If Danny got us the Brooklyn pick was it his pick?

[lbgreen33]

Let’s not forget that Danny got us that Brooklyn pick.  If we walked away from the Brooklyn trade with everything other than the 2018 unprotected Brooklyn pick, I still think that would have been a fair trade.

Not saying that I liked the trade at the time, I loved KG and PP, I remember not wanting them to go, I might have kept KG and PP. But, we wouldn’t have had any of these picks now!

Danny made this happen. Getting the 2018 pick included was pretty amazing, the Net’s could have also easily put protection on the pick back then.
So, if Danny, who we all love to criticize, didn’t get the pick in first place, we wouldn’t have Kyrie right now.

There would be no discussion about "If that Brooklyn pick turns into a star"  sorry doesn’t matter because we wouldn’t even have it!

[Roy H.]

You're answering two different questions:

1) Has Danny been a good GM; and

2) Was this a good trade?

In answering the first question, his resume unquestionably matters.  With the second, it doesn't. Either he made a good trade with the assets he traded, or he didn't. It doesn't matter where those assets came from, or who acquired them.

[mctyson]

Just because Ainge acquired the Brooklyn pick does not mean he can't be evaluated on how he uses it.  If he kept it and drafted a bum, he would rightly be criticized for that.

If CLE (or whoever) eventually drafts a stud with that pick who goes on to be a perennial all-star, and the Cs never really do much with Kyrie (or he walks after 2 years), this trade will be a disaster.

[jambr380]

Just because Ainge acquired the Brooklyn pick does not mean he can't be evaluated on how he uses it.  If he kept it and drafted a bum, he would rightly be criticized for that.

If CLE (or whoever) eventually drafts a stud with that pick who goes on to be a perennial all-star, and the Cs never really do much with Kyrie (or he walks after 2 years), this trade will be a disaster.

This has come up in another thread (Cs in win-now mode...), but is relevant here, as well. Likely, this will turn into a huge debate for years to come unless the decision is crystal clear. There are really only two scenarios where that happens:

Pro-trade: Kyrie is unleashed in Boston and wins a championship (or multiple championships) as the clear #1, while the BKN pick lands around #7 where no superior players are chosen in that range.

Anti-trade: The pick lands at #1 or #2 - Porter/Bagley III are amazing and turn into true KD/AD type superstars and single handedly carry their respective franchises for over a decade. Meanwhile, Kyrie goes all David Price in Boston and leaves in two years, while the Cs fail to ever make it past the ECF.

Any scenario that falls in between will cause a rift among Cs fans about what was the true correct decision. I maintain that this trade can still be considered a success even if we never win a championship. If the BKN pick (or a player selected in that range) isn't clearly better than Kyrie, then it doesn't matter - even though people will cherry-pick the best player and say DA missed out on him.

[jambr380]

As for the OP's question, I say, yes. Even though each gm should be judged on each individual decision he makes, they should not be weighted evenly. I have heard people claim that Danny should be fired if the BKN pick turns out to be a star. That is completely ridiculous.

The KG/PP trade was such a ridiculous coup that Danny has earned himself a very long leash. For all the complaining about the trade, he has already essentially replaced the pick with the LAL/Sac pick in 18 or 19. Trading one of those picks for a perennial all-star 25 y/o PG who fits in very well with our other young guys isn't the end of the world.

I understand that it's fun selecting high draft picks ever year while going deep into the playoffs, but that just isn't realistic. And if we wanted a real chance a championship, the cards had to be shuffled - we were pretty maxed out with our last group. Some people just don't know how good they have it.

[incoherent]

The OP makes a great point.

We had an embarrassment of riches and we squabble over an MVP candidate PG and a 4 time all star 25 year old champion PG.

When about 20-25 teams in this league wish they could have either.

The fact that we have the LA pick does diminish the value of the the Nets pick ... TO THE CELTICS.  to everyone else its the same, but to us... the Nets Pick isnt as valuable because we have the LA pick.  It's easier for us to trade it away then most other teams because 99% of other teams dont have a top 5 pick as backup.

[Ogaju]

The OP makes a great point.

We had an embarrassment of riches and we squabble over an MVP candidate PG and a 4 time all star 25 year old champion PG.

When about 20-25 teams in this league wish they could have either.

The fact that we have the LA pick does diminish the value of the the Nets pick ... TO THE CELTICS.  to everyone else its the same, but to us... the Nets Pick isnt as valuable because we have the LA pick.  It's easier for us to trade it away then most other teams because 99% of other teams dont have a top 5 pick as backup.

You put it more coherently than I thought. I disagree with Hobbs post of course Danny has to be evaluated based on the assets he accumulated because they all fit in his overall plan and strategy. So far he is doing a fine job, especially if you consider the fact that he already flipped the BKN pick swap into the LAL/SAC 18/19 pick.

[spikelovetheCelts]

If the Nets pick lands 4th one would still take KI at 25 over any other player. But without KI this year we would not compete. IT is hurt we will learn as a team and their is nothing more valuable than that at our stage of a rebuild.

[mmmmm]

I agree with Roy's breakdown.  Imho, Danny's record establishes him as clearly one of the best GMs in the NBA during his tenure.

That said, each transaction should always be considered fair game for analysis and evaluation.

At this point, it is way too early to say whether the outcome of this trade is a win or loss.   All we can assess at this point is whether we are comfortable with the perceived levels of benefit vs risk.

There are clearly possible futures which can make this look like an easy win (Isaiah never fully recovers, the Nets make the playoffs, Kyrie makes All-NBA, etc.) and others that can make it a terrible, one-sided loss (Isaiah returns to 100% and plays at an All-Star level for several years, Kyrie never steps up his game to a new level or worse, just doesn't fit for whatever reason, the Nets pick becomes Bagley, Zizic become Steven Adams II, etc.).

Deciding whether the trade is 'good' or 'bad' right now becomes an assessment of the probabilities of each of those future out-comes.   

If you think Kyrie will likely return more total value over the next few years than the combined value that will be returned by Isaiah, the BKN18, Jae & Ante over the next few years, then you probably think it is a good trade.

If you think Kyrie will likely NOT return more total value over the next few years than the combined value that will be returned by Isaiah, the BKN18, Jae & Ante over the next few years, then you probably think it is not a good trade.

Personally, it seems to me that if Thomas does return to full health and plays out the next few years at a high level, then Irving will have to elevate his game to a super-elite level in order to validate this trade.

[lbgreen33]

Also, whether we agree or disagree we are in Danny's hands. He makes these decisions and there is nothing we can do about it other than hope he is right.

Because of that I try to look at the team we have now and get excited about them. I keep seeing all these negative comments about Kyrie. It is always easy to criticize players, but for me when they become a Boston Celtic it is time to get behind them. I had no control over how the players got here, so I root for our team, no matter what.  I am very excited about the season! I love to know that there is a game on TV, always gives me something to look forward to. Also, we have so many players to be thankful for! It is so easy to be excited this year and I am!

[Roy H.]

The OP makes a great point.

We had an embarrassment of riches and we squabble over an MVP candidate PG and a 4 time all star 25 year old champion PG.

When about 20-25 teams in this league wish they could have either.

The fact that we have the LA pick does diminish the value of the the Nets pick ... TO THE CELTICS.  to everyone else its the same, but to us... the Nets Pick isnt as valuable because we have the LA pick.  It's easier for us to trade it away then most other teams because 99% of other teams dont have a top 5 pick as backup.

You put it more coherently than I thought. I disagree with Hobbs post of course Danny has to be evaluated based on the assets he accumulated because they all fit in his overall plan and strategy. So far he is doing a fine job, especially if you consider the fact that he already flipped the BKN pick swap into the LAL/SAC 18/19 pick.

Again, what question are you answering? You're looking at all of Danny's moves, cumulatively. That's the way to evaluate a GM overall. It has nothing to do with this individual transaction, though.

If your broker makes you a 60% return over three years, I suspect you'd be happy with him. If he lost 25% of your portfolio's value on a risky transaction you might criticize him for that deal, however. 

[lbgreen33]

The OP makes a great point.

We had an embarrassment of riches and we squabble over an MVP candidate PG and a 4 time all star 25 year old champion PG.

When about 20-25 teams in this league wish they could have either.

The fact that we have the LA pick does diminish the value of the the Nets pick ... TO THE CELTICS.  to everyone else its the same, but to us... the Nets Pick isnt as valuable because we have the LA pick.  It's easier for us to trade it away then most other teams because 99% of other teams dont have a top 5 pick as backup.

You put it more coherently than I thought. I disagree with Hobbs post of course Danny has to be evaluated based on the assets he accumulated because they all fit in his overall plan and strategy. So far he is doing a fine job, especially if you consider the fact that he already flipped the BKN pick swap into the LAL/SAC 18/19 pick.

Again, what question are you answering? You're looking at all of Danny's moves, cumulatively. That's the way to evaluate a GM overall. It has nothing to do with this individual transaction, though.

If your broker makes you a 60% return over three years, I suspect you'd be happy with him. If he lost 25% of your portfolio's value on a risky transaction you might criticize him for that deal, however. 

I guess the question I was really asking is, doesn't Danny ultimately get to decide what he wants to do with that pick?
We can evaluate it and break it down and 5 years from now review the statistics and see who won the trade.
What I am saying is does it matter?  Whether we agree or disagree Danny will do what he thinks is best.

Sure we can judge him, but it won't change anything. I take a much simpler approach and just root for the team we have now, I can't control the future.

[Roy H.]

The OP makes a great point.

We had an embarrassment of riches and we squabble over an MVP candidate PG and a 4 time all star 25 year old champion PG.

When about 20-25 teams in this league wish they could have either.

The fact that we have the LA pick does diminish the value of the the Nets pick ... TO THE CELTICS.  to everyone else its the same, but to us... the Nets Pick isnt as valuable because we have the LA pick.  It's easier for us to trade it away then most other teams because 99% of other teams dont have a top 5 pick as backup.

You put it more coherently than I thought. I disagree with Hobbs post of course Danny has to be evaluated based on the assets he accumulated because they all fit in his overall plan and strategy. So far he is doing a fine job, especially if you consider the fact that he already flipped the BKN pick swap into the LAL/SAC 18/19 pick.

Again, what question are you answering? You're looking at all of Danny's moves, cumulatively. That's the way to evaluate a GM overall. It has nothing to do with this individual transaction, though.

If your broker makes you a 60% return over three years, I suspect you'd be happy with him. If he lost 25% of your portfolio's value on a risky transaction you might criticize him for that deal, however. 

I guess the question I was really asking is, doesn't Danny ultimately get to decide what he wants to do with that pick?
We can evaluate it and break it down and 5 years from now review the statistics and see who won the trade.
What I am saying is does it matter?  Whether we agree or disagree Danny will do what he thinks is best.

Sure we can judge him, but it won't change anything. I take a much simpler approach and just root for the team we have now, I can't control the future.

Ultimately, of course that's right. He's in charge, and he belongs in charge.

But, second-guessing and debating is the nature of sports discussion. Once games start, 99% of us will all be rooting for success. Until then, skepticism is just as healthy as blind faith.

[No Nickname]

All I know is:

1.  We took away Cleveland's second-best player.  Even in a three-team trade scenario, where Kyrie goes to that third team, that's a win for us and makes getting to the Finals easier.

2.  But on top of #1 we actually ADDED that player to our own roster.  Sure we lost our own best player, but that player is hurt, we wouldn't have had him the entire season and we don't know if he would be likely to get injured again before or during the playoffs. 

3.  We added one of the best available free agents (Westbrook or Chris Paul or Blake Griffin noted) in Gordon Hayward.

4.  We added the #3 pick, Tatum, who may be the most-gifted wing player in this draft.  And as we've seen with several top-3 picks over the years, they can come out of the gates on fire, even though Stevens will probably still try to bring him along slowly.

All of this leads me to think we are the prohibited favorites to make it to the Finals, unless Cleveland swings a trade with that Brooklyn pick for a stud.

[lbgreen33]

The OP makes a great point.

We had an embarrassment of riches and we squabble over an MVP candidate PG and a 4 time all star 25 year old champion PG.

When about 20-25 teams in this league wish they could have either.

The fact that we have the LA pick does diminish the value of the the Nets pick ... TO THE CELTICS.  to everyone else its the same, but to us... the Nets Pick isnt as valuable because we have the LA pick.  It's easier for us to trade it away then most other teams because 99% of other teams dont have a top 5 pick as backup.

You put it more coherently than I thought. I disagree with Hobbs post of course Danny has to be evaluated based on the assets he accumulated because they all fit in his overall plan and strategy. So far he is doing a fine job, especially if you consider the fact that he already flipped the BKN pick swap into the LAL/SAC 18/19 pick.

Again, what question are you answering? You're looking at all of Danny's moves, cumulatively. That's the way to evaluate a GM overall. It has nothing to do with this individual transaction, though.

If your broker makes you a 60% return over three years, I suspect you'd be happy with him. If he lost 25% of your portfolio's value on a risky transaction you might criticize him for that deal, however. 

I guess the question I was really asking is, doesn't Danny ultimately get to decide what he wants to do with that pick?
We can evaluate it and break it down and 5 years from now review the statistics and see who won the trade.
What I am saying is does it matter?  Whether we agree or disagree Danny will do what he thinks is best.

Sure we can judge him, but it won't change anything. I take a much simpler approach and just root for the team we have now, I can't control the future.

Ultimately, of course that's right. He's in charge, and he belongs in charge.

But, second-guessing and debating is the nature of sports discussion. Once games start, 99% of us will all be rooting for success. Until then, skepticism is just as healthy as blind faith.

Can't argue with that, good point.