Hayward is such a great player.

[liam]

Gordon Hayward vs Warriors in 2017 WCSF - 24.8 PPG, 4.3 APG!

Paul George vs Clevleland in 2017 ECF - 28 PPG, 7.3 APG, 7.8 RPG
Jimmy Butler vs Cleveland in 2017 REG Season - 22.2 PPG, 7.2 APG, 7.5 RPG, 4-0 record

How was Paul George in the ECF in 2017? The regular season isn't the playoffs.

[Ilikesports17]

I'm excited about bringing in Hayward, too, but I also have nightmares about that game last season where Avery Bradley blocked his jump shot at the buzzer. Avery is a monster but even still, who gets their jump shot blocked by someone 6 inches shorter?

With Kyrie coming in, I'm more excited about Hayward, because I think Hayward is one of the best second options in the league, which is what he should be. A great second option.

That blocked shot was more about how good Avery is than anything bad about Hayward. AB timed that perfectly and surprised everyone. I think Hayward can get his shot off constantly against good defenders but AB does some spectacular things on defense sometimes just ask Kyrie...

Avery is amazing. All credit to him on the play.

But it's hard to shake that imagine when I'm trying to imagine Hayward being the best player on a championship team. I'm a lot more comfortable with thinking of him as the #2, where he'll be one of the best second options in the league.

Do you remember AB's epic block on WADE?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NuVc7RW-B5Q

Oh, man. Thanks for that. I can watch Avery defensive highlights all day. So great.

But I do remember and I think the two blocks are different. For one, Hayward's was a jump shot 12 feet from the rim not a lay up near the basket which are much easier to block than a jumper. Hayward is also bigger than Wade.

But most importantly, Hayward's was an iso at the end of the game for the win. As I said, Avery gets all the credit for being an absolute monster of a defender but at the same time getting your jumper blocked on a buzzer-beating iso play is... not a good look.

Hard to judge Hayward on that ONE play.

If you did that you'd have to judge Kyrie the same exact way when AB played monster D on him to shut him down at the end of the game and win the 103-99 game.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ivMIIbKJez0

Agree with your overall point, but if we are judging them on one play:

Hayward gets absolutely smothered. Kyrie gets off a very makeable 15 foot fallaway jumper.

Ive always felt ABs defense on that play was majorly overblown. Kyrie makes that shot pretty often. Not too different from his xmas game winner.

[crimson_stallion]

I feel this is a bit of an exaggeration tbh.

I like Hayward and he's a very good player, but I wouldn't consider him a great player.  Among NBA SF's I don't think I'd rank him top 5. 

I also feel his defence is being overrated here.  I think he's improved as a defender compared to earlier years (he used to be pretty poor) but I still wouldn't rate him any more then average, maybe slightly above average at best.

That said, I'd be very happy for him to prove me wrong

I'd rate them:

1.Kawhi Leonard
2. Kevin Durant
3. LeBron James
4. Giannis Antetokounmpo
5. Paul George
6. Gordon Hayward

That you have Lebron 3rd makes these rankings meaningless.

Liam has the right to express his thoughts, and I don't think this ranking is by any means unfathomable. 

I think it's pretty safe to say that Kawhi had far less support in San Antonio then either Lebron or KD had in their respective teams, yet the Spurs consistently challenged the Warriors at the top of the West behind the play of Kawhi. I personally wouldn't rate Kawhi at #1, but it's certainly justifiable to do so. 

As for Durant over Lebron - I think that is also very easily justifiable.  I don't think there's any question that Durant is a better offensive player then Lebron is.  At this point I'd say he's probably a better defender as well, as his effort seems to be more consistent (while Lebron seems to take more and more defensive plays off the older he gets).  Combine that with the fact that Durant clearly outduelled Lebron in the key moments of the finals and hit the big shots when it mattered...and again, rating Durant over Lebron is hardly unjustifiable. 

So while you may not AGREE with that list, I don't think it's fair to say that it is invalid.

[crimson_stallion]

Gordon Hayward vs Warriors in 2017 WCSF - 24.8 PPG, 4.3 APG!

Paul George vs Clevleland in 2017 ECF - 28 PPG, 7.3 APG, 7.8 RPG
Jimmy Butler vs Cleveland in 2017 REG Season - 22.2 PPG, 7.2 APG, 7.5 RPG, 4-0 record

How was Paul George in the ECF in 2017? The regular season isn't the playoffs.

I actually meant ECSF, but then I would have been wrong about that anyway (they actually played in the 1st round, I thought it was the 2nd round). 

Regardless, the facts are as follows...

Hayward averaged 24.8 PPG, 4.3 APG, 4 RPG against the Warriors in the 2nd round and got blown out in all four games by an average margin of 15 points (closest margin was 11 point, biggest margin was 26 points).

Paul George averaged 28 PPG, 7.3 APG, 7.8 RPG against Cleveland in 1st round and narrowly lost all four games by an average of 4 PPG (closest margin was 1 point, biggest margin was 6 points).

Butler averaged 22.3 PTS, 7.5 REB, 7.3 AST against the Cavs in the regular season and won all four games by an average of 10.5 points (lowest margin was 6 points, biggest margin was 18 points). 

So in summary:

1. Hayward put up very good individual numbers in 4 games against the best team in the West, while he never actually posed any real threat (getting blown out by double figures in all four games).

2. Paul George put up great individual numbers in 4 games against the best team in the East, and all four games went down to the wire (all lost by 6 points or less). 

3. Jimmy Butler put up great individual numbers in 4 games against the best team in the East, and won all four games convincingly. 

And while Butler never played Cleveland in the playoffs, there are many people who believe that was by Cleveland's design...that they intentionally gave up the #1 seed to Boston to avoid the potential embarrassment of a first round upset at the hands of Chicago.

Interpret that how you will.

P.s.
I am not saying that I don't like Hayward or that he isn't a good player, I'm just saying that when you're looking at how these guys have done against the best competition, you need to look at the full picture.

[greece66]

Gordon Hayward vs Warriors in 2017 WCSF - 24.8 PPG, 4.3 APG!

Paul George vs Clevleland in 2017 ECF - 28 PPG, 7.3 APG, 7.8 RPG
Jimmy Butler vs Cleveland in 2017 REG Season - 22.2 PPG, 7.2 APG, 7.5 RPG, 4-0 record

How was Paul George in the ECF in 2017? The regular season isn't the playoffs.

I actually meant ECSF, but then I would have been wrong about that anyway (they actually played in the 1st round, I thought it was the 2nd round). 

Regardless, the facts are as follows...

Hayward averaged 24.8 PPG, 4.3 APG, 4 RPG against the Warriors in the 2nd round and got blown out in all four games by an average margin of 15 points (closest margin was 11 point, biggest margin was 26 points).

Paul George averaged 28 PPG, 7.3 APG, 7.8 RPG against Cleveland in 1st round and narrowly lost all four games by an average of 4 PPG (closest margin was 1 point, biggest margin was 6 points).

Butler averaged 22.3 PTS, 7.5 REB, 7.3 AST against the Cavs in the regular season and won all four games by an average of 10.5 points (lowest margin was 6 points, biggest margin was 18 points). 

So in summary:

1. Hayward put up very good individual numbers in 4 games against the best team in the West, while he never actually posed any real threat (getting blown out by double figures in all four games).

2. Paul George put up great individual numbers in 4 games against the best team in the East, and all four games went down to the wire (all lost by 6 points or less). 

3. Jimmy Butler put up great individual numbers in 4 games against the best team in the East, and won all four games convincingly. 

And while Butler never played Cleveland in the playoffs, there are many people who believe that was by Cleveland's design...that they intentionally gave up the #1 seed to Boston to avoid the potential embarrassment of a first round upset at the hands of Chicago.

Interpret that how you will.

P.s.
I am not saying that I don't like Hayward or that he isn't a good player, I'm just saying that when you're looking at how these guys have done against the best competition, you need to look at the full picture.

Even if many people believed it, this is no reason to believe it yourself. Sounds like a bogus rumour.

[liam]

Gordon Hayward vs Warriors in 2017 WCSF - 24.8 PPG, 4.3 APG!

Paul George vs Clevleland in 2017 ECF - 28 PPG, 7.3 APG, 7.8 RPG
Jimmy Butler vs Cleveland in 2017 REG Season - 22.2 PPG, 7.2 APG, 7.5 RPG, 4-0 record

How was Paul George in the ECF in 2017? The regular season isn't the playoffs.

I actually meant ECSF, but then I would have been wrong about that anyway (they actually played in the 1st round, I thought it was the 2nd round). 

Regardless, the facts are as follows...

Hayward averaged 24.8 PPG, 4.3 APG, 4 RPG against the Warriors in the 2nd round and got blown out in all four games by an average margin of 15 points (closest margin was 11 point, biggest margin was 26 points).

Paul George averaged 28 PPG, 7.3 APG, 7.8 RPG against Cleveland in 1st round and narrowly lost all four games by an average of 4 PPG (closest margin was 1 point, biggest margin was 6 points).

Butler averaged 22.3 PTS, 7.5 REB, 7.3 AST against the Cavs in the regular season and won all four games by an average of 10.5 points (lowest margin was 6 points, biggest margin was 18 points). 

So in summary:

1. Hayward put up very good individual numbers in 4 games against the best team in the West, while he never actually posed any real threat (getting blown out by double figures in all four games).

2. Paul George put up great individual numbers in 4 games against the best team in the East, and all four games went down to the wire (all lost by 6 points or less). 

3. Jimmy Butler put up great individual numbers in 4 games against the best team in the East, and won all four games convincingly. 

And while Butler never played Cleveland in the playoffs, there are many people who believe that was by Cleveland's design...that they intentionally gave up the #1 seed to Boston to avoid the potential embarrassment of a first round upset at the hands of Chicago.

Interpret that how you will.

P.s.
I am not saying that I don't like Hayward or that he isn't a good player, I'm just saying that when you're looking at how these guys have done against the best competition, you need to look at the full picture.

I see your point but I feel that the best competition was The Golden State Warriors and that Cleveland wasn't even close. Gordon Hayward played the best and played well.

[C3LTSF4N]

Gordon Hayward vs Warriors in 2017 WCSF - 24.8 PPG, 4.3 APG!

Paul George vs Clevleland in 2017 ECF - 28 PPG, 7.3 APG, 7.8 RPG
Jimmy Butler vs Cleveland in 2017 REG Season - 22.2 PPG, 7.2 APG, 7.5 RPG, 4-0 record

How was Paul George in the ECF in 2017? The regular season isn't the playoffs.

I actually meant ECSF, but then I would have been wrong about that anyway (they actually played in the 1st round, I thought it was the 2nd round). 

Regardless, the facts are as follows...

Hayward averaged 24.8 PPG, 4.3 APG, 4 RPG against the Warriors in the 2nd round and got blown out in all four games by an average margin of 15 points (closest margin was 11 point, biggest margin was 26 points).

Paul George averaged 28 PPG, 7.3 APG, 7.8 RPG against Cleveland in 1st round and narrowly lost all four games by an average of 4 PPG (closest margin was 1 point, biggest margin was 6 points).

Butler averaged 22.3 PTS, 7.5 REB, 7.3 AST against the Cavs in the regular season and won all four games by an average of 10.5 points (lowest margin was 6 points, biggest margin was 18 points). 

So in summary:

1. Hayward put up very good individual numbers in 4 games against the best team in the West, while he never actually posed any real threat (getting blown out by double figures in all four games).

2. Paul George put up great individual numbers in 4 games against the best team in the East, and all four games went down to the wire (all lost by 6 points or less). 

3. Jimmy Butler put up great individual numbers in 4 games against the best team in the East, and won all four games convincingly. 

And while Butler never played Cleveland in the playoffs, there are many people who believe that was by Cleveland's design...that they intentionally gave up the #1 seed to Boston to avoid the potential embarrassment of a first round upset at the hands of Chicago.

Interpret that how you will.

P.s.
I am not saying that I don't like Hayward or that he isn't a good player, I'm just saying that when you're looking at how these guys have done against the best competition, you need to look at the full picture.

You can't compare Hayward's skill to Butler and George's and use stats from Hayward playing the Warriors and the other two playing the Cavs.  That's a little unfair considering the Warriors blew the Cavs out of the water.  It seems obvious that George and Butler had easier competition (Cavs had one of the worst defenses in the league second half of last year while the Warriors had one of the best).

Also in talking about Butler beating the Cavs in the regular season where the Cavs didn't really care, that doesn't say a whole lot considering we beat the Bulls in a series and then were dismantled by the Cavs.  That was more of a match up issue. 

It's a team game with a lot of factors and you can't take random 4 game samples and plug them in to say one guy is better than the next because of their stats against different opponents.  It really shows nothing. 

[liam]

I feel this is a bit of an exaggeration tbh.

I like Hayward and he's a very good player, but I wouldn't consider him a great player.  Among NBA SF's I don't think I'd rank him top 5. 

I also feel his defence is being overrated here.  I think he's improved as a defender compared to earlier years (he used to be pretty poor) but I still wouldn't rate him any more then average, maybe slightly above average at best.

That said, I'd be very happy for him to prove me wrong

I'd rate them:

1.Kawhi Leonard
2. Kevin Durant
3. LeBron James
4. Giannis Antetokounmpo
5. Paul George
6. Gordon Hayward

That you have Lebron 3rd makes these rankings meaningless.

Liam has the right to express his thoughts, and I don't think this ranking is by any means unfathomable. 

I think it's pretty safe to say that Kawhi had far less support in San Antonio then either Lebron or KD had in their respective teams, yet the Spurs consistently challenged the Warriors at the top of the West behind the play of Kawhi. I personally wouldn't rate Kawhi at #1, but it's certainly justifiable to do so. 

As for Durant over Lebron - I think that is also very easily justifiable.  I don't think there's any question that Durant is a better offensive player then Lebron is.  At this point I'd say he's probably a better defender as well, as his effort seems to be more consistent (while Lebron seems to take more and more defensive plays off the older he gets).  Combine that with the fact that Durant clearly outduelled Lebron in the key moments of the finals and hit the big shots when it mattered...and again, rating Durant over Lebron is hardly unjustifiable. 

So while you may not AGREE with that list, I don't think it's fair to say that it is invalid.

Thanks. I personally would take Kawhi Leonard, KD, or Giannis over LeBron at this point if I had to choose... LeBron seems like he's playing for numbers at this point. He's trying to pad his stats and doesn't seem to care much about the players around him.

[crimson_stallion]

You can't compare Hayward's skill to Butler and George's and use stats from Hayward playing the Warriors and the other two playing the Cavs.  That's a little unfair considering the Warriors blew the Cavs out of the water.  It seems obvious that George and Butler had easier competition (Cavs had one of the worst defenses in the league second half of last year while the Warriors had one of the best).

Would you prefer if I quote Hayward's regular season stats against Cleveland instead then?

Utah played Cleveland twice in the regular season.  They split the games 1-1 (both games with a margin of 8 points, so a wash basically), and Hayward averaged 20.5 points, 7 rebounds and 3 assists.

Indiana played Cleveland four times in the regular season.  They lost the series 3-1 (average margin of 4.7 points), and Paul George averaged 24.8 points, 8.8 rebounds and 5.8 assists.

I won't re-list Butler's results, as we already know how that went.

Also in talking about Butler beating the Cavs in the regular season where the Cavs didn't really care, that doesn't say a whole lot considering we beat the Bulls in a series and then were dismantled by the Cavs.  That was more of a match up issue. 

Chicago took the first two games by an average margin of 7 points on our home court...then they lost Rajon Rondo (who was killed us in the first two games) to a season ending injury...after which we went on to win four straight and advance.  That series may have ended
very differently had we gone back to Chicago, down 0-2, with a healthy Bulls roster. 

It's entirely possible the result would have been the same, but it's hardly something we can bank on in this argument.

It's a team game with a lot of factors and you can't take random 4 game samples and plug them in to say one guy is better than the next because of their stats against different opponents.  It really shows nothing.

That's not entirely true. 

The NBA is all about matchups, and a player's ability to perform (and carry his team) against the best in the league is (I think) very relevant.

Paul George and Jimmy Butler both had better overall stats in the regular season then Hayward did.  They have had better stats then Hayward for the last 2-3 seasons.  They are also generally considered to be better defensive players then Hayward. 

Then throw in the fact that they also had arguably better success when facing the best teams in the league, and I think that is a lot of relevant information to go off.

You can argue that Hayward is better then Butler and George if you like - that's your right.  The three are all pretty close, so I'm got no doubts you could compose strong support for that argument if you want to. 

Some seem to think Hayward is a clear step above them however, and I don't think anybody can objectively justify that claim.   

The way I see it, personally, is that we had three of the best wing players in the league made available, and we ended up with the least impressive of the three. 

I do understand why Danny didn't go for George, and I think his reason is justifiable.  But i don't really understand why he didn't go for Butler - i don't see his apparent concerns about fit, and I think we'd be a better team with Butler in place of Hayward.  But i don't get to make that decision, so it is what it is.  I'm happy enough with Hayward as 3rd choice - he's a definite upgrade over what we head at the position before.

Some will disagree with me, and that's fine - nothing wrong with different people having different answers  

[C3LTSF4N]

He did go for Butler.  Ainge has said multiple times on video that he offered "a lot" for players like Butler and George.  Other teams don't always agree.  However, Gordon was signed with cap space; George and Butler weren't available in free agency.  Gordon was acquired with money on his choice while Butler and George needed assets to be traded, salaries to be matched and the other team to agree. It's not so easy. 

[crimson_stallion]

He did go for Butler.  Ainge has said multiple times on video that he offered "a lot" for players like Butler and George.  Other teams don't always agree.  However, Gordon was signed with cap space; George and Butler weren't available in free agency.  Gordon was acquired with money on his choice while Butler and George needed assets to be traded, salaries to be matched and the other team to agree. It's not so easy.

Ainge has also been on record saying he chose Hayward over those guys because (a) he wasn't confident Paul George would re-sign with Boston and (b) he wasn't sure about Butler's fit on the team. 

Danny really cannot use "having to give up assets" as an excuse for not making trades.  He just gave up Boston's best player (Thomas), most valuable asset (Brooklyn 2018 1st) and one of it's most versatile two-way role players (Crowder) for Kyrie Irving. 

I'm not convinced Kyrie is a better player then Jimmy Butler, and I can guarantee you that if Danny's offer for Butler was anywhere near that strong then Butler would be in a Celtics jersey right now. 

The eventual return that Chicago got for Butler (Zach Lavine, Khris Dunn, #7) gives a clear indication of how much Chicago wanted to get for him - and it should not have been hard for Boston to make a stronger offer then that.

Seems clear to me that Ainge's heart was set on Hayward from day one, and any offers he made for George / Butler were half-arsed offers that were made just in case there was a chance to grab a bargain, else they would have hung on for Hayward regardless.  I could be wrong, but that's how it looks for me, and I feel that might be a mistake. 

But its ok - we have Kyrie and Hayward now, and I'm excited about that regardless.

[byennie]

He did go for Butler.  Ainge has said multiple times on video that he offered "a lot" for players like Butler and George.  Other teams don't always agree.  However, Gordon was signed with cap space; George and Butler weren't available in free agency.  Gordon was acquired with money on his choice while Butler and George needed assets to be traded, salaries to be matched and the other team to agree. It's not so easy.

Ainge has also been on record saying he chose Hayward over those guys because (a) he wasn't confident Paul George would re-sign with Boston and (b) he wasn't sure about Butler's fit on the team. 

Danny really cannot use "having to give up assets" as an excuse for not making trades.  He just gave up Boston's best player (Thomas), most valuable asset (Brooklyn 2018 1st) and one of it's most versatile two-way role players (Crowder) for Kyrie Irving. 

I'm not convinced Kyrie is a better player then Jimmy Butler, and I can guarantee you that if Danny's offer for Butler was anywhere near that strong then Butler would be in a Celtics jersey right now. 

The eventual return that Chicago got for Butler (Zach Lavine, Khris Dunn, #7) gives a clear indication of how much Chicago wanted to get for him - and it should not have been hard for Boston to make a stronger offer then that.

Seems clear to me that Ainge's heart was set on Hayward from day one, and any offers he made for George / Butler were half-arsed offers that were made just in case there was a chance to grab a bargain, else they would have hung on for Hayward regardless.  I could be wrong, but that's how it looks for me, and I feel that might be a mistake. 

But its ok - we have Kyrie and Hayward now, and I'm excited about that regardless.

If we trade for Butler instead, we get ~1/2 season of IT and 2 years of Butler. 2 years from now one or both is likely gone.

Instead, we have 2 years of Kyrie and 4 years of Hayward. That's a slam dunk unless Butler is WAYYYY better than Hayward, which he is not. You simply cannot compare the Butler/George situations with a free agent.

[CelticsElite]

He did go for Butler.  Ainge has said multiple times on video that he offered "a lot" for players like Butler and George.  Other teams don't always agree.  However, Gordon was signed with cap space; George and Butler weren't available in free agency.  Gordon was acquired with money on his choice while Butler and George needed assets to be traded, salaries to be matched and the other team to agree. It's not so easy.

Ainge has also been on record saying he chose Hayward over those guys because (a) he wasn't confident Paul George would re-sign with Boston and (b) he wasn't sure about Butler's fit on the team. 

Danny really cannot use "having to give up assets" as an excuse for not making trades.  He just gave up Boston's best player (Thomas), most valuable asset (Brooklyn 2018 1st) and one of it's most versatile two-way role players (Crowder) for Kyrie Irving. 

I'm not convinced Kyrie is a better player then Jimmy Butler, and I can guarantee you that if Danny's offer for Butler was anywhere near that strong then Butler would be in a Celtics jersey right now. 

The eventual return that Chicago got for Butler (Zach Lavine, Khris Dunn, #7) gives a clear indication of how much Chicago wanted to get for him - and it should not have been hard for Boston to make a stronger offer then that.

Seems clear to me that Ainge's heart was set on Hayward from day one, and any offers he made for George / Butler were half-arsed offers that were made just in case there was a chance to grab a bargain, else they would have hung on for Hayward regardless.  I could be wrong, but that's how it looks for me, and I feel that might be a mistake. 

But its ok - we have Kyrie and Hayward now, and I'm excited about that regardless.

the Celtics did not think butler and Hayward would play well together. They also thought that their personalities didn't fit together either. Its important to note this because it means the Celtics were very focused for a while on landing Hayward and building around him. If someone doesn't fit with hayward (even personality wise) they probably aren't going to unload assets and pay big salary for them

[j804]

He did go for Butler.  Ainge has said multiple times on video that he offered "a lot" for players like Butler and George.  Other teams don't always agree.  However, Gordon was signed with cap space; George and Butler weren't available in free agency.  Gordon was acquired with money on his choice while Butler and George needed assets to be traded, salaries to be matched and the other team to agree. It's not so easy.

Ainge has also been on record saying he chose Hayward over those guys because (a) he wasn't confident Paul George would re-sign with Boston and (b) he wasn't sure about Butler's fit on the team. 

Danny really cannot use "having to give up assets" as an excuse for not making trades.  He just gave up Boston's best player (Thomas), most valuable asset (Brooklyn 2018 1st) and one of it's most versatile two-way role players (Crowder) for Kyrie Irving. 

I'm not convinced Kyrie is a better player then Jimmy Butler, and I can guarantee you that if Danny's offer for Butler was anywhere near that strong then Butler would be in a Celtics jersey right now. 

The eventual return that Chicago got for Butler (Zach Lavine, Khris Dunn, #7) gives a clear indication of how much Chicago wanted to get for him - and it should not have been hard for Boston to make a stronger offer then that.

Seems clear to me that Ainge's heart was set on Hayward from day one, and any offers he made for George / Butler were half-arsed offers that were made just in case there was a chance to grab a bargain, else they would have hung on for Hayward regardless.  I could be wrong, but that's how it looks for me, and I feel that might be a mistake. 

But its ok - we have Kyrie and Hayward now, and I'm excited about that regardless.

I would take Kyrie over Butler all day. We might have a Butler lite in Jaylen if he takes a leap this year.

[C3LTSF4N]

He did go for Butler.  Ainge has said multiple times on video that he offered "a lot" for players like Butler and George.  Other teams don't always agree.  However, Gordon was signed with cap space; George and Butler weren't available in free agency.  Gordon was acquired with money on his choice while Butler and George needed assets to be traded, salaries to be matched and the other team to agree. It's not so easy.

Ainge has also been on record saying he chose Hayward over those guys because (a) he wasn't confident Paul George would re-sign with Boston and (b) he wasn't sure about Butler's fit on the team. 

Danny really cannot use "having to give up assets" as an excuse for not making trades.  He just gave up Boston's best player (Thomas), most valuable asset (Brooklyn 2018 1st) and one of it's most versatile two-way role players (Crowder) for Kyrie Irving. 

I'm not convinced Kyrie is a better player then Jimmy Butler, and I can guarantee you that if Danny's offer for Butler was anywhere near that strong then Butler would be in a Celtics jersey right now. 

The eventual return that Chicago got for Butler (Zach Lavine, Khris Dunn, #7) gives a clear indication of how much Chicago wanted to get for him - and it should not have been hard for Boston to make a stronger offer then that.

Seems clear to me that Ainge's heart was set on Hayward from day one, and any offers he made for George / Butler were half-arsed offers that were made just in case there was a chance to grab a bargain, else they would have hung on for Hayward regardless.  I could be wrong, but that's how it looks for me, and I feel that might be a mistake. 

But its ok - we have Kyrie and Hayward now, and I'm excited about that regardless.

We needed to preserve cap space until July in order to sign Hayward (someone who Ainge probably knew was coming and would stick around).  Cap space to sign a max free agent doesn't happen very often and we needed to keep 29.7m available to sign Hayward before we made a trade.  We traded Bradley for this reason.  It's not our fault the Bulls couldn't wait another 10 days to get more assets from us.  George wasn't a sure thing and was a one year rental, I'm glad we didn't blow assets on him. 

So since Butler was gone, and the Kyrie situation arose, we went for it.  With how visibly ecstatic Kyrie has looked since joining the Celtics, I wouldn't be surprised if he reached out to the Cs to let them know he'd resign right away.  Hence him on video saying "When Boston came a knocking I answered."  This with the fact that Kyrie meets our timeline probably made Danny feel pretty good about making a deal. 

It's not as cut and dry as fans running around saying "well he's a little better than him so we should have gotten him".  Deals aren't easy to make and timing is everything.