far in his career.


Look, he's an exceptional one on one scorer.  I just don't place that high a value on isolation scoring, period.  It's a nice skillset to have but to be a lead guy on a good team you need to do more than that.  We'll see if Kyrie can become a more well-rounded team oriented player.

This is a perfect example of the emotionalism I referred to in another thread. It was here against Kevin Garnett. It was here against Ray Allen.

I get the perspective it comes from. I just find it thoroughly bereft of logic.