Ainge On Trading 2018 Nets Pick: "Owed It To Horford And Hayward"

[A Future of Stevens]

I think I read on CB just in the last couple days that the Celtics talent evaluators, as a whole, believe that the BKN pick will end up somewhere in the 5-9 range, which is one of the main reasons Danny was okay with trading the pick. If it indeed ends up in that range, the odds of landing a cornerstone go way down. So, I think Danny's final thinking regarding the IT-Kyrie trade can be summarized in the following equation:

Lower BKN pick + IT's hip + IT's age + IT's Brinks talk = better get Kyrie while the getting's good

Which is fine, but what purpose does this comment serve?

Seriously? If you're taking Ainge at face value then you don't know him at all.

Some of us know him better than others?  He's a great GM and a tool.  Is that a reach?

I have a love hate relationship with Ainge. I love that he will literally do anything to make this team compete for the next title. I hate that he will literally do anything to make this team compete for its next title.

You can tell he puts the Celtics above any particular individual. This is honestly how it should be, but man Danny is a cold man.

[Roy H.]

IT + Crowder + Zizic + BRK pick would have been better for Hayward and Horford. Heck, trading Tatum or Brown would probably be better for Horford and Hayward.

Danny is just talking out of both sides of his mouth. First it was that Kyrie fit our timeline better, with Tatum, Brown, etc. Now it's because Danny "owed it" to Horford and Hayward (two players IT recruited).

[pearljammer10]

However you look at it, from a basketball stand point it was the right deal to make.

[TheReaLPuba]

However you look at it, from a basketball stand point it was the right deal to make.

I don't think so.

The right basketball move to make was to trade our assets for Paul George or Jimmy Butler and then sign Hayward.

Then you're looking at IT, Hayward, Butler/George, and Horford and still a high draft pick in '19 and maybe one chip in Brown or Tatum.

That's a real contending team in the present with an eye on the future as well.

[JBcat]

However you look at it, from a basketball stand point it was the right deal to make.

I don't think so.

The right basketball move to make was to trade our assets for Paul George or Jimmy Butler and then sign Hayward.

Then you're looking at IT, Hayward, Butler/George, and Horford and still a high draft pick in '19 and maybe one chip in Brown or Tatum.

That's a real contending team in the present with an eye on the future as well.

I believe for salary cap reasons your scenario wasn't feasible.  We had to clear cap space by renouncing FAs and the Bradley trade in order to sign Hayward first.  By that time both players were already gone.

It seemed like it was going to be difficult to trade for one of those guys first then sign Hayward to a max deal.

[Roy H.]

However you look at it, from a basketball stand point it was the right deal to make.

I don't think so.

The right basketball move to make was to trade our assets for Paul George or Jimmy Butler and then sign Hayward.

Then you're looking at IT, Hayward, Butler/George, and Horford and still a high draft pick in '19 and maybe one chip in Brown or Tatum.

That's a real contending team in the present with an eye on the future as well.

I believe for salary cap reasons your scenario wasn't feasible.  We had to clear cap space by renouncing FAs and the Bradley trade in order to sign Hayward first.  By that time both players were already gone.

It seemed like it was going to be difficult to trade for one of those guys first then sign Hayward to a max deal.

If Danny had given Indy a firm yes, they would have waited until after the July moratorium to complete the trade (just like they did with OKC).

[Smartacus]

However you look at it, from a basketball stand point it was the right deal to make.

I don't think so.

The right basketball move to make was to trade our assets for Paul George or Jimmy Butler and then sign Hayward.

Then you're looking at IT, Hayward, Butler/George, and Horford and still a high draft pick in '19 and maybe one chip in Brown or Tatum.

That's a real contending team in the present with an eye on the future as well.

Paul George was on a 1 year deal and had given all indications he was heading to LA. Even if he re-signed in OKC it doesn't mean he would have re-signed here. We could very easy be stuck in the same spot as we are now but watching Jaylen catch oops in Indiana.

We can only go by rumors but the belief is that somewhere between Danny, Brad, and Gordon it was decided that Butler was a bad fit with Hayward. It probably also didn't help that Butler was calling out his former coach in the media last year for being too soft spoken. Stevens has always been a Hoiberg supporter so I can't imagine Butler's tactless rant did much for the Butler to Boston crowd.

[The Oracle]

IT + Crowder + Zizic + BRK pick would have been better for Hayward and Horford. Heck, trading Tatum or Brown would probably be better for Horford and Hayward.

Danny is just talking out of both sides of his mouth. First it was that Kyrie fit our timeline better, with Tatum, Brown, etc. Now it's because Danny "owed it" to Horford and Hayward (two players IT recruited).

Just out of curiosity and an obvious difference in opinion, I would really like to see you conduct this exercise.  Below is how I would rate each piece involved in the Kyrie trade as a percentage of Kyrie in value.

2018 Brooklyn pick:  It has been reported that the C's best estimation is that this pick will fall between 5-9, myself a month or so ago said the pick is most likely to fall between 4-8.  I would require at minimum 2 such picks and reasonable matching salary for a player like Kyrie.  Value generously set at 50% of Kyrie.

I.T.:  An injured I.T., that is 3 years older, on a one year contract, with an expectation of him returning in January with somewhat diminished skills would garner no more than 25% of Kyrie.  Value 25%.

Crowder:  I wouldn't trade Kyrie for 4 Crowders.  Maybe again 25% value.

Zizic:  Is worth nothing in my book as his player archetype is struggling mightily to even find a niche in today's NBA.  Throw out 10% as a value even though he is likely not worth that.

50% + 25% + 25% + 10% = 110% and the Celtics are far and away getting the best player in the deal.  I take that deal all day everyday.

[tonydelk]

I'm not sure what Ainge meant by this but I understand why IT was traded.  Out for half the year.  He may not be the same player ever again depending on when his hip fully heals.  If he was signed for 2 more years I doubt the trade goes down.  But factor in his injury and FA status it makes more sense to have Kyrie versus IT.  Business decision because if it was personal no way Jae, AB or IT get traded.  They are all true Celtics. 

Trading for Kyrie was a good move.  You traded a 30 yr old PG coming off of a career year and a huge injury for a 25yr old champion.  I love IT but Kyrie is the better player.  It's not a huge margin but it is significant enough to make the move.  I hope IT comes back better then ever but there is a chance that he is never the same player again.  I hope I'm wrong because IT is a special player and deserves to get paid and be a champion.  As much as I dislike LBJ if they beat the C's I will root for IT and Jae over any West team.  I just hope the are at home watching the C's face off against the Warriors.

[Roy H.]

IT + Crowder + Zizic + BRK pick would have been better for Hayward and Horford. Heck, trading Tatum or Brown would probably be better for Horford and Hayward.

Danny is just talking out of both sides of his mouth. First it was that Kyrie fit our timeline better, with Tatum, Brown, etc. Now it's because Danny "owed it" to Horford and Hayward (two players IT recruited).

Just out of curiosity and an obvious difference in opinion, I would really like to see you conduct this exercise.  Below is how I would rate each piece involved in the Kyrie trade as a percentage of Kyrie in value.

2018 Brooklyn pick:  It has been reported that the C's best estimation is that this pick will fall between 5-9, myself a month or so ago said the pick is most likely to fall between 4-8.  I would require at minimum 2 such picks and reasonable matching salary for a player like Kyrie.  Value generously set at 50% of Kyrie.

I.T.:  An injured I.T., that is 3 years older, on a one year contract, with an expectation of him returning in January with somewhat diminished skills would garner no more than 25% of Kyrie.  Value 25%.

Crowder:  I wouldn't trade Kyrie for 4 Crowders.  Maybe again 25% value.

Zizic:  Is worth nothing in my book as his player archetype is struggling mightily to even find a niche in today's NBA.  Throw out 10% as a value even though he is likely not worth that.

50% + 25% + 25% + 10% = 110% and the Celtics are far and away getting the best player in the deal.  I take that deal all day everyday.

Of course you would, because you're starting from a position of justifying a Kyrie trade.

[celticinorlando]

Some people just can't enjoy the ride. The season has not even started and people are already complaining.

[slamtheking]

IT + Crowder + Zizic + BRK pick would have been better for Hayward and Horford. Heck, trading Tatum or Brown would probably be better for Horford and Hayward.

Danny is just talking out of both sides of his mouth. First it was that Kyrie fit our timeline better, with Tatum, Brown, etc. Now it's because Danny "owed it" to Horford and Hayward (two players IT recruited).

Provided IT returned early in the season and played close to the level he was at last year, this would be a fair assessment.  that's certainly a big IF at this point though.  I think keeping those players would have provided better team depth for the coming season.  roster depth went from a strength last year to a point of concern this year.

I have no issue trading IT for Kyrie -->  Kyrie's better.  my personal grievance with the trade is that I feel we gave up too much -- IT injury or not.  if Danny had at least put some protections on that pick I'd probably feel better about it.  Something like offering the lesser of the Brooklyn or Laker pick (provided it conveyed which means Cleveland would get at least a top 5 pick) or if giving the Brooklyn pick, protect it if #1 and offer up the Laker pick in it's place.  I have a bad feeling the Brooklyn pick will be top 5 and the Laker pick may not convey (this used to be a good feeling until we traded away the pick).

[Moranis]

confirms what I've been saying for the last two seasons. 

[The Oracle]

IT + Crowder + Zizic + BRK pick would have been better for Hayward and Horford. Heck, trading Tatum or Brown would probably be better for Horford and Hayward.

Danny is just talking out of both sides of his mouth. First it was that Kyrie fit our timeline better, with Tatum, Brown, etc. Now it's because Danny "owed it" to Horford and Hayward (two players IT recruited).

Just out of curiosity and an obvious difference in opinion, I would really like to see you conduct this exercise.  Below is how I would rate each piece involved in the Kyrie trade as a percentage of Kyrie in value.

2018 Brooklyn pick:  It has been reported that the C's best estimation is that this pick will fall between 5-9, myself a month or so ago said the pick is most likely to fall between 4-8.  I would require at minimum 2 such picks and reasonable matching salary for a player like Kyrie.  Value generously set at 50% of Kyrie.

I.T.:  An injured I.T., that is 3 years older, on a one year contract, with an expectation of him returning in January with somewhat diminished skills would garner no more than 25% of Kyrie.  Value 25%.

Crowder:  I wouldn't trade Kyrie for 4 Crowders.  Maybe again 25% value.

Zizic:  Is worth nothing in my book as his player archetype is struggling mightily to even find a niche in today's NBA.  Throw out 10% as a value even though he is likely not worth that.

50% + 25% + 25% + 10% = 110% and the Celtics are far and away getting the best player in the deal.  I take that deal all day everyday.

Of course you would, because you're starting from a position of justifying a Kyrie trade.

Well that is simply not true, that is exactly how I would value them and I have liked the trade from the jump as initially reported.  I never wanted any part of resigning I.T. on some monster deal, let alone as a huge injury risk going forward.  I had hopes for Zizic being something more than he is but he is clearly not.  Crowder I like but is easily replaceable and the C's likely already have given a little time.  The Brooklyn pick is being highly overvalued by most considering the number of tanking teams and the sheer strength of the upper half of the western conference.  As I said all day everyday.

Forgot the Miami 2020 2nd round pick so add 1% and make it 111%.

[TheSundanceKid]

Seriously? If you're taking Ainge at face value then you don't know him at all.

Some of us know him better than others?  He's a great GM and a tool.  Is that a reach?

What I mean is if you have listened to Ainge over the entirety of his GM career he rarely says what he actually means. He covers all his bases in interviews, never really settling on one reason for an action. He's also always extremely positive about outgoing players and picks, talking them up as if he needs to justify why another team took them for our return. It's classic Danny.

He's also very good at not saying certain things. For example he does not say anything about the Lakers pick, in fact in a conversation where it's existence basically allowed him to trade the Nets pick not mentioning it is telling. The inference is there that whilst we no longer have the Nets pick to grab a big man and that's a huge loss... we have this other pick that people might remember that...oh wait...can't that help us grab the same guys?