It may be a business, but to trade Isaiah (and Crowder) to Cleveland just feels dirty, and I'm sure Cleveland feels the same way about Irving and trading him to the enemy (BOS).
In an ideal world, C's keep Isaiah, Jaylen and Tatum become stars, and they build w/future draft picks and Hayward and others to beat the EVIL EMPIRE of the East (Lebron & Cleveland). Instead you trade Isaiah and Crowder to that team LOL.
And Ainge clearly OVERPAYED in this deal. Kyrie is NOT THAT much better than Isaiah to warrant all that in a trade. Sorry, he's just not. Maybe he's a marginal upgrade but that's it.
I saw Isaiah LEAD a team to the ECF. All I've seen Kyrie do without Lebron is lead a team to a Top-5 draft pick. And even in the past few years, in games where Lebron sat but Kyrie played, the Cavaliers looked really bad. Kyrie didn't look like a true alpha and that's one reason Kyrie wanted out (to be a true alpha elsewhere on a stable team).
And yeah, I'm also aware that maybe the Nets Pick was added to help compensate for Isaiah's hip injury concerns in case he misses a decent amount of time, but wow, that's still A LOT, and the fact that Cleveland (possibly) asked for "more compensation" makes me...
Anyone else feel this way or am I just the rare one on here who thinks both "this trade feels dirty" and "I hate this trade"?
If we let our hearts decide, yes it feels dirty. Sports fans develop an emotional connection to the teams we support, and to the players that play for us. Emotion isn't rational. IT worked his ass off for us, played hurt, played after his sister died, was a key part of us winning 50+ games and making the ECF and his reward was to be traded because he was going to cost more than we thought he was worth next year. Ditto with Crowder, developed into a solid player and helped with the Boston rebuild.
But if we let our heads decide, the reasons for the trade making sense are clear - IT has an injury that may affect his future production, there is a (apparently sizable) difference between his opinion and the team's opinion of his value, and there was an opportunity to get a player who has won an NBA championship, who had all of his strengths plus a bit more, and a bit less of his weaknesses, as well as a bit younger, isn't injured, and to top it off has a bit more stability in his contract situation for the immediate future. As for Jae, well while he was solid, his contract situation dictated that he was always going to be a pawn on the chessboard.
That's why I have mixed feelings over the trade - from a head perspective it's a winner, but from a heart perspective I really feel for IT. He and Jae were the sacrifices needed to try and take Boston to the next level. I really liked IT, he was a Celtics-type player, great in the community, took to the challenge of being the face of a storied franchise, all at 5-8 and change. I didn't mind his Brinks truck commentary, I feel he had earned the right to at least say how he felt. Saying it won't make it happen, and clearly Danny and Co didn't feel that he had earned the right to actually earn what he wanted. As GM Danny has to set his heart aside and make decisions dispassionately (obviously he has to take chemistry, fit and all that into consideration), but players are resources end of day and he is paid to provide the best team possible.
If this was a feel good movie we would have stuck with IT, he would have shrugged off his injury and exceeded his performance this year, won the MVP by leading us to the finals and Jae would have become a 20-5-5 player. Alas, feel good movies with feel good endings are rarely part of real life. Most times real life is pretty unfair and you just have to make the best of what happens to you.