Tell us how you really feel - Kyrie Sucks, Hayward Sucks, Trade was a Mistake

[GreenWarrior]

 ::)this fan base is hysterically scary and put no thought into their blind hatred when their beloved overrated players get traded.

it's funny how when we had this roster that was limited in the talent dept. but high in the hustle n' heart dept. all these blind hysterical "fans" were quick to point out - "but we have brad stevens the best coach next to popavich".

but now that we have a much more talented roster(anyone arguing that should just not bother commenting) no one's mentioning "but we have brad stevens the best coach next to popavich".

so is brad all of a sudden a bad coach or are we just not acknowledging the improved overall talent?

 

[Quetzalcoatl]

It's like 5 posters out of 200.  People are screen shotting them.

I'm ok for tempered expectations, but that's different

[nickagneta]

I haven't seen a ton of posters saying they hate the trade and bad,mouthing KI and saying they hate Irving. I have only seen a few posters, one in particular, that has been stating they hated the trade and has been disparaging Irving over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again.

It's more criticizing than disparaging, and none of it is unfair.

If you criticized him for a week, even a lot, I would agree its criticism. Doing it virtually non stop since the trade, in my book that's disparaging and disparaging is never fair

[Roy H.]

I haven't seen a ton of posters saying they hate the trade and bad,mouthing KI and saying they hate Irving. I have only seen a few posters, one in particular, that has been stating they hated the trade and has been disparaging Irving over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again.

It's more criticizing than disparaging, and none of it is unfair.

If you criticized him for a week, even a lot, I would agree its criticism. Doing it virtually non stop since the trade, in my book that's disparaging and disparaging is never fair

So there's a time limit on fair criticism?

Is there a similar limit on the number of times somebody can praise Kyrie or Danny?

[nickagneta]

I haven't seen a ton of posters saying they hate the trade and bad,mouthing KI and saying they hate Irving. I have only seen a few posters, one in particular, that has been stating they hated the trade and has been disparaging Irving over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again.

It's more criticizing than disparaging, and none of it is unfair.

If you criticized him for a week, even a lot, I would agree its criticism. Doing it virtually non stop since the trade, in my book that's disparaging and disparaging is never fair

So there's a time limit on fair criticism?

Is there a similar limit on the number of times somebody can praise Kyrie or Danny?

Of course you know the praise line is a straw man meant to divert the discussion. Also, fair is your word and not fact. Kyrie asked to be traded, that's his perogative as an NBA professional. Cleveland decided to grant him his request. They didn't have to. Everything else you have been saying regarding his brand, his me first attitude, his alpha over team is just you reading what you want into the situation. Its not fair criticism, its just criticism. And as I said, criticism ad nauseum is disparaging.

[Roy H.]

I haven't seen a ton of posters saying they hate the trade and bad,mouthing KI and saying they hate Irving. I have only seen a few posters, one in particular, that has been stating they hated the trade and has been disparaging Irving over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again.

It's more criticizing than disparaging, and none of it is unfair.

If you criticized him for a week, even a lot, I would agree its criticism. Doing it virtually non stop since the trade, in my book that's disparaging and disparaging is never fair

So there's a time limit on fair criticism?

Is there a similar limit on the number of times somebody can praise Kyrie or Danny?

Of course you know the praise line is a straw man meant to divert the discussion. Also, fair is your word and not fact. Kyrie asked to be traded, that's his perogative as an NBA professional. Cleveland decided to grant him his request. They didn't have to. Everything else you have been saying regarding his brand, his me first attitude, his alpha over team is just you reading what you want into the situation. Its not fair criticism, its just criticism. And as I said, criticism ad nauseum is disparaging.

Rejecting legitimate criticism while turning a blind eye to praise that has little basis in fact is nothing more than an unprincipled value judgment. The insistence that there be silence from those that disagree would fit well on a modern college campus, but not so much on CelticsBlog.

[mmmmm]

Unfortunately, the title of this thread conflates three separate things and creates a giant straw man.

Kyrie does not suck.  He's a super-talented scoring guard.

Hayward does not suck.  He's a super-talented all-around wing.

The trade may or may not suck.   There are a lot of variables that have to play out before we'll know.  Here are the basic possible outcomes:

Negative a) The trade will suck if Kyrie simply doesn't work out for whatever reason (injury, bad chemistry, whatever).

Negative b) The trade will suck if Kyrie is no better than he already has been and any of the following happen:
 - Isaiah returns to close to full form and helps 'Bron get back to the Finals.  'Goes on to play at a high level for the next few seasons.
 - The BKN18 pick turns into a super-stud (via draft or trade).
 - Zizic turns into a stud (less likely but possible).


Positive a) The trade will win if Kyrie is no better than he already is but all of the following happen:
 - Isaiah never returns close to full form.  Or he does, but then fades quickly.
 - The BKN18 pick doesn't turn into anything special.
 - Zizic doesn't turn into anything special.

Positive b) The trade will win if Kyrie elevates his game to a new level above what he has played at so far.

In short:

It is definitely possible to think both Kyrie and Hayward (who had nothing to do with the trade) are great players (who don't suck) and still think the trade was a super-risky overpay (i.e., a "bad trade").  It all depends on how you feel about the probabilities of all the different outcomes.

[RJ87]

I haven't seen a ton of posters saying they hate the trade and bad,mouthing KI and saying they hate Irving. I have only seen a few posters, one in particular, that has been stating they hated the trade and has been disparaging Irving over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again.

It's more criticizing than disparaging, and none of it is unfair.

If you criticized him for a week, even a lot, I would agree its criticism. Doing it virtually non stop since the trade, in my book that's disparaging and disparaging is never fair

So there's a time limit on fair criticism?

Is there a similar limit on the number of times somebody can praise Kyrie or Danny?

Of course you know the praise line is a straw man meant to divert the discussion. Also, fair is your word and not fact. Kyrie asked to be traded, that's his perogative as an NBA professional. Cleveland decided to grant him his request. They didn't have to. Everything else you have been saying regarding his brand, his me first attitude, his alpha over team is just you reading what you want into the situation. Its not fair criticism, its just criticism. And as I said, criticism ad nauseum is disparaging.

Rejecting legitimate criticism while turning a blind eye to praise that has little basis in fact is nothing more than an unprincipled value judgment. The insistence that there be silence from those that disagree would fit well on a modern college campus, but not so much on CelticsBlog.

Questioning his defense, fit in the offense = legitimate criticism.

Questioning his priorities, intentions = disparaging.

You can criticize his game without attacking his character. The faulty, circular logic of "I don't like him because he has questionable priorities and reasons for leaving Cleveland which I have no actual insight into except for my own conjecture" is probably be better suited for that modem college campus you speak of.

[max215]

The Kyrie trade was a disaster, but I've got nothing but good things to say about our best player, Gordon Hayward.

[rondofan1255]

Kyrie and Hayward are stars. Trade was acceptable given the circumstances.

[Alleyoopster]

Negative Thoughts:

I think listening to Kyrie Irving talk is terrible.

I think that this trade basically resets one of the strongest locker rooms in the league.

I think that I've spent years disliking Kyrie and lamenting his weaknesses relative to other 'elite scoring' point guards, chief among them his historically bad defense and standoffish personality.

I think that follows him here and Marcus Smart is going to have to be one heck of a leader next season, because he'll ALSO have to work around Kyrie's ego.

I think this trade fundamentally changes perception about the Celtics. We can bounce back, but right now stable we ain't.

I think this cements DAIAS*.

I think that the Nets pick HAD to have top-2 protection for anyone besides Anthony Davis. Just inexcusable.
__________________________________________

Positive Thoughts:

I think that Isaiah Thomas's injury is career altering and I know I would not want Danny paying him next season.

I think Jae Crowder was going to be a real problem in the locker room after signing Hayward and drafting Tatum.

I think that Kyrie has the potential to be more than he already is.

I think that BS is gonna find a way.

___________________________________________

*Danny Ainge Is A Snake: Can't trust him. He will do whatever is good for the team, including (insert hyperbolic scenario). But, he's our snake and he never sleeps.

I think this sort of personality-contest thinking needs to stop. He's not auditioning for a game show or a spot on the Bachelor show. He's here to play basketball. We've had a lot of odd personalities in this town and in sports in general. Some have played incredibly well and only the most fool hardy would have shipped them out of town because of their personalities. A few examples come to mind; Roger Clemens, Tony Allen, Rajon Rondo, Delonte West....? If we want to go League wide...who wouldn't want LeBron because of his personality? Only those who enjoy losing....

[tarheelsxxiii]

I haven't seen a ton of posters saying they hate the trade and bad,mouthing KI and saying they hate Irving. I have only seen a few posters, one in particular, that has been stating they hated the trade and has been disparaging Irving over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again.

It's more criticizing than disparaging, and none of it is unfair.

If you criticized him for a week, even a lot, I would agree its criticism. Doing it virtually non stop since the trade, in my book that's disparaging and disparaging is never fair

So there's a time limit on fair criticism?

Is there a similar limit on the number of times somebody can praise Kyrie or Danny?

Of course you know the praise line is a straw man meant to divert the discussion. Also, fair is your word and not fact. Kyrie asked to be traded, that's his perogative as an NBA professional. Cleveland decided to grant him his request. They didn't have to. Everything else you have been saying regarding his brand, his me first attitude, his alpha over team is just you reading what you want into the situation. Its not fair criticism, its just criticism. And as I said, criticism ad nauseum is disparaging.

Rejecting legitimate criticism while turning a blind eye to praise that has little basis in fact is nothing more than an unprincipled value judgment. The insistence that there be silence from those that disagree would fit well on a modern college campus, but not so much on CelticsBlog.

Questioning his defense, fit in the offense = legitimate criticism.

Questioning his priorities, intentions = disparaging.

You can criticize his game without attacking his character. The faulty, circular logic of "I don't like him because he has questionable priorities and reasons for leaving Cleveland which I have no actual insight into except for my own conjecture" is probably be better suited for that modem college campus you speak of.

Those on the modern college campus would probably be offended by you, and likely CelticsBlog at large. 

It's okay to criticize things that aren't necessarily quantifiable.  A lot of what occurs in the world doesn't shift over that well to an Excel or SPSS file. 

There's plenty of reason to question Kyrie's character.  And if you aren't coming off several years of strongly disliking the guy, I don't know what to tell you. 

We had a Cinderella story here that many came to deeply appreciate.  In terms of the "Boston sports fan" effect, Kyrie could not have come at a worse time for those of us who value hard hats and winning more often than a team should. 

[rocknrollforyoursoul]

I haven't seen a ton of posters saying they hate the trade and bad,mouthing KI and saying they hate Irving. I have only seen a few posters, one in particular, that has been stating they hated the trade and has been disparaging Irving over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again.

It's more criticizing than disparaging, and none of it is unfair.

If you criticized him for a week, even a lot, I would agree its criticism. Doing it virtually non stop since the trade, in my book that's disparaging and disparaging is never fair

So there's a time limit on fair criticism?

Is there a similar limit on the number of times somebody can praise Kyrie or Danny?

Of course you know the praise line is a straw man meant to divert the discussion. Also, fair is your word and not fact. Kyrie asked to be traded, that's his perogative as an NBA professional. Cleveland decided to grant him his request. They didn't have to. Everything else you have been saying regarding his brand, his me first attitude, his alpha over team is just you reading what you want into the situation. Its not fair criticism, its just criticism. And as I said, criticism ad nauseum is disparaging.

Rejecting legitimate criticism while turning a blind eye to praise that has little basis in fact is nothing more than an unprincipled value judgment. The insistence that there be silence from those that disagree would fit well on a modern college campus, but not so much on CelticsBlog.

Questioning his defense, fit in the offense = legitimate criticism.

Questioning his priorities, intentions = disparaging.

You can criticize his game without attacking his character. The faulty, circular logic of "I don't like him because he has questionable priorities and reasons for leaving Cleveland which I have no actual insight into except for my own conjecture" is probably be better suited for that modem college campus you speak of.

Those on the modern college campus would probably be offended by you, and likely CelticsBlog at large. 

It's okay to criticize things that aren't necessarily quantifiable.  A lot of what occurs in the world doesn't shift over that well to an Excel or SPSS file. 

There's plenty of reason to question Kyrie's character.  And if you aren't coming off several years of strongly disliking the guy, I don't know what to tell you. 

We had a Cinderella story here that many came to deeply appreciate.  In terms of the "Boston sports fan" effect, Kyrie could not have come at a worse time for those of us who value hard hats and winning more often than a team should.

Honest question: How long could that Cinderella story have gone on? None of us can know, of course, but IT's injury and recovery probably would've had a lot to do with it, one way or the other. If he's never the same, the glass slipper would've come off pretty quickly, I think, and it would've been too late to trade him, since he'd be damaged goods. I guess only time will tell.

I think Crowder needed to be moved, even if the IT-Irving trade didn't happen; he was showing signs of becoming a malcontent even before Hayward and Tatum showed up.

[RJ87]

I haven't seen a ton of posters saying they hate the trade and bad,mouthing KI and saying they hate Irving. I have only seen a few posters, one in particular, that has been stating they hated the trade and has been disparaging Irving over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again.

It's more criticizing than disparaging, and none of it is unfair.

If you criticized him for a week, even a lot, I would agree its criticism. Doing it virtually non stop since the trade, in my book that's disparaging and disparaging is never fair

So there's a time limit on fair criticism?

Is there a similar limit on the number of times somebody can praise Kyrie or Danny?

Of course you know the praise line is a straw man meant to divert the discussion. Also, fair is your word and not fact. Kyrie asked to be traded, that's his perogative as an NBA professional. Cleveland decided to grant him his request. They didn't have to. Everything else you have been saying regarding his brand, his me first attitude, his alpha over team is just you reading what you want into the situation. Its not fair criticism, its just criticism. And as I said, criticism ad nauseum is disparaging.

Rejecting legitimate criticism while turning a blind eye to praise that has little basis in fact is nothing more than an unprincipled value judgment. The insistence that there be silence from those that disagree would fit well on a modern college campus, but not so much on CelticsBlog.

Questioning his defense, fit in the offense = legitimate criticism.

Questioning his priorities, intentions = disparaging.

You can criticize his game without attacking his character. The faulty, circular logic of "I don't like him because he has questionable priorities and reasons for leaving Cleveland which I have no actual insight into except for my own conjecture" is probably be better suited for that modem college campus you speak of.

Those on the modern college campus would probably be offended by you, and likely CelticsBlog at large. 

It's okay to criticize things that aren't necessarily quantifiable.  A lot of what occurs in the world doesn't shift over that well to an Excel or SPSS file. 

There's plenty of reason to question Kyrie's character. And if you aren't coming off several years of strongly disliking the guy, I don't know what to tell you. 

We had a Cinderella story here that many came to deeply appreciate.  In terms of the "Boston sports fan" effect, Kyrie could not have come at a worse time for those of us who value hard hats and winning more often than a team should.

How can you question the character of someone you don't know? That's like me saying "oh, this guy is posting on CelticsBlog instead of working or spending time with his family. Clearly, he's a lazy employee and a negligent family member." That's ridiculous.

I have no issue with criticism of the trade or Kyrie as a player. Personally, I'm a fan of the trade. I think it raises the ceiling of this team considerably. Does that mean I don't appreciate and respect what IT did for this team while he was here? No. Does that mean I don't see potential downsides? Again, no. And maybe that's the biggest difference in the tone of some of the posts: I love this trade, but I can see how it may not work, whereas it seems others are close minded and give the impression they want it to fail so that they're proven right.

[slightly biased bias fan]

The Kyrie trade was a disaster, but I've got nothing but good things to say about our best player, Gordon Hayward.

Zach Lowe already talked about this on a podcast and he is the most neutral guy in the biz along with Woj, if we didn't trade for Irving who do you trade for? Irving is a top 10-20 guy and the other guys in front of him aren't available. Also everyone he's talked to says Thomas was the secondary assent not the pick, Johnny Flynn had the same hip injury that Thomas had and his career was done after that and I.T was an expiring contract we may have lost him for nothing. Who would you have run the point? A injured rookie in Fultz? The ownership wanted to compete now and you don't get a player like Hayward with a rookie point guard. Irving is a larger more talented version of I.T who's younger, he will fit in this offence like a glove.