Good article on IT; shares some thoughts on "the trade"

When this deal went down I felt it was a cold blooded move but also a very good business decision.

After watching Kyrie play a few games,  the move looks fantastic.  Danny may want to tone down his praise and love for players.

IT will get over it at some point.

Dboss

Good comments all around. I'm psyched we got Irving in spite of the cost, both to the team and the individuals involved. Thomas's angst has been well documented, although Crowder's is strangely absent. Both players benefited greatly from being Celtics - think of where they were before they wore green. Moving to Boston boosted their careers and I think Irving has a chance for more of the same, but as he's already a premier player, IMO his ceiling is far higher. Danny has a history of gunning for the big play (remember the proposal to Charlotte that, thankfully, didn't pan out). I'm less sold on Hayward (as a clear upgrade over Crowder), but hoping I'm wrong. Also, something tells me DA knew in the days before the draft that Irving would be available. That would explain his quick about-face on taking Fultz and his push to get Hayward - despite the confusing way the deal went down. My guess is Irving, a buddy of Hayward's, wasn't moving to Boston before Hayward was on board. Regardless of how it went down, it's got me dreaming in green. Hawk

hawksnestbeach wrote:...Also, something tells me DA knew in the days before the draft that Irving would be available. That would explain his quick about-face on taking Fultz and his push to get Hayward - despite the confusing way the deal went down. My guess is Irving, a buddy of Hayward's, wasn't moving to Boston before Hayward was on board. Regardless of how it went down, it's got me dreaming in green. Hawk

That's an interesting theory that would explain a lot. Never considered that...

fierce wrote:

beat wrote:

fierce wrote:

beat wrote:Once Irving became available anyone became potentially tradeable.  I don't think it had anything to do with his injury. Ainge never anticipated Irving would become available once that became known wheels went into motion.  

Imho IT took us as far as he could but to go further we needed a bigger PG. We will see in a year or 2 if indeed rolling the dice on this deal works out.  People have bitched we have too many assets and needed to make a move. Well we certainly did.  



beat

I think the Cavs would have preferred Morris or other Celtic players, like Yabu or Rozier, included in the package for Kyrie.

Ainge sacrificed the Brooklyn pick so that the Cavs will be forced to take an IT who's injured.

You can also say the Cavs agreed to take an injured IT because the Brooklyn pick was part of the deal.

If IT was healthy, Ainge could've traded IT, Crowder, and other players, to make salaries match, for Kyrie.
The Brooklyn pick didn't need to be included because a healthy IT and Crowder is enough for a disgruntled Kyrie Irving.

What I am saying IT's injury did not cause this trade.  Fact is he'd been injured for months.  What caused the trade to happen was Irving wanting out.  That set the wheels in motion and If we were going to after him IT became expendable injured or not.

Beat

Not necessarily.

Giving the Cavs a healthy IT and Crowder would've meant the Cavs got an upgrade.
Celts are better off keeping a healthy IT and Jae Crowder if that's the case.

The Celts with a healthy IT and the addition of Hayward would've made the Celts better than the Cavs if the Cavs lost Kyrie to another team.

A healthy IT was an MVP candidate.
There's no reason to trade him.

I think Ainge could've gotten Kyrie without giving up IT.
There's no reason why Kyrie and IT can't coexist with the Celts.

What the Cavs were really after was the Brooklyn pick.
In the trade for Kyrie Irving, IT was just a throw in.
What the Cavs were really after was the Brooklyn pick.

Prove it.  You can't prove that any more than mine.  Fact is the trade didn't even begin without Irving becoming available regardless of IT's injury.

play it any way you want. Your opinion not mine.

beat

I'd agree that the pick was a huge part of the trade. It's the most coveted pick in all of basketball. The potential for a future franchise player after Lebron was too good for them to pass up.

Do the Cavs really see IT as a $200M player? I don't.


KJ

beat wrote:

fierce wrote:

beat wrote:

fierce wrote:

beat wrote:Once Irving became available anyone became potentially tradeable.  I don't think it had anything to do with his injury. Ainge never anticipated Irving would become available once that became known wheels went into motion.  

Imho IT took us as far as he could but to go further we needed a bigger PG. We will see in a year or 2 if indeed rolling the dice on this deal works out.  People have bitched we have too many assets and needed to make a move. Well we certainly did.  



beat

I think the Cavs would have preferred Morris or other Celtic players, like Yabu or Rozier, included in the package for Kyrie.

Ainge sacrificed the Brooklyn pick so that the Cavs will be forced to take an IT who's injured.

You can also say the Cavs agreed to take an injured IT because the Brooklyn pick was part of the deal.

If IT was healthy, Ainge could've traded IT, Crowder, and other players, to make salaries match, for Kyrie.
The Brooklyn pick didn't need to be included because a healthy IT and Crowder is enough for a disgruntled Kyrie Irving.

What I am saying IT's injury did not cause this trade.  Fact is he'd been injured for months.  What caused the trade to happen was Irving wanting out.  That set the wheels in motion and If we were going to after him IT became expendable injured or not.

Beat

Not necessarily.

Giving the Cavs a healthy IT and Crowder would've meant the Cavs got an upgrade.
Celts are better off keeping a healthy IT and Jae Crowder if that's the case.

The Celts with a healthy IT and the addition of Hayward would've made the Celts better than the Cavs if the Cavs lost Kyrie to another team.

A healthy IT was an MVP candidate.
There's no reason to trade him.

I think Ainge could've gotten Kyrie without giving up IT.
There's no reason why Kyrie and IT can't coexist with the Celts.

What the Cavs were really after was the Brooklyn pick.
In the trade for Kyrie Irving, IT was just a throw in.
What the Cavs were really after was the Brooklyn pick.

Prove it.  You can't prove that any more than mine.  Fact is the trade didn't even begin without Irving becoming available regardless of IT's injury.

play it any way you want. Your opinion not mine.

beat

Of course there would be no trade if Kyrie didn't become available.

What I'm saying is why trade two proven starters to the Cavs and give them an upgrade?

A healthy IT and Jae Crowder would make the Cavs better.
The Celts will have a harder time beating the Cavs with Lebron, IT, Crowder, and Love.
So why help an eastern conference rival?

Right now the Celtics are on par with the Cavs.
That's not be the case if IT is healthy.
A healthy IT would still have scored 20 or more points per game with the Cavs.

So yeah, it's true there's no way of proving if Ainge would've traded IT if he were healthy.
But my point is I don't think Ainge would have traded a healthy IT and Crowder to the Cavs if it would result in an upgrade for the Cavs.

We need to beat the Cavs.
Not make them better.

The Cavs have a smaller window than the Celtics and the young players on Celtics are not yet ready to make a legit run at the Cavs or the Warriors.

When the young players on the team are ready to push for the title - IT will be too old to make a big impact, yet Kyrie will just be hitting his prime. THAT was the point of the deal. Which player IT or Kyrie will be ready to carry his team in 2 or 3 years? I dont see there being any question that Irving is the better long term prospect.

mrkleen09 wrote:The Cavs have a smaller window than the Celtics and the young players on Celtics are not yet ready to make a legit run at the Cavs or the Warriors.

When the young players on the team are ready to push for the title - IT will be too old to make a big impact, yet Kyrie will just be hitting his prime.  THAT was the point of the deal.  Which player IT or Kyrie will be ready to carry his team in 2 or 3 years?  I dont see there being any question that Irving is the better long term prospect.

It's true and there's no doubt Kyrie is the better long term prospect.

But if the Cavs got a healthy IT, that would mean the Cavs would still be in the hunt for a title this season and next season.

What I'm saying is IT didn't need to be included in the deal if IT was healthy.

Ainge could've gotten Kyrie for the Brooklyn pick, Zizic, Crowder, and maybe Morris or other Celtic players.

Right now the Celts are better than the Cavs.
That would not be the case if the Cavs got a healthy IT.

Why would we want to help the Cavs get better?

Giving the Cavs a healthy IT and Jae Crowder is an upgrade for the Cavs.

What's brilliant about Ainge's trade for Kyrie is it didn't help the Cavs in the short term.
That means the Celts can already beat the Cavs this season.
It would've been the opposite if the Cavs got a healthy IT.

If Ainge gave the Cavs a healthy IT and the Brooklyn pick, that would've meant the Cavs being better than the Celts in the short term and the Brooklyn pick would be the insurance for the long term.

Everyone is talking the IT trade but the trade that really stung me was Bradley.


KJ

Alot of good discussion on this thread, and on the trade overall. One thing that I have read both on this board, and in the media in general, is that IT is really a 6th man, Vinnie Johnson-type of player (though that view on this board was expressed less and less as IT's brilliance began to emerge). I have to respectfully disagree with this notion. IT is not a streaky, heat-check player. He delivered consistently nearly every night. And he was incredibly efficient, a master of pick and roll - this is backed up by both traditional and advanced stats. If you have never seen IT play, then I could see how you might look at his height and read about his defense, and think "6th man".However, I would hope that anyone who watched IT the last two seasons recognized how damn good this guy is. As for the argument that last year was some sort of fluke - well, the previous two years were pretty remarkable also. Anytime he has been given minutes, he has produced. Other than the possibility that his hip is really damaged, there is no reason to think he is suddenly going to drop-off dramatically in the next three or four years. So, if you want to say Kyrie is even better now (or for the future), that is a legitmate argument, but to call IT a 6th man is not right. 6th men don't carry mediocre teams to the ECF. IT is a legit starting PG on a championship caliber team.

I agree with MrKleen's points on Kyrie being the better prospect moving forward. IT is nice, but if he's the absolute best player on your team, you're not winning a title. Going against KD, Steph, Klay, and Draymond is one hell of a task: slaying a 4-headed, fire-breathing hydra. I'm sure Ainge knew this.

The Cavs window is shrinking. They still don't know what Lebron is going to do. IT will be 30 soon. Their roster, as is, cannot compete with the Warriors. This offseason they just added a bunch of random guys to see what sticks. There is a reason why Rose and D-Wade could be added on the cheap. Who on that team scares people other than Lebron? No one. You can check all their other guys.

Did people forget that IT was exposed against the Cavs? He's always going to struggle against length. He'll always have to play harder to make up for that deficiency. It doesn't make him a bad player, but it's not to his benefit, either.

Watching Kyrie throughout the preseason has shown me something: he doesn't have to work as hard for the same kind of output as IT. He's a damn good shooter and this system is giving him easy buckets. With his efficiency, he could eclipse IT's numbers from last year.


KJ