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

[Roy H.]

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.

[Roy H.]

I split this from the "defense" thread. What would you have done differently this off-season, if anything.

[kne]

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.

[jpotter33]

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.

I wonder how much IT's hip played into the timing of this, too. There was a noticeable shift in the optimism surrounding IT's hip right before the trade, so I'm guessing they saw the less than ideal prognosis of IT's hip and decided to cash in some of their chips on Kyrie while they had the chance.

I think we need to keep that in mind when considering alternative scenarios.

But yeah, I would've loved to see a Kyrie/AB backcourt, too.

[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.

[JBcat]

I'll be honest initially I was on board with giving IT a max for say 4 years, but the hip, his age, combined with his style of play gave me great pause.

So if we weren't paying IT the max we couldn't have done any better getting a younger replacement that you may be more comfortable paying (despite Irving's faults). However I would have liked at the very least a top 1 protection on the Nets pick.  With all these trades these days having all sorts of protections on picks that's my only gripe. Who knows though how those negotiations went.  That could potentially come back to haunt us.

For all the Zizic love he was getting on this board last year stating in a redraft he could have been a top 10 pick I would have liked to hold on to him as well.  We don't have a center prospect now which is disappointing.  Maybe he won't turn into much at all but he was putting up similar stats as Jokic in the same league.

I wish we could have squeezed an asset out of letting Kelly go.  He is still a valuable big despite his imperfections.  I realize we had to trade Bradley in order to sign Hayward. I was lukewarm on that trade for Morris but starting to come around.

Other than that I'm pretty happy with the off-season.

[No Nickname]

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's going to be high drama watching the negotiations play out (albeit via unconfirmed media reports) with IT and Cleveland next summer.

Obviously a lot will have to do with his health and performance this year.  And whether LeBron leaves or not.  But let's say Lebron leaves and Cleveland wants to keep IT.  And he came back healthy by December and averaged 24/3/6 in 28mpg. 

What would be Cleveland's max offer?  4yrs/$100M?  Or sign-and-trade him to a psuedo-contender like the Clippers or Denver or Milwaukee?

[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

[greece66]

To my mind the greatest what if is Paul George.

[Csfan1984]

I would have kept Fultz. I would h then traded IT on draft night. Probably lost out on Hayward with that  move as well as Irving. Probably extend AB.

Fultz, AB, Crowder, Horford, and Baynes isn't bad and still have Nets pick.

[Donoghus]

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

[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's going to be high drama watching the negotiations play out (albeit via unconfirmed media reports) with IT and Cleveland next summer.

Obviously a lot will have to do with his health and performance this year.  And whether LeBron leaves or not.  But let's say Lebron leaves and Cleveland wants to keep IT.  And he came back healthy by December and averaged 24/3/6 in 28mpg. 

What would be Cleveland's max offer?  4yrs/$100M?  Or sign-and-trade him to a psuedo-contender like the Clippers or Denver or Milwaukee?

I don't think they'd offer him the 5 year max but I think they would do the 4 year max if they decided against a full rebuild. Should they decide for a full rebuild then I don't think there will be negotiations, unless is it for a s&t.

[hpantazo]

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.

[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.

Maybe you are right. Another plausible explanation is that Ainge was planning to make an offer but only after he got Hayward.

[Moranis]

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.