ATL - Kyrie Dealt to Boston for IT, Crowder, Nets pick, etc Pg 87

Bernman · Post #1941 » by **Bernman** » Wed Aug 23, 2017 1:19 pm

Brilliant trade from Cleveland's standpoint. They received as good of a player now while they are ensured LeBron will be around, maybe IT is more amenable to coming off the bench than Kyrie was, get a player that complements all of Lebron, IT, and Love well in Crowder, save a lot on luxury tax, and are positioned a lot better now for after LeBron's potential departure. But I don't think he should be as apt to go now either. He should be doing the dance Kyrie was when he got his first big contract.

I kind of understand the move from the Celtics' perspective because they get an IT on a long-term contract w/ cost certainty. But he's a worse teammate, you hurt one thing that made IT/Kyrie types more effective by moving Crowder in team defense, you gave up a serious long-term asset, and you made a conference rival significantly stronger in the process. I have to think there were a lot better moves for them out there.

engelmartin · Post #1942 » by **engelmartin** » Wed Aug 23, 2017 1:34 pm

Cleveland won this one big time, not even close. I'd rather have IT in the first place.

Siefer · Post #1943 » by **Siefer** » Wed Aug 23, 2017 1:37 pm

IT, Crowder, AND the Nets pick? Jesus Christ. Boston got absolutely robbed.

3Diamantidis · Post #1944 » by **3Diamantidis** » Wed Aug 23, 2017 1:38 pm

Celtics need a center badly.
If they get him, they can win the East. If they don't, the Cavs will cruise again.

Ron Swanson · Post #1945 » by **Ron Swanson** » Wed Aug 23, 2017 1:39 pm

A lot of people hate Kyrie as a player and overrate the hell out of picks and mediocre prospects/players, so I'm guessing that's why it's being considered a "win" for Cleveland and a loss for Boston.

As someone who gave Ainge a ton of **** for sitting on his hands and overrating his own assets, he made the right move here, so kudos to him. Celtics have positioned themselves both to win-now with a core of Irving/Hayward, but also for the future with Tatum/Brown (they also still have the Memphis pick). The only bad contract and core guy that is over 29 is Horford. Celtics got younger and more talented this offseason. What's not to like?

skones · Post #1946 » by **skones** » Wed Aug 23, 2017 1:43 pm

engelmartin wrote:Cleveland won this one big time, not even close. I'd rather have IT in the first place.

Would you rather have Kyrie for two more years or would you rather pay 25+ million a year to an aging 5'9 guard next offseason? (note that I think Thomas will fall off much sooner than his counterparts at the same age due to his overall size and playing style) That's the rub for Boston. They skirted around an enormous issue with IT, received the best player in the deal, got a little better, and they gave up value to do it. Isn't that what Ainge has been criticized for over the past two offseasons? Not doing just that?

If your argument is that he missed the boat with George and Butler, in full agreement. He had to make a move, and he did.

crkone · Post #1947 » by **crkone** » Wed Aug 23, 2017 1:58 pm

I feel like Boston's defense will fall off a cliff but then again Hayward might be able to concentrate on that side of the ball more with Kyrie to help on offense. On the other hand, he doesn't have the greatest defensive big man in the NBA behind him anymore.

emunney · Post #1948 » by **emunney** » Wed Aug 23, 2017 2:02 pm

Siefer wrote:IT, Crowder, AND the Nets pick? Jesus Christ. Boston got absolutely robbed.

And Zizic! Great haul. Paying IT is not a great proposition, BUT getting a guy on the same schedule as LeBron along with two major assets and a top shelf roleplayer in Crowder is damn fine work by Altman. As good a hedge as I've ever seen in the NBA.

Crazy that the C's can pull a massive overpay like this and still have a cloud of assets.

Wiscfan92 · Post #1949 » by **Wiscfan92** » Wed Aug 23, 2017 2:26 pm

Curious if people will still view as a major win for CLE if that Nets pick turns out to be like #6?

Bernman · Post #1950 » by **Bernman** » Wed Aug 23, 2017 2:28 pm

crkone wrote:I feel like Boston's defense will fall off a cliff but then again Hayward might be able to concentrate on that side of the ball more with Kyrie to help on offense. On the other hand, he doesn't have the greatest defensive big man in the NBA behind him anymore.

That's what I think Boston needed to do, was go after the guy who covered Hayward's and everybody's butt in Utah. He'd have covered no defense types like IT/Kyrie even more too. They could have probably retained them while not giving up a ton more than they did for Rudy. Concede Tatum, the Nets' pick, and Horford. They could have maintained or made the d better that made them borderline contenders, while not making their rival stronger. IT, Hayward, Gobert, Crowder, Brown, Smart, etc. would have been a serious threat in the NBA/East. This team, I don't think will be. I see them winning 45-50 games and not even getting as far in the playoffs.

Post #1951 » by **ReasonablySober** » Wed Aug 23, 2017 2:30 pm

Wait, how did Boston get better? Even if you think Kyrie is a bit better than IT (I don't), they still gave up Crowder. I know almost nothing about him but, hell, people are high on Zizic too.

Boston got worse and gave up one of their best assets.

emunney · Post #1952 » by **emunney** » Wed Aug 23, 2017 2:30 pm

Wiscfan92 wrote:Curious if people will still view as a major win for CLE if that Nets pick turns out to be like #6?

Absolutely, this is a no brainer trade from both an on court and a positioning standpoint.

skones · Post #1953 » by **skones** » Wed Aug 23, 2017 2:32 pm

Wiscfan92 wrote:Curious if people will still view as a major win for CLE if that Nets pick turns out to be like #6?

No, and I think the Nets surprise this season, so I don't view that pick in the same scope as I would have the 2016 and 2017. They're going to run small, spread the floor, and bomb from the outside all season long. They'll steal 30+ games this season.

Ron Swanson · Post #1954 » by **Ron Swanson** » Wed Aug 23, 2017 2:38 pm

Ainge is somewhat conceding that the Celtics' window is the next 5 years, not the next 2. In 2-3 years their core will be 27 (Kyrie), 29 (Hayward), 22 (Tatum) and 23 (Brown). He's ok with maybe taking a step back from a win-total this year, for the benefit of setting up their future in a better position. Or do people think that they should have super-maxed a 30-year old IT and paid an obscene luxury tax bill for extending Bradley?

skones · Post #1955 » by **skones** » Wed Aug 23, 2017 2:42 pm

ReasonablySober wrote:Wait, how did Boston get better? Even if you think Kyrie is a bit better than IT (I don't), they still gave up Crowder. I know almost nothing about him but, hell, people are high on Zizic too.

Boston got worse and gave up one of their best assets.

IT's efficiency this past season was an enormous outlier with regards to his career norms, and he did it on higher volume. If you think he's due for a dropoff in that department, it's enough a reason to think Irving has an advantage and this is BESIDES the hip concern.

Between Smart, Brown, Tatum, and Hayward, I think Crowder's role and minutes would have been affected in a big way.

I also view the extension of their window as a "got better."

Post #1956 » by **ReasonablySober** » Wed Aug 23, 2017 2:43 pm

Ron Swanson wrote:Ainge is somewhat conceding that the Celtics' window is the next 5 years, not the next 2. In 2-3 years their core will be 27 (Kyrie), 29 (Hayward), 22 (Tatum) and 23 (Brown). He's ok with maybe taking a step back from a win-total this year, for the benefit of setting up their future in a better position. Or do people think that they should have super-maxed a 30-year old IT and paid an obscene luxury tax bill for extending Bradley?

I've yet to see anyone, here or otherwise, make an argument for extending IT. But I've also yet to see anyone make a good argument why Kyrie should get that money either. He's an iso scorer who doesn't make plays for others and he's absolutely abysmal on defense.

The best move for Boston was trading for someone significantly better (or a better fit) than Kyrie and keep the damn pick.

skones · Post #1957 » by **skones** » Wed Aug 23, 2017 2:48 pm

ReasonablySober wrote:
Ron Swanson wrote:Ainge is somewhat conceding that the Celtics' window is the next 5 years, not the next 2. In 2-3 years their core will be 27 (Kyrie), 29 (Hayward), 22 (Tatum) and 23 (Brown). He's ok with maybe taking a step back from a win-total this year, for the benefit of setting up their future in a better position. Or do people think that they should have super-maxed a 30-year old IT and paid an obscene luxury tax bill for extending Bradley?

I've yet to see anyone, here or otherwise, make an argument for extending IT. But I've also yet to see anyone make a good argument why Kyrie should get that money either. He's an iso scorer who doesn't make plays for others and he's absolutely abysmal on defense.

The best move for Boston was trading for someone significantly better (or a better fit) than Kyrie and keep the damn pick.

Boston won 51 games last season and added a legitimate star in Hayward. If you view IT and Kyrie on the same plane right now, and factor in age, and potential deterioration of IT due to size and playing style, I'd say that window extension is a pretty substantial argument in Kyrie's favor.

Post #1958 » by **paulpressey25** » Wed Aug 23, 2017 2:50 pm

View the trade in these three lenses from Boston vantage point:

a) Will the Nets pick be top 3 or even top 5? 50-50 proposition. Nets have no reason to tank, good coach and lots of hungry role players. See that pick being in the 6-10 range unless lotto balls bounce right.

b) Can Brad Stevens take a new cast of role players and make them as effective as guys he made into good role players the last two seasons? I say yes. So from that standpoint C's are fine despite huge player turnover.

c) Does a big three core of Hayward, Kyrie and Horford equal a contender? Here I say a resounding no. But that's where people forget they've got Tatum, Brown and Smart. Their ceiling really is going to be determined by those three guys plus that Lakers/Kings pick.

Overall think Ainge simply sold high this summer on guys who excelled in the Brad Stevens system for two borderline all-star but not superstar guys who likely will be more consistent performers over the next five years (Kyrie and Hayward). And given the huge contracts these guys got, you can at least justify paying Hayward and Kyrie big money. Felt less comfortable doing that with Isiah, Avery, Olynk, etc.

Ron Swanson · Post #1959 » by **Ron Swanson** » Wed Aug 23, 2017 2:54 pm

ReasonablySober wrote:
Ron Swanson wrote:Ainge is somewhat conceding that the Celtics' window is the next 5 years, not the next 2. In 2-3 years their core will be 27 (Kyrie), 29 (Hayward), 22 (Tatum) and 23 (Brown). He's ok with maybe taking a step back from a win-total this year, for the benefit of setting up their future in a better position. Or do people think that they should have super-maxed a 30-year old IT and paid an obscene luxury tax bill for extending Bradley?

I've yet to see anyone, here or otherwise, make an argument for extending IT. But I've also yet to see anyone make a good argument why Kyrie should get that money either. He's an iso scorer who doesn't make plays for others and he's absolutely abysmal on defense.

The best move for Boston was trading for someone significantly better (or a better fit) than Kyrie and keep the damn pick.

"The Pick" is apparently what everyone who hates the deal for Boston is hung up on. And I just don't see why you'd continue to sit on your hands hoarders-style when you have ample upside between the two wings you just drafted with back-to-back Top-3 picks, as well as the other picks they still have incoming. Also, what player better than Kyrie was available without giving up that pick? I don't get the people that have conditioned themselves to think that giving up potential top picks is always a bad idea. It's not when you're in the position that Boston is in.

Ainge just diversified his assets and is taking a home-run hack rather than sitting conservatively back and hoping that pick turns into #1 overall again. I can't disagree with that strategy when the player that he traded the pick for is basically the caliber of what you hope that pick would become anyways.

Post #1960 » by **ReasonablySober** » Wed Aug 23, 2017 2:58 pm

Trading the pick is fine. I wouldn't have, but whatever. I'd rather have a future with Fultz, Brown, Hayward, a top 2018 pick and whatever I could get for IT and Crowder. It's who they traded it for that's dumbfounding. They wouldn't include it for Paul George or Butler, but they use it in a Kyrie trade? Ainge has had an absolutely idiotic summer, and teams like Milwaukee and Philly stand to benefit. Boston was building a juggernaut and he just dealt what might end up being his best asset.