There's a piece on The Ringer about it that says trading Hayward wouldn't be as bad as the IT trade. I think this is ridiculous.
IT gave Boston everything it ever could've asked of him and more but the Celtics don't owe him anything. As Don Draper would say, That's what the money is for. The Celtics didn't ask IT to come here or make him any promises. They acquired him in a trade and it was the luckiest thing that could've happened to the kid.
Hayward is different. Hayward chose to leave his home with the understanding that Boston was going to help him compete for championships with his old coach. Trading him away now would actually be dishonest and slimy in a way that I never thought the IT trade was.
The difference is, IT was begging for the brinks truck and that was the icing to the cake to shipping him out.
Maybe. But I think even if he had never made the comments, the trade still happens because Irving was the better player to have on the team going forward and the Celtics never promised him anything.
1957, 1959, 1960, 1961, 1962, 1963, 1964, 1965, 1966, 1968, 1969, 1974, 1976, 1981, 1984, 1986, 2008, 2019