Trade Irving for the sake of the team

[mctyson]

No sure about anyone else but I’m sure glad we haven’t traded Kyrie yet 

Lol. Glad this thread got revived

Fabulous game again and yet Boston was actually better again without him on the floor, just as they were in the Toronto game i.e. +4 in 36 minutes is worse than +2 in 12 minutes, just as +4 in 38 minutes is worse than +5 in 10 minutes.  This is where it is always tricky in these things and were many of the same arguments being made when IT4 was torching people, especially in the 4th quarter, yet the team often performed better in the only place it really matters when IT4 was on the bench.

Stop.  This.  Silliness.

[Roy H.]

No sure about anyone else but I’m sure glad we haven’t traded Kyrie yet 

Lol. Glad this thread got revived

Fabulous game again and yet Boston was actually better again without him on the floor, just as they were in the Toronto game i.e. +4 in 36 minutes is worse than +2 in 12 minutes, just as +4 in 38 minutes is worse than +5 in 10 minutes.  This is where it is always tricky in these things and were many of the same arguments being made when IT4 was torching people, especially in the 4th quarter, yet the team often performed better in the only place it really matters when IT4 was on the bench.

Yeah if you actually think we're winning tonight and against Toronto with Kyrie on the bench, then frankly I don't know what to tell you. Without Kyrie I honestly think we get blown out in both games the way they unfolded (yes, even tonight w/o Kyrie).

Yeah, I've got to say, at no point did I think "I wish Brad would bench Kyrie for Rozier" tonight.

[KGs Knee]

No sure about anyone else but I’m sure glad we haven’t traded Kyrie yet 

Lol. Glad this thread got revived

Fabulous game again and yet Boston was actually better again without him on the floor, just as they were in the Toronto game i.e. +4 in 36 minutes is worse than +2 in 12 minutes, just as +4 in 38 minutes is worse than +5 in 10 minutes.  This is where it is always tricky in these things and were many of the same arguments being made when IT4 was torching people, especially in the 4th quarter, yet the team often performed better in the only place it really matters when IT4 was on the bench.

Yeah, those 12 minutes without Kyrie against mostly bench players is obviously equal in difficulty to the 36 minutes Kyrie played against primarily starters. 

[smokeablount]

No sure about anyone else but I’m sure glad we haven’t traded Kyrie yet 

Lol. Glad this thread got revived

Fabulous game again and yet Boston was actually better again without him on the floor, just as they were in the Toronto game i.e. +4 in 36 minutes is worse than +2 in 12 minutes, just as +4 in 38 minutes is worse than +5 in 10 minutes.  This is where it is always tricky in these things and were many of the same arguments being made when IT4 was torching people, especially in the 4th quarter, yet the team often performed better in the only place it really matters when IT4 was on the bench.

Yeah if you actually think we're winning tonight and against Toronto with Kyrie on the bench, then frankly I don't know what to tell you. Without Kyrie I honestly think we get blown out (yes, even tonight w/o Kyrie).

It's really funny. Using stats from when our bench, which is loaded with starting calibre players, pick on Toronto's lineup without Anunoby and JV (not to mention Kawhi, Lowry and Ibaka) or abuse a lowly Memphis bench to somehow imply we're better without Kyrie is just hilarious. Some crazy context blinders being worn by Moranis

Moranis the Math Manipulator strikes again!

My God!

[Moranis]

No sure about anyone else but I’m sure glad we haven’t traded Kyrie yet 

Lol. Glad this thread got revived

Fabulous game again and yet Boston was actually better again without him on the floor, just as they were in the Toronto game i.e. +4 in 36 minutes is worse than +2 in 12 minutes, just as +4 in 38 minutes is worse than +5 in 10 minutes.  This is where it is always tricky in these things and were many of the same arguments being made when IT4 was torching people, especially in the 4th quarter, yet the team often performed better in the only place it really matters when IT4 was on the bench.

Yeah if you actually think we're winning tonight and against Toronto with Kyrie on the bench, then frankly I don't know what to tell you. Without Kyrie I honestly think we get blown out in both games the way they unfolded (yes, even tonight w/o Kyrie).

Who knows?  Do you think Tatum is missing every FG attempt and only scoring 2 points if Irving doesn't play?  Maybe Tatum gets into a better flow and has a great game without Irving dominating the ball and the Celtics do just fine.  And again, it isn't just having Irving not play, it is about getting assets for him while allowing everyone else to play more in flow without him improving the team both that way and with those assets.  The team also avoids paying Irving 38 million year when he misses 1 in every 5 regular season games and significant (or all) games in 2 of 4 post-seasons, which will likely only get worse as he adds wear and tear, age, etc. to that brittle body of his. 

[gouki88]

No sure about anyone else but I’m sure glad we haven’t traded Kyrie yet 

Lol. Glad this thread got revived

Fabulous game again and yet Boston was actually better again without him on the floor, just as they were in the Toronto game i.e. +4 in 36 minutes is worse than +2 in 12 minutes, just as +4 in 38 minutes is worse than +5 in 10 minutes.  This is where it is always tricky in these things and were many of the same arguments being made when IT4 was torching people, especially in the 4th quarter, yet the team often performed better in the only place it really matters when IT4 was on the bench.

Yeah if you actually think we're winning tonight and against Toronto with Kyrie on the bench, then frankly I don't know what to tell you. Without Kyrie I honestly think we get blown out in both games the way they unfolded (yes, even tonight w/o Kyrie).

Who knows?  Do you think Tatum is missing every FG attempt and only scoring 2 points if Irving doesn't play?  Maybe Tatum gets into a better flow and has a great game without Irving dominating the ball and the Celtics do just fine.  And again, it isn't just having Irving not play, it is about getting assets for him while allowing everyone else to play more in flow without him improving the team both that way and with those assets.  The team also avoids paying Irving 38 million year when he misses 1 in every 5 regular season games and significant (or all) games in 2 of 4 post-seasons, which will likely only get worse as he adds wear and tear, age, etc. to that brittle body of his.

This is a particularly awful take

[Moranis]

No sure about anyone else but I’m sure glad we haven’t traded Kyrie yet 

Lol. Glad this thread got revived

Fabulous game again and yet Boston was actually better again without him on the floor, just as they were in the Toronto game i.e. +4 in 36 minutes is worse than +2 in 12 minutes, just as +4 in 38 minutes is worse than +5 in 10 minutes.  This is where it is always tricky in these things and were many of the same arguments being made when IT4 was torching people, especially in the 4th quarter, yet the team often performed better in the only place it really matters when IT4 was on the bench.

Yeah if you actually think we're winning tonight and against Toronto with Kyrie on the bench, then frankly I don't know what to tell you. Without Kyrie I honestly think we get blown out in both games the way they unfolded (yes, even tonight w/o Kyrie).

Who knows?  Do you think Tatum is missing every FG attempt and only scoring 2 points if Irving doesn't play?  Maybe Tatum gets into a better flow and has a great game without Irving dominating the ball and the Celtics do just fine.  And again, it isn't just having Irving not play, it is about getting assets for him while allowing everyone else to play more in flow without him improving the team both that way and with those assets.  The team also avoids paying Irving 38 million year when he misses 1 in every 5 regular season games and significant (or all) games in 2 of 4 post-seasons, which will likely only get worse as he adds wear and tear, age, etc. to that brittle body of his.

This is a particularly awful take

and that is a particularly awful post.  I guess we are even.

[DefenseWinsChamps]

No sure about anyone else but I’m sure glad we haven’t traded Kyrie yet 

Lol. Glad this thread got revived

Fabulous game again and yet Boston was actually better again without him on the floor, just as they were in the Toronto game i.e. +4 in 36 minutes is worse than +2 in 12 minutes, just as +4 in 38 minutes is worse than +5 in 10 minutes.  This is where it is always tricky in these things and were many of the same arguments being made when IT4 was torching people, especially in the 4th quarter, yet the team often performed better in the only place it really matters when IT4 was on the bench.

Yeah if you actually think we're winning tonight and against Toronto with Kyrie on the bench, then frankly I don't know what to tell you. Without Kyrie I honestly think we get blown out in both games the way they unfolded (yes, even tonight w/o Kyrie).

Who knows?  Do you think Tatum is missing every FG attempt and only scoring 2 points if Irving doesn't play?  Maybe Tatum gets into a better flow and has a great game without Irving dominating the ball and the Celtics do just fine.  And again, it isn't just having Irving not play, it is about getting assets for him while allowing everyone else to play more in flow without him improving the team both that way and with those assets.  The team also avoids paying Irving 38 million year when he misses 1 in every 5 regular season games and significant (or all) games in 2 of 4 post-seasons, which will likely only get worse as he adds wear and tear, age, etc. to that brittle body of his.

Lakers won 4 of their last 6 without Lebron. Maybe Kuzma/Ingram gets into a better flow without him. Besides he is in his mid-30s and will probably be injury prone. They should just get rid of him.

Maybe Eric Gordon and James Ennis would get into a better flow without Harden, and the Rockets would do just fine.

Same with Tony Snell if the Bucks got rid of Giannis.

[Roy H.]

Knock it off, guys. Respectful debate only.

[Moranis]

No sure about anyone else but I’m sure glad we haven’t traded Kyrie yet 

Lol. Glad this thread got revived

Fabulous game again and yet Boston was actually better again without him on the floor, just as they were in the Toronto game i.e. +4 in 36 minutes is worse than +2 in 12 minutes, just as +4 in 38 minutes is worse than +5 in 10 minutes.  This is where it is always tricky in these things and were many of the same arguments being made when IT4 was torching people, especially in the 4th quarter, yet the team often performed better in the only place it really matters when IT4 was on the bench.

Yeah if you actually think we're winning tonight and against Toronto with Kyrie on the bench, then frankly I don't know what to tell you. Without Kyrie I honestly think we get blown out in both games the way they unfolded (yes, even tonight w/o Kyrie).

Who knows?  Do you think Tatum is missing every FG attempt and only scoring 2 points if Irving doesn't play?  Maybe Tatum gets into a better flow and has a great game without Irving dominating the ball and the Celtics do just fine.  And again, it isn't just having Irving not play, it is about getting assets for him while allowing everyone else to play more in flow without him improving the team both that way and with those assets.  The team also avoids paying Irving 38 million year when he misses 1 in every 5 regular season games and significant (or all) games in 2 of 4 post-seasons, which will likely only get worse as he adds wear and tear, age, etc. to that brittle body of his.

Lakers won 4 of their last 6 without Lebron. Maybe Kuzma/Ingram gets into a better flow without him. Besides he is in his mid-30s and will probably be injury prone. They should just get rid of him.

Maybe Eric Gordon and James Ennis would get into a better flow without Harden, and the Rockets would do just fine.

Same with Tony Snell if the Bucks got rid of Giannis.

The Lakers are 5-7 without Lebron though (and OKC is the only win against a team above .500 and they flew in from Atlanta).  They haven't been an ~60% win team over 50 games like Boston has without Irving.  Lebron is also a significantly better player than Irving and while he has missed a few weeks, has generally been healthy and has never missed a post season game.  The comparisons are just silly given the entire context.

[Jvalin]

No sure about anyone else but I’m sure glad we haven’t traded Kyrie yet 

Lol. Glad this thread got revived

Fabulous game again and yet Boston was actually better again without him on the floor, just as they were in the Toronto game i.e. +4 in 36 minutes is worse than +2 in 12 minutes, just as +4 in 38 minutes is worse than +5 in 10 minutes.  This is where it is always tricky in these things and were many of the same arguments being made when IT4 was torching people, especially in the 4th quarter, yet the team often performed better in the only place it really matters when IT4 was on the bench.

Yeah if you actually think we're winning tonight and against Toronto with Kyrie on the bench, then frankly I don't know what to tell you. Without Kyrie I honestly think we get blown out in both games the way they unfolded (yes, even tonight w/o Kyrie).

Who knows?  Do you think Tatum is missing every FG attempt and only scoring 2 points if Irving doesn't play?  Maybe Tatum gets into a better flow and has a great game without Irving dominating the ball and the Celtics do just fine.  And again, it isn't just having Irving not play, it is about getting assets for him while allowing everyone else to play more in flow without him improving the team both that way and with those assets.  The team also avoids paying Irving 38 million year when he misses 1 in every 5 regular season games and significant (or all) games in 2 of 4 post-seasons, which will likely only get worse as he adds wear and tear, age, etc. to that brittle body of his.

Let's say our best starting lineup in terms of individual talent is

Kyrie - Brown - Hayward - Tatum - Horford

Your point is that Kyrie isn't an ideal fit next to Tatum-Brown and the rest of our starters. Give us a name then. Do you have someone in mind to replace Kyrie? Who would you consider an ideal fit for this team? I'm talking about guys who might actually be available. For instance, I'd gladly take Steph over Kyrie but that's never gonna happen.

[gouki88]

No sure about anyone else but I’m sure glad we haven’t traded Kyrie yet 

Lol. Glad this thread got revived

Fabulous game again and yet Boston was actually better again without him on the floor, just as they were in the Toronto game i.e. +4 in 36 minutes is worse than +2 in 12 minutes, just as +4 in 38 minutes is worse than +5 in 10 minutes.  This is where it is always tricky in these things and were many of the same arguments being made when IT4 was torching people, especially in the 4th quarter, yet the team often performed better in the only place it really matters when IT4 was on the bench.

Yeah if you actually think we're winning tonight and against Toronto with Kyrie on the bench, then frankly I don't know what to tell you. Without Kyrie I honestly think we get blown out in both games the way they unfolded (yes, even tonight w/o Kyrie).

Who knows?  Do you think Tatum is missing every FG attempt and only scoring 2 points if Irving doesn't play?  Maybe Tatum gets into a better flow and has a great game without Irving dominating the ball and the Celtics do just fine.  And again, it isn't just having Irving not play, it is about getting assets for him while allowing everyone else to play more in flow without him improving the team both that way and with those assets.  The team also avoids paying Irving 38 million year when he misses 1 in every 5 regular season games and significant (or all) games in 2 of 4 post-seasons, which will likely only get worse as he adds wear and tear, age, etc. to that brittle body of his.

This is a particularly awful take

and that is a particularly awful post.  I guess we are even.

Not really. We have a good thing with Irving, a top 3 player in his position, and you’re saying we should get rid of him because Tatum had a bad game (even though he has over a season of being effective next to Kyrie), because Kyrie is in line for big money and because he’s “brittle”, which is a weird nonissue that GM’s routinely ignore, as seen in AD, Curry and CP3’s max money.

Only on CelticsStrong would you see people thinking we’d be better without Kyrie because our young guys who have shown little could maybe be better than him

[gouki88]

No sure about anyone else but I’m sure glad we haven’t traded Kyrie yet 

Lol. Glad this thread got revived

Fabulous game again and yet Boston was actually better again without him on the floor, just as they were in the Toronto game i.e. +4 in 36 minutes is worse than +2 in 12 minutes, just as +4 in 38 minutes is worse than +5 in 10 minutes.  This is where it is always tricky in these things and were many of the same arguments being made when IT4 was torching people, especially in the 4th quarter, yet the team often performed better in the only place it really matters when IT4 was on the bench.

Yeah if you actually think we're winning tonight and against Toronto with Kyrie on the bench, then frankly I don't know what to tell you. Without Kyrie I honestly think we get blown out in both games the way they unfolded (yes, even tonight w/o Kyrie).

Who knows?  Do you think Tatum is missing every FG attempt and only scoring 2 points if Irving doesn't play?  Maybe Tatum gets into a better flow and has a great game without Irving dominating the ball and the Celtics do just fine.  And again, it isn't just having Irving not play, it is about getting assets for him while allowing everyone else to play more in flow without him improving the team both that way and with those assets.  The team also avoids paying Irving 38 million year when he misses 1 in every 5 regular season games and significant (or all) games in 2 of 4 post-seasons, which will likely only get worse as he adds wear and tear, age, etc. to that brittle body of his.

Lakers won 4 of their last 6 without Lebron. Maybe Kuzma/Ingram gets into a better flow without him. Besides he is in his mid-30s and will probably be injury prone. They should just get rid of him.

Maybe Eric Gordon and James Ennis would get into a better flow without Harden, and the Rockets would do just fine.

Same with Tony Snell if the Bucks got rid of Giannis.

The Lakers are 5-7 without Lebron though (and OKC is the only win against a team above .500 and they flew in from Atlanta).  They haven't been an ~60% win team over 50 games like Boston has without Irving.  Lebron is also a significantly better player than Irving and while he has missed a few weeks, has generally been healthy and has never missed a post season game.  The comparisons are just silly given the entire context.

Audacious of you to disregard a point based on “entire context”. You also ignored half the post, mysteriously

[Eddie20]

No sure about anyone else but I’m sure glad we haven’t traded Kyrie yet 

Lol. Glad this thread got revived

Fabulous game again and yet Boston was actually better again without him on the floor, just as they were in the Toronto game i.e. +4 in 36 minutes is worse than +2 in 12 minutes, just as +4 in 38 minutes is worse than +5 in 10 minutes.  This is where it is always tricky in these things and were many of the same arguments being made when IT4 was torching people, especially in the 4th quarter, yet the team often performed better in the only place it really matters when IT4 was on the bench.

Moranis, you seriously need to let this go already. Irving is a great player and you're simply going to have to concede that and stop these silly math gymnastics you use to try in order to stick with your odd take. No one is buying it.

[celticsclay]

No sure about anyone else but I’m sure glad we haven’t traded Kyrie yet 

Lol. Glad this thread got revived

Fabulous game again and yet Boston was actually better again without him on the floor, just as they were in the Toronto game i.e. +4 in 36 minutes is worse than +2 in 12 minutes, just as +4 in 38 minutes is worse than +5 in 10 minutes.  This is where it is always tricky in these things and were many of the same arguments being made when IT4 was torching people, especially in the 4th quarter, yet the team often performed better in the only place it really matters when IT4 was on the bench.

Moranis, you seriously need to let this go already. Irving is a great player and you're simply going to have to concede that and stop these silly math gymnastics you use to try in order to stick with your odd take. No one is buying it.

I’ll edit this to just say I find it really baffling someone can watch Irving these last few games and think we are better without him. He absolutely dominated in the 4th last night against a top notch team.