Re: How long does Kyrie keep Ainge on the string??

by **swish** Tue Jun 04, 2019 7:14 pm

Shamrock1000 wrote:
swish wrote:
Shamrock1000 wrote:
swish wrote:A lot of analysis of past failures - -and future promises on this board - but the addition of 3 all stars, 2 number 3 draft picks and a number 6 pick and the team is still playing sub .695 ball - despite 4 straight years of .585 plus ball the team has yet to be crowned eastern conference champs. It might be time to consider the possibility that this team as constituded (should Irving leave) has peaked.

swish

Swish - I usually find myself agreeing with your posts, but on this one I am not sure. I think the team as constituted INCLUDING KYRIE may have peaked. In other words, this exact iteration of the rebuild is clearly not a contender. Our three all stars together may have peaked, but I don't think our picks have peaked, including Smart. So, I don't think a total tear down is necessary, just a partial. The problem is too much money is tied up in nice-but-not-great players like Al and Gordon.

Shamrock1000

My reasoning is based on the fact that Irving had a great regular season and yet the team was only able to play.598 ball. If Irving walks and Horford starts to lose his overall effectiveness due to aging the Celts may be pressed to equal last years performance. Cap space has dried up until Horfords salary comes off the books - only allowing for equal value trading of Tatum, Brown or Hayward. That's why I'm concerned about the prospect of our youthfull base being able to advance to the next level of competition.

swish

swish

Thanks for the clarification Swish, that makes a lot of sense. I agree entirely with your premise that teams need to be playing close to 0.700 ball to be considered a legit contender for a championship. Last year's Celtics were not there. I would argue that even if Irving walks, we would end up with a similar, near 0.600 record next year. So, rather than try and trade to replace Irving's value, I say sign Rozier and let the chips fall where they may until we are free from Al's contract. I know some will argue, but in mind the current team minus Irving would do as well as this past year's team. That team would be fun to watch again. The kids would improve. We get another year to figure out if any of those kids have superstar potential. At the end of the year, Al's money comes off the books and Gordon's contract becomes tradable. Should Irving walk, I feel that trying to replace his stas via trade would cost us our youth but not produce a near 0.700 team.

In summary, I think the rebuild built on an Irving, Hayward, and Horford big 3 is already over. I just would rather try and go for a limited rebuild where we keep the kids another year and accept that next year will likely to be similar to this year (at least in regard to wins and losses - getting teeth pulled would be more fun than watching last year's team).

The one caveat for me is if we can get AD. If we can, then I would be for signing Kyrie too. Would prefer to keep Tatum if possible. A team with AD, KI, and either AH or GH (I assume one goes for salary reasons) should be close to a 0.700 team. Not sure Brad is the best coach for that team, but that is another question.

by **swish** Tue Jun 04, 2019 7:36 pm

Shamrock1000 wrote:
swish wrote:
Shamrock1000 wrote:
swish wrote:A lot of analysis of past failures - -and future promises on this board - but the addition of 3 all stars, 2 number 3 draft picks and a number 6 pick and the team is still playing sub .695 ball - despite 4 straight years of .585 plus ball the team has yet to be crowned eastern conference champs. It might be time to consider the possibility that this team as constituded (should Irving leave) has peaked.

swish

Swish - I usually find myself agreeing with your posts, but on this one I am not sure. I think the team as constituted INCLUDING KYRIE may have peaked. In other words, this exact iteration of the rebuild is clearly not a contender. Our three all stars together may have peaked, but I don't think our picks have peaked, including Smart. So, I don't think a total tear down is necessary, just a partial. The problem is too much money is tied up in nice-but-not-great players like Al and Gordon.

Shamrock1000

My reasoning is based on the fact that Irving had a great regular season and yet the team was only able to play.598 ball. If Irving walks and Horford starts to lose his overall effectiveness due to aging the Celts may be pressed to equal last years performance. Cap space has dried up until Horfords salary comes off the books - only allowing for equal value trading of Tatum, Brown or Hayward. That's why I'm concerned about the prospect of our youthfull base being able to advance to the next level of competition.

swish

swish

Thanks for the clarification Swish, that makes a lot of sense. I agree entirely with your premise that teams need to be playing close to 0.700 ball to be considered a legit contender for a championship. Last year's Celtics were not there. I would argue that even if Irving walks, we would end up with a similar, near 0.600 record next year. So, rather than try and trade to replace Irving's value, I say sign Rozier and let the chips fall where they may until we are free from Al's contract. I know some will argue, but in mind the current team minus Irving would do as well as this past year's team. That team would be fun to watch again. The kids would improve. We get another year to figure out if any of those kids have superstar potential. At the end of the year, Al's money comes off the books and Gordon's contract becomes tradable. Should Irving walk, I feel that trying to replace his stas via trade would cost us our youth but not produce a near 0.700 team.

In summary, I think the rebuild built on an Irving, Hayward, and Horford big 3 is already over. I just would rather try and go for a limited rebuild where we keep the kids another year and accept that next year will likely to be similar to this year (at least in regard to wins and losses - getting teeth pulled would be more fun than watching last year's team).

The one caveat for me is if we can get AD. If we can, then I would be for signing Kyrie too. Would prefer to keep Tatum if possible. A team with AD, KI, and either AH or GH (I assume one goes for salary reasons) should be close to a 0.700 team. Not sure Brad is the best coach for that team, but that is another question.

One other note Shamrock - Considerable flack has been hurled at Irving for his well documented recent playoff failure - his only bad one in 4 playoff perfomances. But he has some very famous company when it comes to others who have had pitiful games in the playoffs. Surprise, surprise - just check out the Larry Bird perfomance in the 1982 playoffs.

swish

by **gyso** Tue Jun 04, 2019 7:42 pm

NYCelt wrote:
gyso wrote:As for Rozier, I think most here understand my opinion about that rat bast . . . Um . . . non-Celtics like person.

gyso

It seems at least half of the board dislikes Rozier, and half dislikes Irving.

And the other half dislikes both. drunken

by **112288** Wed Jun 05, 2019 7:14 am

gyso wrote:Even if Kyrie leaves, Danny should help Rozier pack his bags as well.

Rozier is not a point guard and his numbers are horrible as a wing playing off the ball. Anyone that thinks he would be fine coming off the bench must have pulled a Rip Van Winkle for the entire last season.

Rondo is also not the answer of any question regarding the Celtics. He is ball centric and proved that his style of play is a mismatch with pace and space. Rondo needs a team full of deadly outside shooters to complement his play and that ain't us.

THAT WAS THE PROBLEM WITH THE CELTICS ALL YEAR, COULD NEVER SCORE ON A CONSISTENT BASIS ESPECIALLY HITTING THE BIG SHOT WHEN NEEDED. WE WERE ICE COLD FOR LONG PERIODS DURING GAMES AND IF WE WERE ABLE TO SCORE WOULD HAVE COUNTERED ANY RUNS MADE BY OPPONENTS, 'CAUSE WE HAD NO LOCK DOWN DEFENSE TO SPEAK OF TO PREVENT DOUBLE DIGIT LEADS TO APPEAR VERY QUICKLY BY OUR OPPONENTS. YA GOTTA PUT THE BALL IN THE BASKET TO WIN. TIME FOR THE CELTICS TO FIND SOME REAL SHOOTERS RATHER THEN HOPING SOMEONE GETS HOT DURING A PARTICULAR GAME.

RONDO WAS ALSO A MASTER OF PASSES TO GUYS CUTTING TO THE BASKET TO SCORE. THE CELTICS WERE NEVER FRIENDS OF THE PAINT THIS YEAR...........RATHER THEY SETTLED FOR ......OR LIVED AND DIED ......BY CHUCKING UP 3 POINTERS. TALK ABOUT A CHANGE AND A NEED FOR SHOOTERS!

112288

by **Shamrock1000** Wed Jun 05, 2019 3:35 pm

wideclyde wrote:Shamrock,

Your points exactly are why Ainge should have traded Irving at last February's trade deadline.

He could have gotten something for him then while he will get nothing after July 1st. A good young player, a project player, a draft pick or two and an expiring contract to make the trade work for the NBA trade rules surely look good right now to me.

Ainge had it figured out quite well when he traded Pierce and Garnett a 'year too early', but may have forgotten to trade Irving soon enough. GM trade and contract decisions with big star type players are tough as they can have great results and equally terrible results.

That is a fair point Wideclyde - Ainge has largely escaped any criticism in this fiasco. Although I was a huge IT fan and initially against the trade, it later made perfect sense, especially when it became clear IT was damaged goods. Thus, no one can blame Danny for trading a used up IT and spare parts for a player largely considered one of the best in the game at the time. However, it became clear to a lot of people by February last year that 1) Irving was likely to go; 2) He was a terrible leader; and 3) his style and strengths might not complement the style Brad wants to play and the make up of the rest of the roster. Ainge could have traded Kyrie before February. Obviously he couldn't get 'equal value' since Kyrie can opt out this summer, but he could have gotten something (imagine sending him West to LA for their 1st round pick (now #4) and expiring contracts (cap space!!)). As it stands now, he may get absolutely nothing if Kyrie just walks. If a chump like me could begin to see this situation playing out while sitting on my couch, then I have to imagine people in the Celtics organization could see things even more clearly. I think Danny held onto Kyrie hoping to pair him with AD - that pairing would be the reward for what now seems like a pretty clear risk. I guess we'll see how it plays out.

by **mrkleen09** Wed Jun 05, 2019 3:56 pm

The fourth best team in the East = Fiasco?

Danny should have traded Kyrie in February?

Was the before or after he went 10 games averaging 30 PPG and was a +38?

Some of you guys make me laugh with the Monday Morning Quarterback act.

If you dont like the way Kyrie ended the season - I would be inclined to agree with you. But lets not be ridiculous. No GM in the NBA was trading Kyrie Irving mid season. Stop.

by **Shamrock1000** Wed Jun 05, 2019 4:10 pm

mrkleen09 wrote:The fourth best team in the East = Fiasco?

Danny should have traded Kyrie in February?

Was the before or after he went 10 games averaging 30 PPG and was a +38?

Some of you guys make me laugh with the Monday Morning Quarterback act.

If you dont like the way Kyrie ended the season - I would be inclined to agree with you. But lets not be ridiculous. No GM in the NBA was trading Kyrie Irving mid season. Stop.

Kleen - fair enough, "fiasco" was probably over the top. The rest is reasonable. By February there were plenty of legitimate questions about Kyrie. He had demonstrated his leaderships flaws, he had made it clear he was no longer committed to staying in Boston, and there was a loud chorus of fans and writers already wondering if the Celtics weren't better when he sat. You (or even me if I am honest) might not have agreed at the time, but there were signs. I am also assuming that Danny and management had a better read on the situation than anyone else. Obviously it wouldn't have been an easy decision or Danny would have made it, but I would bet it was discussed - that is the job of management. At least it should have been discussed - these guys are experts and get paid big bucks to sniff this stuff out. I think it was probably clear to Danny that the Celtics were not close to contending last year, so I don't think 'seeing how far they could go' was a motivation. My guess is pairing KI with AD was the motivation. Still possible...

by **worcester** Wed Jun 05, 2019 4:26 pm

mrkleen - right again. With or without Kyrie, this team is on the rise. Stay the course Danny.

by **Shamrock1000** Wed Jun 05, 2019 5:27 pm

NBA Rumors: Kyrie Irving ‘Takes The Air’ Out Of Celtics’ Locker Room

https://nesn.com/2019/06/nba-rumors-kyrie-irving-takes-the-air-out-of-celtics-locker-room/

If Kyrie Irving signs elsewhere in free agency this offseason, there’s a good chance not everyone in the Boston Celtics’ locker room will be sad to see him go. Irving’s two-year tenure with Boston has been marred by false hope, particularly this season when the Celtics lost to the Milwaukee Bucks in the second round of the playoffs despite entering the 2018-19 campaign with NBA Finals aspirations. And according to Jeff Goodman, a basketball analyst currently working for Stadium, the All-Star point guard’s demeanor doesn’t always sit well with his teammates. “The thing with Kyrie is he thinks he’s like the best player in the NBA or certainly right up there with it, and at times he looks like it,” Goodman said on the most recent episode of the Lakers Nation Podcast on CLNS Media. “But man, he got eaten up in the playoffs. He was terrible. He was terrible in the playoffs, and he’s become really — let’s put it this way: I talked to players on the Celtics, and one of them said like, he just takes the air out of the locker room. He’s hard to play with. He’s super talented, but hard to play with, and the other part of it is he’s just so moody.” Irving can opt out of his contract with the Celtics and test the open market, at which point there figure to be several teams interested in his services. The rumored list of potential suitors includes the Los Angeles Lakers, New York Knicks and Brooklyn Nets, with some pundits speculating Irving’s future could be tied to what Kevin Durant does in free agency. Goodman, for what it’s worth, doesn’t see the Lakers as being a good option for Irving despite the 27-year-old mending fences with LeBron James almost two years after forcing a trade from the Cleveland Cavaliers. He also doesn’t anticipate Irving will return to Boston, even though the Celtics present a desirable situation in spite of whatever awkwardness might exist in the locker room. “I don’t see him going back to L.A. I don’t see him staying in Boston, which is crazy to me because there’s not a better situation for Kyrie than in Boston,” Goodman said. “You’re playing for a coach who lets you do whatever the hell you want in Brad Stevens — he’s the easiest guy to deal with, ever. It’s your team. Clearly, it’s your team. You’ve got some young guys that, yeah, they want bigger roles, but it’s Kyrie’s team. Everybody knows that, and that’s what he’s always wanted. He’s got the ball in his hands at the end of the game, in the playoffs, whenever, and it just didn’t work out for him.” One can debate whether the Celtics are better off with or without Irving. It’s hard to imagine there being a bigger Boston rival next season if leaves, however, and that should make for some entertaining basketball, if nothing else.

Read more at: https://nesn.com/2019/06/nba-rumors-kyrie-irving-takes-the-air-out-of-celtics-locker-room/

I can't imagine management was either unaware or didn't/doesn't have concerns about Kyrie's effect on the team

by **dboss** Wed Jun 05, 2019 6:36 pm

This Goodman character is all over Irving.

I have actually heard comments form two players on the Celtics. Terry Rozier bitched and moaned about all the sacrifice he has made and also stated KI was difficult to play with because you do not know what he is going to do. Guess what, neither does Kyrie!

The other guy was Marcus Smart and he said it is bullshit to blame Kyrie for what happened.

I do not believe Goodman is telling a straight story.

NY Celt recently posted an interview with Danny Ainge and it confirms what I have been saying all along. Danny wants him back. Danny does not think it is fair to put all the blame on Kyrie. Danny does not know what Kyrie will do but he would like to know something before the June 20th draft. Danny does not regret trading for Kyrie regardless of what happens. He is ready willing and able to go on to the next deal.

I'll mention one more thing. The very idea that Danny should have traded Kyrie makes no sense at all. It makes no sense. For those Kyrie haters this reflects an inability to engage rationally about Irving. Your minds have been tainted to a point where you actually find fault with the Celtics for not trading him. It's ridiculous.

One thing seems crystal clear to me. Danny Ainge is giving Kyrie plenty of space but I think over the next two weeks he needs to have a meaningful conversation with Kyrie because it will impact trades and/or how Danny looks at who to draft.

by **Shamrock1000** Wed Jun 05, 2019 7:38 pm

Dboss,

I assume your post is at least partly in response to my previous post/s. First, in no way, shape, or form do I have anything akin to Kyrie-derangement-syndrome. I will admit I was initially against trading IT for Kyrie. I just thought IT had played better the previous season (which ordinary and advanced stats supported). However, once the trade was complete, and especially after it became clear IT's hip was a real problem, I was all on the Kyrie band wagon. He is a dazzling ball handler, with poetic fluidity and a gift for making difficult shots look effortless. I also enjoyed his odd personality - even if he came off as a pseudo-intellectual sometimes, I kind of admired his intellectual curiosity. As a physicist, I of course bemoaned the flat earth nonsense, but in a way, I admired his willingness to try and look at the evidence and make up his own mind. Of course I wish he had reached a different conclusion, but I didn't see it as a big deal. I hope to God our society is not seriously looking to NBA players to interpret the cosmos.

By midseason this year, he was wearing on me a little. His comments to the press not only undermined his own leadership efforts, but also destabilized the team. I also couldn't ignore the fact that the team seemed to play better when he didn't dress. Please do not quote his +/- numbers, since that reflects only what happens in games where he dresses and plays. When he didn't suit up, the team won more games, played at a faster pace, had more assists, and more balanced scoring. It is not realistic to expect the team to switch philosophies mid-game when Kyrie goes to the bench. When he didn't dress, the team played Brad's game, and played it well. One argument I heard to explain this phenomenon is that they were only beating weak teams. Well, they could only beat who they played. Additionally, the Kyrie-led Celtics did not have a better record against playoff teams.

Nonetheless, I still supported Kyrie in spite of my instincts. Take a look at my posts - Yes, I pointed out concerns, but I always tempered those statements with some version of "I still think the Celtics are better with Kyrie". I succumbed to the "it is crazy to think the Celtics are better without Kyrie" argument. This embarrasses me since, as a scientist, I should have weighted evidence over statements meant to embarrass dissenters into agreement.

The Bucks series was a disaster for Kyrie. Both his play and his comments were an anathema to everything the Celtics stand for. It would be one thing if he had taken some responsibility, or even shown some awareness of his own role in the collapse, but he seemed to willfully abandon everything Brad tried to put in place.

I don't think Goodman is lying when he quotes players, and I don't think he is protecting Terry. What would be the point, Terry has already put his name to his feelings. I think Baynes said something similar when he said the Celtics too often abandoned Brad's plan. There have been too many reports to just dismiss the idea that the team doesn't really like playing with Kyrie. Maybe it is all "fake news", but at this point it cannot be summarily dismissed. I don't know what people expect Danny to say, "yeah, Kyrie is a disaster and I want him gone"???

Let me reiterate again - I think Kyrie is a gifted basketball player. I think you can win with Kyrie. I just don't think he is a good fit for what Brad is trying to do. Put him with AD and another star? That team is likely a contender. But, they would be better off having Doc as a coach than Brad. Maybe Kyrie will learn, and maybe the situation can change, but I don't think it is fair to write off Kyrie doubters as crazy. There are legitimate concerns. These concerns were apparent before the trade deadiline to even casual observers, so professional management must have been aware of those concerns. Obviously the easy decision was to not trade Kyrie, but that doesn't mean it is "crazy" to even suggest it was a possibility. Even if we may disagree on tbe kyrie debate or anything else, calling the other side crazy or deranged is not fair or productive in settling a debate.

by Sponsored content