Thomas was great, But there was always a big But

[KG Living Legend]

 When the trade goes down that "but" will be gone in my mind. Can we really win with a 5'8" player as our leading scorer and go to guy? Should we pay a guy that size 30 million plus per year into his 30's?

 These concerns are now gone with a normal sized point guard. Fair or unfair it's the truth. Plus he's 25, and I've actually seen him play big-time defense in big time moments.

 Horford/Hayward/Irving core is Legitimate. Size, Athleticism, skill, at all three positions, only thing they need is some 6'4" to 6'8" wings that can guard multiple positions.

 That's where Smart, Tatum, Morris, and Brown come into play. We are a lights out shooter away from being special.

[Jon]

I was blown away by some of the shots that IT hit last year and I think he put to rest the debate about him being able to offensively carry a team in the playoffs.

That said, every team we faced in the playoffs went out of their way to abuse him defensively, forcing Stevens to throw out funky lineups and strategies to try to mask that. Kyrie Irving won't be making any All Defensive Teams anytime soon, but I don't think teams will just go at him defensively like they did with IT. And I think that will give the Celtics a lot more flexibility going forward.

[Granath]

Waiting for Koz to jump in to insist IT's 5'10.5" in 3...2...1...

It wasn't just IT's height. It was his game. IT won't play heavy minutes for much of his career. His pinball style is just too hard on his body and we're seeing that with his hip. I don't expect his game to age well. When he loses a step, opponents are going to make it much harder on him to get open 3 point looks. That 37% 3 point shot is going to be severely impacted. A guy like Korver at 6'7" who is a deadeye can still contribute once he loses his athleticism. IT won't be able to get his shot off once he can't drive the lane as effectively. And if he can't get open looks and he can't drive the lane he's worthless.

So yeah, some of us have been posting major concerns about IT's game for a while now. He's incredibly fun to watch and what he does on the court now is genuinely amazing. But I feel that when he starts to falter, his entire game will fall off a cliff and fast.

[mr. dee]

IT's age and contract was more of a concern than IT's overall game.

[KGBirdBias]

IT is a Celtic but he took a serious risk in playing after he got hurt. All Celtics fans know what he did to play but he was suppose to protect his future. He had a chance to get advice from various experts and chose to play verses having surgery. He earned a big deal but then couldn't stop talking about a contract. I truly believe Ainge had no thoughts to trade him until Irving became available.

He can still get his deal if he balls out...but first get healthy. Playing with Bron has helped everyone else.

[jambr380]

I agree KGLL - tp.

I think most of us here have absolutely loved watching IT flourish under Stevens and the Celtics. What he has been able to do on the court is the stuff of fairytales.

But, yeah, that looming contract and the fact that he very likely wasn't going to get any better had me a little on edge. To remain competitive, we would have had to re-sign IT, but in 5-6 years, the $30M+/yr would have been pretty killer.

I wish very good things for IT, but we just upped the ceiling for this team by a lot. Even if he never plays better than IT did last year, I feel much more comfortable giving a max contract to Kyrie than IT.

[max215]

Isaiah Thomas is great, period.

[G-Bones]

I was blown away by some of the shots that IT hit last year and I think he put to rest the debate about him being able to offensively carry a team in the playoffs.

That said, every team we faced in the playoffs went out of their way to abuse him defensively, forcing Stevens to throw out funky lineups and strategies to try to mask that. Kyrie Irving won't be making any All Defensive Teams anytime soon, but I don't think teams will just go at him defensively like they did with IT. And I think that will give the Celtics a lot more flexibility going forward.

I agree.  You can't ask someone to carry the load on offense, and then be the man the other team attacks on defense.  I think IT would have benefited from having an offensive star like Hayward to lighten his offense load.  But, he would have been attacked on defense no matter what.

[MJohnnyboy]

He always exceeded expectations. That's what I loved the most about IT. He went from sixth man to starter to all-star to MVP candidate in the two-and-a-half years he played as a Celtic. He never ceased to impress.

But looking back, I can't help but wonder how much of IT's game was elevated by Brad Stevens. CBS designed an offense that helped maximize Thomas' talents while minimizing his shortcomings (no pun intended). What Thomas did this past season was one of the finest offensive performances I've ever seen from a Celtic, but I'm skeptical that he'll keep it up for much longer.

More importantly, if Brad Stevens could do that with a guy who was regarded as just a scoring spark upon first arriving and not much else, imagine what he could do with Kyrie Irving

[tarheelsxxiii]

The only comparable issue you don't have with Kyrie is age. 

He's a terrible defender.  Arguments about who is worse are absurd -- for whom is a difference between 3 SDs and 2.5 SDs below the mean actually meaningful? Maybe hardcore statisticians? 

He's small -- 6'3" is a stretch... he has a 6' wingspan (smaller than mine), and weighs 155 lbs (smaller than my mom).

He's inconsistent.  Why, tarheelsxxiii?  Well, because he's exceptionally talented, but due to his size, relies on exceptionally cute plays to score. 

He has proven that he can make big shots.  He has star quality.  That's good.  But, he hasn't proven that he can lead a team to wins.  Hopefully he can. 

He's more injury-prone than Gronkowski.  He averages 62 games/year, with multiple seasons below 55, and plays hurt very often.

I'll get over it in a season or so, then root for the kid like most other Celtics.  But I am disappointed that we didn't sell off significant assets for a two-way player that can have a greater impact on the game.  And for me, nothing to follow will take away from IT's incredible run in Boston. 

[JBcat]

I'll be forever grateful for IT because there is a very good chance Horford and Hayward don't sign here if there is no IT.  Of course if there is no IT we might not be trading for Irving as well.

He was so much fun to watch, but as previous posters have said I worry about how he ages.

[KG Living Legend]

The only comparable issue you don't have with Kyrie is age. 

He's a terrible defender.  Arguments about who is worse are absurd -- for whom is a difference between 3 SDs and 2.5 SDs below the mean actually meaningful? Maybe hardcore statisticians? 

He's small -- 6'3" is a stretch... he has a 6' wingspan (smaller than mine), and weighs 155 lbs (smaller than my mom).

He's inconsistent.  Why, tarheelsxxiii?  Well, because he's exceptionally talented, but because of his size, relies on exceptionally cute plays to score. 

He has proven that he can make big shots.  He has star quality.  That's good.  But, he hasn't proven that he can lead a team to wins.  Hopefully he can. 

He's more injury-prone than Gronkowski.  He averages 62 games/year and plays hurt very often.

I'll get over it in a season or so, then root for the kid like most other Celtics.  But I am disappointed that we didn't sell off significant assets on a two-way player that can have a greater impact on the game.  And for me, nothing to follow will take away from IT's incredible run in Boston.

 Tarheels where are you getting this from. He's 6'1.75" shoes off. That's a legit 6'2" and in the NBA they always give you an inch. His Wingspan is 6'4" and he weighs 191 pounds when he was drafted. More than your Grandmother.

[tarheelsxxiii]

The only comparable issue you don't have with Kyrie is age. 

He's a terrible defender.  Arguments about who is worse are absurd -- for whom is a difference between 3 SDs and 2.5 SDs below the mean actually meaningful? Maybe hardcore statisticians? 

He's small -- 6'3" is a stretch... he has a 6' wingspan (smaller than mine), and weighs 155 lbs (smaller than my mom).

He's inconsistent.  Why, tarheelsxxiii?  Well, because he's exceptionally talented, but because of his size, relies on exceptionally cute plays to score. 

He has proven that he can make big shots.  He has star quality.  That's good.  But, he hasn't proven that he can lead a team to wins.  Hopefully he can. 

He's more injury-prone than Gronkowski.  He averages 62 games/year and plays hurt very often.

I'll get over it in a season or so, then root for the kid like most other Celtics.  But I am disappointed that we didn't sell off significant assets on a two-way player that can have a greater impact on the game.  And for me, nothing to follow will take away from IT's incredible run in Boston.

 Tarheels where are you getting this from. He's 6'1.75" shoes off. That's a legit 6'2" and in the NBA they always give you an inch. His Wingspan is 6'4" and he weighs 191 pounds when he was drafted. More than your Grandmother.

I'm exaggerating, but I don't think his measurements are where they're listed.  Especially wingspan and weight.  Grammy doesn't need to dance as much as Kyrie to get to the hole.

I was serious about the rest of my post, though. 

[SHAQATTACK]

 When the trade goes down that "but" will be gone in my mind. Can we really win with a 5'8" player as our leading scorer and go to guy? Should we pay a guy that size 30 million plus per year into his 30's?

 These concerns are now gone with a normal sized point guard. Fair or unfair it's the truth. Plus he's 25, and I've actually seen him play big-time defense in big time moments.

 Horford/Hayward/Irving core is Legitimate. Size, Athleticism, skill, at all three positions, only thing they need is some 6'4" to 6'8" wings that can guard multiple positions.

 That's where Smart, Tatum, Morris, and Brown come into play. We are a lights out shooter away from being special.

i ll just never will believe Danny would ever give him the contract he thought he should,get .  I think this trade is direct answer to that question.   If Danny thinks a player is a MAX guy he has said before , he ll go,after him guns blazing .  And he did for Irving ,  more so than George IMO,   so.....in Dannys mind Irving is the better player for the Celtics going forward .   I think in the long haul 2+ years , he will be proven right.   IT might kick our butts first .

[KG Living Legend]

The only comparable issue you don't have with Kyrie is age. 

He's a terrible defender.  Arguments about who is worse are absurd -- for whom is a difference between 3 SDs and 2.5 SDs below the mean actually meaningful? Maybe hardcore statisticians? 

He's small -- 6'3" is a stretch... he has a 6' wingspan (smaller than mine), and weighs 155 lbs (smaller than my mom).

He's inconsistent.  Why, tarheelsxxiii?  Well, because he's exceptionally talented, but because of his size, relies on exceptionally cute plays to score. 

He has proven that he can make big shots.  He has star quality.  That's good.  But, he hasn't proven that he can lead a team to wins.  Hopefully he can. 

He's more injury-prone than Gronkowski.  He averages 62 games/year and plays hurt very often.

I'll get over it in a season or so, then root for the kid like most other Celtics.  But I am disappointed that we didn't sell off significant assets on a two-way player that can have a greater impact on the game.  And for me, nothing to follow will take away from IT's incredible run in Boston.

 Tarheels where are you getting this from. He's 6'1.75" shoes off. That's a legit 6'2" and in the NBA they always give you an inch. His Wingspan is 6'4" and he weighs 191 pounds when he was drafted. More than your Grandmother.

 He's the same height as Curry, heavier, longer wingspan, and has a 2" advantage in standing reach, and he win the NBA Finals by nailing a 3 in Curry's face.