I don't think he gave up too much. I've come around to believe it's fair value. Danny got the best player in the deal and after including the actual players in the deal going to Cleveland kept 3 of his 4 top assets(Tatum, Brown, Lakers pick). They had to give up something from the young players/picks and while the Nets pick is hard to kiss goodbye it had to be done to do the deal.
This is an excellent post, and it basically articulates why I'm in favor of the trade and disagree with those who say that Ainge outbid himself. If Danny had gone into next season with Isaiah, this trade suggests to me that he would have been willing to let him walk for nothing at the end of next season, because of his concerns about Isaiah's age and health.
Yeah. Any whiny crybaby who said we should have offered the same package for George or Butler OR kept Fultz is ignoring that doing so would have meant -not- signing Gordon Hayward, since we needed cap room to do so. As it stood, we -had- to do both Morris for Bradley -and- trade down from Fultz to Tatum (and pick up a pick) in order to make the cap room to sign Hayward.
^^ this ^^
I don't love the trade, but I don't necessarily agree with this. The grades don't just reflect the gap because one of the most valuable assets in this trade isn't even an active player. I think the Celtics arguably narrowed the gap, and the Cavs' A rating across the board very much considers the fact that it helped set up their (potentially post-Lebron) future.
While it's true that, even if the Nets finish with the worst record, they aren't guaranteed the #1 pick, they are guaranteed #1-4. With the 4th worst record in the league, they have an 82.8% chance of #1-5. In next year's draft, any pick between 1-5 could be extremely valuable. Especially with the top prospects (as of now) having a wide variety of skill sets, which could lead to teams valuing players much differently and landing the true top talent at any spot. I realize there is no guarantee that the Nets finish in the bottom 4. I'm only saying that the trade could end up looking really bad, even if the pick doesn't turn into #1.
I don't love the trade and have to talk myself around to liking it, but how can you say this? Kyrie is 25, his age 24 season was 25.9 pts/3.3 reb/6.0 ast per 36 minutes on 53.5% eFG%. Two MVP candidate guards this season did 23.9 pts/5.4 reb/7.6 ast on 47.0% eFG% and 24.0 pts/4.5 rebs/5.8 ast on 52.9% eFG% per 36 in their age 24 seasons. Throw in a huge coaching upgrade for Kyrie and I'm not sure we're certain he's such a 'known quantity'.
Yup. I think your earlier point of the typical Danny Ainge trade thought process is going to turn out to be the smartest of the thread.
If the Lakers pick doesn't convey and then the Kings suck and we somehow end up with Zion I will build a statue for Danny myself. No way he could see that coming but having Zion dunks for 10 years would be incredible
No, the modern NBA is built on pace & space, move the ball & move yourself, etc. The question for me is not whether Kyrie is an MVP-level talent (I think he was 10 years ago before the league figured out how to play offense after the change in the illegal defense rule) but more can Kyrie fit what Brad tends to prefer offensively and especially alongside ideal modern-NBA type players like Gordo and Horford. I've yet to see anyone explain what the offense will look like with the ball in Mr. Stall's hands, other than the saying In Brad We Trust.
I assume that if BRK happens to start off 10-12, you'll recant everything about the trade and laud DA for being a visionary genius who was able to sell high on the Nets draft pick, correct?
Yeah. I mean, clearly it's utterly impossible for Ainge to acquire an MVP-talent quality player in trade, because we KNOW the player can't possibly be MVP-quality, so we should go all-in on lottery draft picks to find that MVP-talent.
Not that he'll have made adjusted projections but is there anywhere I can go either on the site or off to see Bowiac's projections? I'd love to see them pre-draft, post-draft pre-FA which I guess were his .1 projections that are in the 2017 Offseason Thread post 979. But then Post FA and when they're ready post-trade. I love seeing them evolve over time as teams make changes.
Zizic and Crowder are really blurring the line on what we are calling an asset these days.
Just to address the bolded, there is still lots of variation even among the "best" forecasts from the "most skilled" analysts. Injuries, unexpected issues with other teams, and the overall margin of error means that even the best forecast would probably have the Nets landing anywhere from worst to 10th worst. And noone can predict nor control the ping-pong balls.
This is a bit strong but yes, the pick was by far the main part of this. IT means less to this deal than Kopech did to the Sale deal (or Moncada, if you think Kopech was main piece). The question to me is what IT would have gotten us on his own.
Probably not a while he'll of a lot. A lot of people criticizing the deal are making the point that PG is stacked in this league right now. Which is true. What hat point ignores is that that very fact drives down his value. Add in his height, his contract (Brinks!), his defensive liabilities and the hip injury, I'm guessing they couldn't have gotten a whole hell of a lot for him. He's not a good fit on the majority of the teams, even if you think the hip will be fine. He was absolutely not the biggest piece in this trade.
The only way I'll "recant everything" is if Irving ends up leading this team to a championship. My basic point is that you only make this trade if you think he is good enough to he the best player on a championship team, and I personally think that's a laughable proposition.
It's late so I'll read this in the morning and I hope KOC can convince me. I am, at the end of the day, rooting for Kyrie to work out here. I do suspect it'll have more to do with Brad's powers of persuasion than anything else. If he transforms the MAN, then there is no doubt for me that Brad is this generation's best basketball coach. Peace.
What's your list of MVP-level players that would come available that Danny should've waited to cash in on?
The small forward out of Kentucky that everyone's always salivating over--you know, To Be Named Later.
Not sure it matters now but it certainly wouldn't have included Irving. His hero ball game seems much more what you'd expect of the top player on a bad team than the type of player who is going to lead a team to a championship.
I agree, but the argument here is that you make this kind of trade for exactly that reason.
"Hero ball" is a vague word, that encompasses too many playing styles to be useful for analysis.
Yeah, one way to look at it is this: who has a better chance of becoming an "MVP-level player," Kyrie, or the unnamed pick in the 2018 draft that could be as high as #1 sure, but could also be somewhere more like 5-8. I think the odds are low either way but there is at least some evidence Kyrie could rise to another level and betting that any single draft pick, no matter how high or in how good of a year, will become a future MVP is extremely foolish.
But the trade is more than just about the 2017-18 Celtics.
While this MAY be true for the next year, it's almost certainly not true for the two years Kyrie is under contract.
Not just one or more "Jay" but don't forget Ojeleye. Brad described him as one of their best defenders and certainly his skill set - particularly his lateral movement, which is off the charts for a guy so big - mirrors what Crowder offers.
I think the burden of proof goes the other direction--based on what Brad has done in terms of effectively deploying players, especially on offense, why do you think he WON'T have the magic wand when it comes to Kyrie?
This is exactly where I'm at. The Nyets pick is what flips me from pro to con on the trade's terms. Sure, it might not end up being a top-5 pick, and that pick might not end up being an all-star, but we know what we know as of now. We know that the Nets' roster is trash, so even if we accept Bowiac's probability distribution of season outcomes and then layer that with the lottery's probability distribution, we were still 60-70% likely to get a top-5 pick. And the draft, by consensus of evaluators much better than I am, is absolutely loaded. I would have vastly preferred giving an extra first-round pick, pretty much anything other than the LAL/SAC pick, in exchange for getting some protections on the Brooklyn pick.
As opposed to wishcasting that the Nets stink as much as last season, then wishcasting the lottery works out, then wishcasting the actual pick pans out?
We need a magic wand to make him continue to be an elite scorer with a knack for rising to the occasion in massive moments? 25 years old and signed for the next two years?
