Hayward is such a great player.

[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.

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.

Who says we don't still get Kyrie?

If we did trade #3 for Butler (as was reportedly offered) then we'd lose Tatum (a painful blow, I know)...but then Kyrie still would have requested a trade from Cleveland, and we'd still have the same assets available (Crowder, Isaiah, Zizic, 2018 Brk pick), so no reason to think we wouldn't have still ended up with Kyrie.

And I actually do think Butler is a significant step above Hayward.  I feel Butler is just as good as Hayward offensively, but is a far superior defender, rebounder and playmaker.  I also think he's tougher - both physically and mentally - and has a higher probably of breaking out into an all-out superstar.

Personal opinion, is all.     

[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.

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

Anything is possible, but I highly doubt Jaylen Brown will ever be even close to as good as Jimmy Butler.

If I were to provide my probably estimate of that happening, I'd put it at something like 5%.

[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.

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.

That is the problem - we DIDN'T have to wait until July.  We DIDN'T need to clear $29.7m in cap space.  We could have traded for Butler there and then, and let Hayward re-sign with the Jazz. 

Danny had the choice - trade some assets for Butler, while keeping $10m+ in extra cap space as a bonus...or let the Butler deal go and wait out for Hayward.  He chose the latter.  I would not have. I would have taken the deal that was available at the time, for the (IMHO) superior player, rather then hold off on that deal for the sake of waiting to see what Hayward wanted to do. 

Seems Hayward struggled a lot with that final decision, and it could have gone either way.  Danny is extremely lucky that he ended up choosing to come to Boston and not staying with Utah - because if the latter happened and Danny gave up on the Butler trade for nothing, I'd have been infuriated.  Getting Hayward helped to soften that blow a bit, but I still wouldn't have preferred Butler. 

General thinking at the time was that Danny didn't make the trade for Butler because he didn't want to dismantle half the roster.  Then he ended up having to dismantle half the roster (Bradley, Olynyk, Green, Zeller, Jerebko, etc) to sign Hayward anyway.

Of course this will all be debated from now until forever, but personally I did not love Ainge's final decision, and I hope it doesn't come back to bite Boston on the butt.

[C3LTSF4N]

When you have cap space to sign a max free agent, you use it for that.  Especially on a guy that has a decade old relationship with your superstar coach.  You don't trade and end up with extra salary and stifle the cap space you've been building for years on a guy that you have no idea if he'll resign. 

Doing it in the order we did allowed us to sign a max free agent and then trade for another star while still hanging onto a lot of assets.  You can say we lost a star in Thomas but I really don't think we planned on resigning him anyway.  The order we operated in netted us great returns and set us up for the future much better. 

[byennie]

Who says we don't still get Kyrie?

If we did trade #3 for Butler (as was reportedly offered) then we'd lose Tatum (a painful blow, I know)...but then Kyrie still would have requested a trade from Cleveland, and we'd still have the same assets available (Crowder, Isaiah, Zizic, 2018 Brk pick), so no reason to think we wouldn't have still ended up with Kyrie.

And I actually do think Butler is a significant step above Hayward.  I feel Butler is just as good as Hayward offensively, but is a far superior defender, rebounder and playmaker.  I also think he's tougher - both physically and mentally - and has a higher probably of breaking out into an all-out superstar.

Personal opinion, is all.   

I think "all things being equal" was implied in terms of Kyrie + Hayward versus IT + Butler. But yes, it's possible we could have had Kyrie + Butler (-Tatum).

I get what you're saying about Butler vs Hayward, I just don't think there are very many who would value Butler over Hayward PLUS a #3 pick AND 2 more years of control. But if you really think Butler is a superstar and Hayward is a couple notches below, I get it. Quality over quantity.

I also think the crappy Minnesota deal is misleading. Chicago front office is horrible, and I'd bet money they valued Kris Dunn almost as high as our #3 pick. I think they valued LaVine > Crowder. And then they went from #16 => #7, which would usually require something like the #10 pick.

So from the Chicago side, it was likely closer to Tatum + Crowder + another 1st rounder to beat Minnesota. In which case we're missing a piece for Kyrie *and* down Tatum + 1st.

[cman88]

Alot of people dont know much about gordon hayward. Then they are surprised when i tell them he averaged over 20ppg last year..i think that is a product of playing in the loaded west on a small market team.

He will become a star in boston IMO and get more recognition playing for a big market team

[liam]

Alot of people dont know much about gordon hayward. Then they are surprised when i tell them he averaged over 20ppg last year..i think that is a product of playing in the loaded west on a small market team.

He will become a star in boston IMO and get more recognition playing for a big market team

Hayward also played on a very slowed down team. The Jazz played at a snails pace...

[max215]

I'm more excited about the Hayward addition than the Irving addition

Agreed. Me too.

Hayward is our best player, after all.

[Big333223]

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

I don't think I'm judging him on one play. If I was, I wouldn't be excited about having him on the Celtics. But I am going to factor that play into my judgement of Hayward, particularly in his ability to make shots when the pressure is on.

[crimson_stallion]

Alot of people dont know much about gordon hayward. Then they are surprised when i tell them he averaged over 20ppg last year..i think that is a product of playing in the loaded west on a small market team.

He will become a star in boston IMO and get more recognition playing for a big market team

He averaged over 20 PPG:
* For the first time in 7 years (throughout which he's mostly been his team's #1 scoring option)
* At the age of 26 (lateish bloomer, maybe?)
* In a contract year (the incentive has never been greater)

Prior to this one single standout year, he's never averaged more than around 19 PPG (on pretty mediocre teams) and has never looked really like anything more then a borderline All-Star.

He is a very nice player, but he is not a superstar, never has been one, and may well never be one.  Maybe he will be, and his breakout last season was just a start of things to come.  Or maybe it was just a one off season - a reflection of him putting on his A-game to secure his max deal, so he can settle back down to being a 19/5/3 guy (along with average defence) as Kyrie's sidekick for the next 4-5 years.

Time will tell, but I am hesitant to expect too much from him given his overall career production thus far.  I'll expect him to put up something in the 20/5/3 range as our #2 scorer, and if we get anything more than that from him then I will consider that gravy.

Not that I'd dislike having a 20/5/3 guy - I'm pretty thrilled that we finally have a REAL #2 scorer here.  I just don't think he is the big time piece and mega game changer that some people here seem to believe he is.

[crimson_stallion]

When you have cap space to sign a max free agent, you use it for that.  Especially on a guy that has a decade old relationship with your superstar coach. You don't trade and end up with extra salary and stifle the cap space you've been building for years on a guy that you have no idea if he'll resign. 

Doing it in the order we did allowed us to sign a max free agent and then trade for another star while still hanging onto a lot of assets.  You can say we lost a star in Thomas but I really don't think we planned on resigning him anyway.  The order we operated in netted us great returns and set us up for the future much better.

I strongly disagree with the bolded text here.

When you have max cap space, you make the move that is the best for your team, and the move that is going to make your team better now and in the future.

Maybe that means using that cap space to sign a max free agent. If that free agent is the best player available, and acquiring him is the best move for your team, then that's what you do.

Maybe that means using that cap space to trade for a star player and absorb his contract. If that star player is the best player available, and acquiring him is the best move for your team, then that's what you do.

You absolutely DO NOT use your cap space to sign a max free agent just because the cap space is there and you can.  That's the worst thing you can do, and is an idiotic move for a GM.  If you aren't convinced, then just ask Detroit fans how they feel about Ben Gordon, Charlie Villenueva and Josh Smith.

You absolutely DO NOT sign a free agent just because he has a prior personal relationship with your coach. That's letting emotional attachments / relationships influence business decisions.  Danny specifically made it a point NOT to do this when he traded KG/PP to Brooklyn, and we are where we are today because of it.  He also made it a point NOT to do it a month ago when he traded Avery Bradley for Morris/Baynes, and again a week ago when he traded IT and pieces for Kyrie Irving.  If you want to be the best possible GM, then you don't ever allow emotional bias to influence business decisions - and signing Gordon because he "has a decade old relationship with your superstar coach" would be doing exactly that.
 
In the case of Paul George, I understand. The risk of losing him was high, not worth it.

Jimmy Butler however has been nothing but 100% loyal to Chicago thus far.  He could have demanded trades, could have happily welcomed them - but through every step of the way, he has done nothing by preach his loyalty and his desire to stay in Chicago.  They forced him out because they wanted to take a new direction, but there's nothing in Butler's history that indicates he would be anything but loyal to any team that gives him fair reason to want to return.  He's got a personality that screams Celtic through and through (tough, physical, loyal, hard working, wants to win) and if he spent two seasons on a winning Celtics team, surrounded by all the Celtics pride/history, I find it very hard to image he's the type of player who would walk away from that. 

Especially when considering the fact that he's been the best player on a team that seems to be the Cavs' kryptonite thus far - and the Cavs are the team we need to go through if we want to take the next step.

[jdz101]

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.

Anything is possible, but I highly doubt Jaylen Brown will ever be even close to as good as Jimmy Butler.

If I were to provide my probably estimate of that happening, I'd put it at something like 5%.

Considering Jaylen Brown just had a very statistically comparable first season at age 20 to Jimmy Butler's Second Season at age 23, I'm not sure how you have the foresight or information to make a call like that, let alone put a percentage chance on it.

[byennie]

He averaged over 20 PPG:
* For the first time in 7 years (throughout which he's mostly been his team's #1 scoring option)
* At the age of 26 (lateish bloomer, maybe?)
* In a contract year (the incentive has never been greater)

He didn't bloom any later that George or Butler, and they all scored at the same rate last year. Counting 19.7ppg and 19.3ppg on high efficiency as "not averaging 20ppg" is kind silly, no? And then comparing unfavorably to a guy who put up 20 and 20.9 in the same seasons, with more minutes?

It's fine to prefer Butler, but you can't just assume one guy regresses and the other marches on towards superstardom, despite similar ages, career arcs, and opportunities.

You absolutely DO NOT use your cap space to sign a max free agent just because the cap space is there and you can.  That's the worst thing you can do, and is an idiotic move for a GM.  If you aren't convinced, then just ask Detroit fans how they feel about Ben Gordon, Charlie Villenueva and Josh Smith.

Cool, we didn't. Every team in the league would have given Hayward the max. Detroit outbid themselves. Not remotely similar.

You absolutely DO NOT sign a free agent just because he has a prior personal relationship with your coach. That's letting emotional attachments / relationships influence business decisions. 

See above. Lots of teams lining up to pay him the max with or without Brad Stevens.

[C3LTSF4N]

When you have cap space to sign a max free agent, you use it for that.  Especially on a guy that has a decade old relationship with your superstar coach. You don't trade and end up with extra salary and stifle the cap space you've been building for years on a guy that you have no idea if he'll resign. 

Doing it in the order we did allowed us to sign a max free agent and then trade for another star while still hanging onto a lot of assets.  You can say we lost a star in Thomas but I really don't think we planned on resigning him anyway.  The order we operated in netted us great returns and set us up for the future much better.

I strongly disagree with the bolded text here.

When you have max cap space, you make the move that is the best for your team, and the move that is going to make your team better now and in the future.

Maybe that means using that cap space to sign a max free agent. If that free agent is the best player available, and acquiring him is the best move for your team, then that's what you do.

Maybe that means using that cap space to trade for a star player and absorb his contract. If that star player is the best player available, and acquiring him is the best move for your team, then that's what you do.

You absolutely DO NOT use your cap space to sign a max free agent just because the cap space is there and you can.  That's the worst thing you can do, and is an idiotic move for a GM.  If you aren't convinced, then just ask Detroit fans how they feel about Ben Gordon, Charlie Villenueva and Josh Smith.

You absolutely DO NOT sign a free agent just because he has a prior personal relationship with your coach. That's letting emotional attachments / relationships influence business decisions.  Danny specifically made it a point NOT to do this when he traded KG/PP to Brooklyn, and we are where we are today because of it.  He also made it a point NOT to do it a month ago when he traded Avery Bradley for Morris/Baynes, and again a week ago when he traded IT and pieces for Kyrie Irving.  If you want to be the best possible GM, then you don't ever allow emotional bias to influence business decisions - and signing Gordon because he "has a decade old relationship with your superstar coach" would be doing exactly that.
 
In the case of Paul George, I understand. The risk of losing him was high, not worth it.

Jimmy Butler however has been nothing but 100% loyal to Chicago thus far.  He could have demanded trades, could have happily welcomed them - but through every step of the way, he has done nothing by preach his loyalty and his desire to stay in Chicago.  They forced him out because they wanted to take a new direction, but there's nothing in Butler's history that indicates he would be anything but loyal to any team that gives him fair reason to want to return.  He's got a personality that screams Celtic through and through (tough, physical, loyal, hard working, wants to win) and if he spent two seasons on a winning Celtics team, surrounded by all the Celtics pride/history, I find it very hard to image he's the type of player who would walk away from that. 

Especially when considering the fact that he's been the best player on a team that seems to be the Cavs' kryptonite thus far - and the Cavs are the team we need to go through if we want to take the next step.

Come on man, obviously you don't go out and blow 30 mil just because you can, that is not what I was saying at all.  When the team's in a position where they've finally built up the ability to sign a $30 mil guy through smart decisions and salary clearing over the course of years and it makes sense for them at the time, (which is does for us) you do it.  When you can sign a guy that you want that fits, instead of spending assets you do it.  It's more efficient and that is the right you've earned with good planning.  The fact that the personal relationship exists with Hayward is just gravy.  It makes it that much sweeter.  Obviously you don't go out and make a bad decision based solely on emotion.  Signing Gordon Hayward is a little different than signing Charlie Villenueva and Ben Gordon, let's use my points in context.

Jimmy Butler has a tough personality to deal with.  He's a really hard worker and has come a long way but it's no secret that he's doesn't get along with everyone and doesn't shy away from conflict; kind of like Rondo.  (We've clearly been avoiding these personalities and this is another point in favor of Hayward) Brad and Danny are developing a culture and clearly avoiding potentially poor character guys and potential locker room toxicity. (No Cousins)  Again, you have Butler for 2 years and then who knows with Thibs recruiting him, and with Hayward 4 years, maybe more.

It is what it is, this is the direction the team is going and it makes perfect sense if you see it with the right perspective.

[jdz101]

He averaged over 20 PPG:
* For the first time in 7 years (throughout which he's mostly been his team's #1 scoring option)
* At the age of 26 (lateish bloomer, maybe?)
* In a contract year (the incentive has never been greater)

He didn't bloom any later that George or Butler, and they all scored at the same rate last year. Counting 19.7ppg and 19.3ppg on high efficiency as "not averaging 20ppg" is kind silly, no? And then comparing unfavorably to a guy who put up 20 and 20.9 in the same seasons, with more minutes?

It's fine to prefer Butler, but you can't just assume one guy regresses and the other marches on towards superstardom, despite similar ages, career arcs, and opportunities.

The bold is an important note to make about Gordon Hayward and Utah. They had a very slow offense that doesn't generate as many opportunities as any other team. (30th in Pace)

This was by design and they still had a very efficient offense that worked well with their elite defense. (12th in Offensive Rating and 3rd in Defensive Rating)

Gordon is now moving to a team that is 13th in Pace and 8th in Offensive Rating. Whilst his efficiency might suffer slightly, I fully expect Gordy's overall numbers to get a healthy boost. Just more opportunities to score the ball.