What would you have done? (Kyrie trade or otherwise)

[Donoghus]

To my mind the greatest what if is Paul George.

Is it really though? I mean, the Lakers were officially punished for tampering, he's going to LA next summer.

It certainly wasn't a given that George was going to go to LA.  That was obviously his preferred destination, but there were all kinds of reports that said he would have re-signed with any number of teams if they gave him a chance at winning.  I think it will be hilarious if he re-signs in OKC.

Not a given but one helluva gamble (Although you can say Danny ultimately found himself another pretty risky gamble with the Kyrie trade)

[PAOBoston]

If at all possible, I would have kept Avery Bradley. I would have loved to see a backcourt of Avery and Kyrie.

This is not really a valid criticism of the front office though. Danny publicly said that the Kyrie trade was not on the table before they made it. I am not sure whether the numbers work, cap-wise, if you subtract Morris and add Bradley's salary.

Bradley was a casualty of the salary cap being lower than expected. I think the plan was to keep AB (Ainge said as much last week) but getting Hayward and the lower than expected cap made things difficult.

[j804]

To my mind the greatest what if is Paul George.

Is it really though? I mean, the Lakers were officially punished for tampering, he's going to LA next summer.

It certainly wasn't a given that George was going to go to LA.  That was obviously his preferred destination, but there were all kinds of reports that said he would have re-signed with any number of teams if they gave him a chance at winning.  I think it will be hilarious if he re-signs in OKC.

the Nets pick for PG was way too risky though. I'm glad Ainge waited and it paid off in getting Kyrie who looks thrilled to be with the C's. I'm fine with the offseason like somebody else said just wish we could have kept AB.

[td450]

I feel that many are criticizing the move without providing a better path forward. Was the status quo (letting IT walk after this year and drafting with BKN's pick) better than this? Danny wasn't going to pay IT what he wanted- I think this is obvious at this point.

In my eyes, Danny consolidated and improved the roster, opening up more room to add valuable role players down the road. I think that Danny realized this team had gone as far as they could, and needed to shake it up to get to the next level.

I certainly think this is more important than trying to bring back a similar team next year.

Why is it obvious? Danny would've paid IT if it came to it. What we can say is he clearly had reservations about it and when an opportunity to improve came along he did it. That's all. If the Irving trade hadn't happened we may have found another one that worked or we may have stayed the course on the original path of re-signing IT and waiting out GS.

It is obvious because 2017 Isaiah and 2017 Kyrie were roughly comparable players. You could even make the argument that Isaiah was better.

The evidence is that we also gave up the Brooklyn pick, Crowder and Zizic. You can infer that Danny saw the future differential between the two players across the next contract as worth that much value. If Danny saw the futures of these two players diverging by that much value, we can clearly see that Isaiah couldn't possibly be worth signing.

[greece66]

To my mind the greatest what if is Paul George.

Is it really though? I mean, the Lakers were officially punished for tampering, he's going to LA next summer.

It certainly wasn't a given that George was going to go to LA.  That was obviously his preferred destination, but there were all kinds of reports that said he would have re-signed with any number of teams if they gave him a chance at winning.  I think it will be hilarious if he re-signs in OKC.

the Nets pick for PG was way too risky though. I'm glad Ainge waited and it paid off in getting Kyrie who looks thrilled to be with the C's. I'm fine with the offseason like somebody else said just wish we could have kept AB.

IMO IT, Hayward, PG and Horford were the closest to a contender we could get. At least, this is what I thought in July.

[drogbagarnett]

I've been spouting off on this board for quite some time that this summer was the tipping in point in which Ainge needed to pick a direction and make the moves to hit that direction.  He couldn't just keep adding top picks to the current roster and expect that to work for much longer.  I'm glad Ainge finally made that decision, and consolidated assets and the roster a bit, but I would have done it differently.

After the trade with Philly, I would have packaged 3, Crowder, and filler (maybe Zeller) for Butler.  I would have then moved Bradley, Smart, and the Boston 2018 1st for George.  Since the cap space was gone at that point, I would have kept Jackson and re-signed Olynyk, Jerekbo, Green, and Johnson.  I probably would have still looked at vets for the MLE, like Baynes, but would have been ok just filling out the roster with young guys.

So I would have entered the season with

PG - Thomas, Rozier, Jackson
SG - Butler, Green
SF - George, Brown, Nader, Ojeleye
PF - Johnson, Jerekbo, Yabusele
C - Horford, Olynyk, Zizic

Really..

This team is old with no future assets and only 1 young studs...
And they will still lose in the Eastern Conf finals!

The Kyrie trade not only gave us a great player but also weakened our main competitor to the Eastern Conf Championship.
It feels like people are forgetting HOW Kyrie destroyed us in game 4 of the ECF while Lebron was nowhere to be seen and all our great defenders (Bradley, Crowder, etc) couldn't do anything to stop him!! He single-handedly brought his team back and allow Lebron to save face....

[Moranis]

I've been spouting off on this board for quite some time that this summer was the tipping in point in which Ainge needed to pick a direction and make the moves to hit that direction.  He couldn't just keep adding top picks to the current roster and expect that to work for much longer.  I'm glad Ainge finally made that decision, and consolidated assets and the roster a bit, but I would have done it differently.

After the trade with Philly, I would have packaged 3, Crowder, and filler (maybe Zeller) for Butler.  I would have then moved Bradley, Smart, and the Boston 2018 1st for George.  Since the cap space was gone at that point, I would have kept Jackson and re-signed Olynyk, Jerekbo, Green, and Johnson.  I probably would have still looked at vets for the MLE, like Baynes, but would have been ok just filling out the roster with young guys.

So I would have entered the season with

PG - Thomas, Rozier, Jackson
SG - Butler, Green
SF - George, Brown, Nader, Ojeleye
PF - Johnson, Jerekbo, Yabusele
C - Horford, Olynyk, Zizic

Really..

This team is old with no future assets and only 1 young studs...
And they will still lose in the Eastern Conf finals!

The Kyrie trade not only gave us a great player but also weakened our main competitor to the Eastern Conf Championship.
It feels like people are forgetting HOW Kyrie destroyed us in game 4 of the ECF while Lebron was nowhere to be seen and all our great defenders (Bradley, Crowder, etc) couldn't do anything to stop him!! He single-handedly brought his team back and allow Lebron to save face....

Um, in my scenario the Celtics still have the LAL and BKN picks next year, MEM and LAC picks, as well as every single one of their own picks except 2018 which would have been in the late 20's.  And I absolutely would not guarantee that that team loses to Cleveland at all.  George and Butler are the 2nd and 3rd best players in that series, Thomas is 5th, and Horford is 7th.  And George is a terrible match-up for the Cavs himself, especially when coupled next to Butler because it means Lebron works all game long on both ends of the floor and they can't hide Irving defensively.  Then against Golden State, the same type of match-up problems are present for the Warriors.  I wouldn't count that team out against the Warriors either.

That is if Thomas is healthy by the playoffs, which at the time those moves were being made would have been presumed.

[TheSundanceKid]

I feel that many are criticizing the move without providing a better path forward. Was the status quo (letting IT walk after this year and drafting with BKN's pick) better than this? Danny wasn't going to pay IT what he wanted- I think this is obvious at this point.

In my eyes, Danny consolidated and improved the roster, opening up more room to add valuable role players down the road. I think that Danny realized this team had gone as far as they could, and needed to shake it up to get to the next level.

I certainly think this is more important than trying to bring back a similar team next year.

Why is it obvious? Danny would've paid IT if it came to it. What we can say is he clearly had reservations about it and when an opportunity to improve came along he did it. That's all. If the Irving trade hadn't happened we may have found another one that worked or we may have stayed the course on the original path of re-signing IT and waiting out GS.

It is obvious because 2017 Isaiah and 2017 Kyrie were roughly comparable players. You could even make the argument that Isaiah was better.

The evidence is that we also gave up the Brooklyn pick, Crowder and Zizic. You can infer that Danny saw the future differential between the two players across the next contract as worth that much value. If Danny saw the futures of these two players diverging by that much value, we can clearly see that Isaiah couldn't possibly be worth signing.

You certainly can make that argument. You can also say with certainty that Irving has more presence in the playoffs, given his Finals performances over the last few years.

We gave up those extra pieces because Ainge believes that Irving is an upgrade, if fans don't agree that is fine but it is true nonetheless.

Your logic doesn't follow. Upgrading to Irving and not re-signing Isaiah in the event of no trade does not follow. Without a trade Danny isn't going to just let IT walk and let the team regress for a few years. What we can say is he wanted to take the opportunity to upgrade the roster where he could to better fit the timeline of the players on the roster.

[SHAQATTACK]

Gonna wait until I have the benefit of 20/20 hindsight. 

thats a safe plan

[max215]

Draft Markelle Fultz.

[nebist]

Here is what I posted on June 19th with a few edits made filling out the roster as we did since then (Hayward, Baynes, etc.):

So the one major stumbling block I see when people are trying to create trades for veteran stars right now (Butler or George, etc.) is having to match salaries without giving up too much value and without using Zeller (because then we lose our shot at max cap space.  Essentially, 90% of the trade proposals posted on here for a vet mean that we wouldn't be able to sign Hayward or Griffin and the trade would take the place of a big FA signing. 

In fact, we actually need to drop a little bit more $ to get in position to offer Hayward or Griffin a full max.  So, with Paul George's situation driving his price down a bit, I think we have a unique opportunity to bid on him with an offer that would entice the Pacers but still leave us with major future assets to work with.

Option 1:
Celtics Get:
Paul George ($19.3)

Pacers Get:
Avery Bradley ($8.
Jae Crowder ($6.
Marcus Smart ($4.6)
1 lesser future 1st rd pick (BOS 18, BOS 19, LAC 19, or MEM 19).
Total $: $20.2 (Celtics gain an additional $0.9 of cap space moving incrementally closer to max room)

Reasons why this trade is the top option for the Cs:
1) Allows us to keep all of our best future assets (Jaylen, #3 Pick, BRK 18, LAL/SAC Pick) for further development or a later deal.
2) Removes 2/3 players that would need to be paid next year in AB and Marcus Smart.  I realize it would be cost-intensive to retain both IT4 and PG13 next off-season, but it would be technically possible with ownership's commitment to spend tax $.  We would also maintain those future assets (Jaylen, #3 Pick, BRK 18, LAL/SAC Pick) on rookie-scale deals to help somewhat minimize the tax implications of paying 4 max or near-max players.

For the Pacers:
This is a pretty good haul consider their situation.  They are guaranteed one starter level player on a good contract (Crowder) and one future first.  They also get two more good players in Bradley and Smart.  They could potentially re-sign Smart as an RFA next offseason and flip Bradley at the deadline for another late 1st (or they could re-sign Bradley as well if they like him).  Their reported asking price is a starter and 2 1sts (which they'll be lucky to get), and this deal arguably gets them more than that.

Celtics Roster with Hayward:
1- Isaiah Thomas / Rozier
2- Jaylen Brown
2- Gordon Hayward /Jayson Tatum
4- Paul George / Yabu / Semi
5- Al Horford / Baynes / Zizic
Remaining High-End Future Assets: BRK 18, LAL/SAC Pick

This trade is a worthy gamble for the Celtics.  Yes, they would have to convince Paul George to stay in FA next year, but they wouldn't be gambling any of their top 4 most valuable future assets to do so.  They would also be a team coming off either a very competitive ECF berth or a Finals berth with potentially 2 top-5 draft picks coming to bolster the depth and talent.  They would have the opportunity to offer the most money.  I believe that would be hard for George to walk away from.

Updated thoughts:
I am not disappointed with Ainge's offseason all told.  Getting Hayward was huge, and I'm very high on Tatum.  However, I think the Nets pick was a huge loss.  Either to use it on another young stud or as a centerpiece for another deal.  I would rather have the roster above with Paul George added to IT, Horford, Hayward, Brown, Tatum, and 2 top future picks (BRK and LAL/SAC).  Smart, Bradley, Crowder, and a late 1st is a way better deal than Indy got from OKC.

[jambr380]

Re: nebist

I like the idea of having all four guys under contract for next year and it would give us a great opportunity to really compete against the Warriors.

The major problem in the plan was there was no guarantee at Hayward at that point in time. Sure, the team might have looked even more appealing to him than it did at the time of his decision, but we just had no way in knowing.

Without Hayward, trading away Smart, AB, and Crowder would have been a huge net loss. Fast forward to next off-season and if George really does leave for LAL and Ainge can't get himself to give IT the max (after being injured) and we are left with Horford and a bunch of youngsters.

I realize I am presenting the worst case scenario, but without that guarantee that Hayward was signing, I can see why Ainge was trigger-shy on the George deal. If George could have been had after signing Hayward, I believe that would have been his top option.

But I don't think we can complain now, we have opened the window up for this team for several additional years and acquired an all-star with plenty of room to grow. Also, thank goodness Ainge acquired an additional high level lotto pick to help make up for the one he lost in this deal.

[td450]

I feel that many are criticizing the move without providing a better path forward. Was the status quo (letting IT walk after this year and drafting with BKN's pick) better than this? Danny wasn't going to pay IT what he wanted- I think this is obvious at this point.

In my eyes, Danny consolidated and improved the roster, opening up more room to add valuable role players down the road. I think that Danny realized this team had gone as far as they could, and needed to shake it up to get to the next level.

I certainly think this is more important than trying to bring back a similar team next year.

Why is it obvious? Danny would've paid IT if it came to it. What we can say is he clearly had reservations about it and when an opportunity to improve came along he did it. That's all. If the Irving trade hadn't happened we may have found another one that worked or we may have stayed the course on the original path of re-signing IT and waiting out GS.

It is obvious because 2017 Isaiah and 2017 Kyrie were roughly comparable players. You could even make the argument that Isaiah was better.

The evidence is that we also gave up the Brooklyn pick, Crowder and Zizic. You can infer that Danny saw the future differential between the two players across the next contract as worth that much value. If Danny saw the futures of these two players diverging by that much value, we can clearly see that Isaiah couldn't possibly be worth signing.

You certainly can make that argument. You can also say with certainty that Irving has more presence in the playoffs, given his Finals performances over the last few years.

We gave up those extra pieces because Ainge believes that Irving is an upgrade, if fans don't agree that is fine but it is true nonetheless.

Your logic doesn't follow. Upgrading to Irving and not re-signing Isaiah in the event of no trade does not follow. Without a trade Danny isn't going to just let IT walk and let the team regress for a few years. What we can say is he wanted to take the opportunity to upgrade the roster where he could to better fit the timeline of the players on the roster.

Come on. You aren't arguing that Kyrie is so much better than IT was last year that it justified the Brooklyn pick, Crowder and Zizc to balance off the deal, are you? If IT had the exact same contract as Kyrie does now, this deal would never have happened.

Saying that Ainge decided he wasn't going to pay IT isn't the same thing as saying he would let him walk. He would have made another deal. The quality of the assets he used prove that.

[green_bballers13]

I feel that many are criticizing the move without providing a better path forward. Was the status quo (letting IT walk after this year and drafting with BKN's pick) better than this? Danny wasn't going to pay IT what he wanted- I think this is obvious at this point.

In my eyes, Danny consolidated and improved the roster, opening up more room to add valuable role players down the road. I think that Danny realized this team had gone as far as they could, and needed to shake it up to get to the next level.

I certainly think this is more important than trying to bring back a similar team next year.

Why is it obvious? Danny would've paid IT if it came to it. What we can say is he clearly had reservations about it and when an opportunity to improve came along he did it. That's all. If the Irving trade hadn't happened we may have found another one that worked or we may have stayed the course on the original path of re-signing IT and waiting out GS.

Danny just paid full price for a player that is not remarkably different than the PG that he had on the team. Why give up BKN 18 if Danny wanted to resign IT?

[green_bballers13]

Draft Markelle Fultz.

Maybe Fultz's brand has been besmirched since the draft, but I didn't want much to do with Fultz at the time, and I'm much happier with Kyrie.

I have an issue with drafting a player #1 who did not have an effect on winning in college. How is it that he was going to help an NBA team make it to the next level if he couldn't help his Washington team even become mediocre? A #1 pick should be able to single handedly win basketball games, at least here or there. The Huskies went 9-22 after starting 5-1 against scrubs (including a loss to Yale!).

I'm not saying that he won't become a good player- I'm just saying that it was a risky pick for #1, and I'm not sure that Fultz's potential will be better than IT or Kyrie's.