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.
It's all about his style of play. He's a score-first PG. Assuming our starting lineup going forward is Kyrie - Brown - Hayward - Tatum - Horford, the C's have 5 legit offensive options on the floor. Each and everyone of these guys needs touches. With that much firepower, it's better to have a pass-first PG running the show in order for everyone to get their shots. I'm guessing that's what Moranis is trying to say.
Personally speaking, I admit I'm not the biggest fan of Kyrie. Having said that, Kyrie is hands down our most talented player. Assuming we are facing chemistry issues (and I believe we do), I'd rather trade someone else instead of our best player. Kyrie with a couple of off-ball specialists next to him would be absolutely lethal, plus he would elevate his teammates as well.
Remember our starting lineup when we had IT?
IT - Bradley - Crowder - Amir - Horford
In other words, 4 above average defenders + 3 guys who thrived playing off the ball. It was the perfect lineup in order for us to capitalize on IT's skill set. IT could play no D and he needed the ball in his hands on offense. Bingo. A match made in heaven (minus probably Amir, but meh whatever).
That's what we gotta do imo. Reshuffle the pieces around Kyrie in order to maximize his effectiveness whenever he's on the court. Not trade Kyrie himself.
Another thing is, I don't think we can find fair value for Kyrie cause he is about to hit free agency. Chances are that most teams wouldn't feel confident about re-signing him next summer, hence we'd have to find a team willing to take that risk. Good luck with that.
This is a summary of the on-court, but there are a number of reasons I wouldn't really want to build the team around Irving.
First, Irving just isn't a good enough player in the grand scheme of things to be the best player on a multi-year contender. He doesn't do enough, especially defensively, to be someone you can rely on that way. I mean look at the Rockets and Harden. They've built their team around Harden, who is better than Irving, but they've flamed out a lot in the playoffs because at the end of the day, Harden isn't a good enough player, and Harden is better than Irving. You should absolutely build your team around your best player, but your best player has to be good enough or what is the point.
Second, we've now seen enough that Irving isn't a great fit with many of the young players, young players that this team needs to actually win a title and I don't think Irving fits well with them. I'd much rather build a team around Tatum than Irving, because Tatum could in fact be a player good enough to anchor a multi-title team. He isn't now and he may never get there, but I do think the odds of him reaching that potential would be increased without Irving on the team as they really aren't a great fit. That says nothing for Brown or Rozier, who have both been a lot better without Irving on the team.
Third, speaking of Irving not being on the team. Boston has won approximately 60% of the games Irving hasn't played, including reaching game 7 of the ECF without him. That is with just removing Irving and not adding any assets or pieces for him. The team is better with Irving, but they haven't been appreciably better either, and certainly haven't shown enough to be considered a real title threat with him. If you can get assets for him and build the team around the young guys, I think that is the better route to go. Which circles back to building the team around Tatum.
Fourth, Irving has had multiple knee surgeries and has missed a number of games with other ailments as well. He has missed 20% of the regular season games in his career and missed a greater percentage of possible playoff games (missing entirely or large portions of 2 of his 4 possible playoff appearances). He is going to command a 5 year maximum of 188 million or 38 million a year. That is a lot of money to shell out for a player that quite frankly misses a lot of games and isn't in that first tier of talent. You can miss 20% of your regular season if your Shaq in your prime and are healthy for the playoffs, that hasn't been Irving. That is a huge contract to give a guy that is likely at best going to miss 1 in 5 games, including playoff games. Those are the type of contracts that look like John Wall's an awful lot of the time. They can hamstring a franchise.
If you could tell me right now that Boston is going to acquire Anthony Davis this summer, then sure keeping Irving is the sound thing to do because Davis actually is a player good enough to build around and I do think Irving would be an excellent running mate for Davis. Add to that duo whatever you don't trade for Davis and some quality vets and that team could most definitely be a multi-year title contender with a great chance at winning the title, but outside of someone better than Irving joining the team, I'd rather build the team around Tatum, as I think he gives Boston the best chance of winning a title of anyone currently on the Celtics.