Rate the trade: Irving for Thomas/Crowder/Zizic Nets 18' pick

[Sox Puppet]

If we're looking at the whole picture, continuity-wise I'd rather have

Fultz+BKN pick+Thomas+Crowder (and Zizic)

than

Tatum+Irving+LAL/SAC/PHI pick.

I agree completely. I almost wonder if Danny Ainge would have stayed put with the first scenario if he had known that Gordon Hayward would definitely sign with the C's. Tatum, as exciting as he is so far, is a little redundant with Hayward playing the 3. Plus, if we wanted a young PG to build around, cost-controlled Fultz + a year of IT4 is a much better option than 2 years of Kyrie.

 

[InstaFace]

I'd have swapped IT4, Crowder, Zizic, and a Clippers/Celtics pick (or both) for Irving immediately.

It was the Nets pick that was basically had me voting NO!

But if the Nets pick turns out to be worth much less than a top 3 pick, then I think Boston did pretty well. So it's pretty much a 'ehhhh.... yes' for me now.

If a year from now the Nets pick turns out to be like, 8th or higher and the Lakers turn into the #2 overall pick, I'd have a far, far more uproarious 'YES!'

You can't think about this trade in terms of the uncertain, gambling-style outcomes. We know right now what the probability distribution is on both the Nets' season and the resulting lottery process, to some amount of uncertainty but without extraordinary error bars. We know what draft evaluators are telling us about the draft's top 5 relative to what they said about the past drafts since, let's say, 2011. If the ping-pong balls roll differently next summer, or Ayton slips in the bathtub and tears his ACL, that doesn't change whether we should support the trade or not. When the chips were pushed in and the cards revealed, did we have the best (championship) equity in the pot or not?

You're going to have a hard time convincing me that, if we had insisted on pick protections or no deal, some other team would have come along with a better offer. Or that we wouldn't have cleared Cleveland's reservation price.

 

[cheech13]

Isn't it largely irrelevant whether or not the Brooklyn pick is #1 or #10 at this point? It's already been traded and it has no bearing on Boston going forward. The reason the Celtics were able to acquire Kyrie is because the Cavs valued that pick as likely being in the top five. Whether or not the Celtics thought it was going to be in the top five doesn't particularly matter, at least in terms of the calculus of making a superstar trade.

 

[lovegtm]

You're going to have a hard time convincing me that, if we had insisted on pick protections or no deal, some other team would have come along with a better offer. Or that we wouldn't have cleared Cleveland's reservation price.

If the Celtics pushed for protections, Cleveland probably would have wanted something along the lines of what the C's got from Philly: a shot at a very high draft pick in this or another draft if it didn't convey.

Based on reports that Cleveland would have taken the LAL/SAC pick, the likely story is that Boston's front office felt significantly more bullish about the Nets than Cleveland did, and want to take advantage of what they see as a large chance that Brooklyn picks between 5 and 10.

tldr; the Celtics probably see the Nets pick as worth a lot less than you do.

 

[nighthob]

I don't want to re-hash the previous discussion thread, but we should at least point out that Irving, despite being young, has a *more* concerning injury history than Thomas. The Thomas injury concern is speculation based on a chronic condition. Irving has actually really missed a ton of time.

According to Celtics reports prior to the trade, Boston didn't expect Thomas to be ready for the start of the season, a fact they reiterated at the time of the deal. So while Irving is likely to keep missing 15-20 games per year, the 28 year old 5'9" guy whose game is predicated on quickness that has an arthritic hip is always the bigger injury concern. Because once his quickness declines the rest of the game is going to go south quickly.

 

[RedOctober3829]

You can't think about this trade in terms of the uncertain, gambling-style outcomes. We know right now what the probability distribution is on both the Nets' season and the resulting lottery process, to some amount of uncertainty but without extraordinary error bars. We know what draft evaluators are telling us about the draft's top 5 relative to what they said about the past drafts since, let's say, 2011. If the ping-pong balls roll differently next summer, or Ayton slips in the bathtub and tears his ACL, that doesn't change whether we should support the trade or not. When the chips were pushed in and the cards revealed, did we have the best (championship) equity in the pot or not?

You're going to have a hard time convincing me that, if we had insisted on pick protections or no deal, some other team would have come along with a better offer. Or that we wouldn't have cleared Cleveland's reservation price.

At the trade deadline, it was rumored that Danny, among other assets, offered the Brooklyn 17 pick top 1 or 2 protected to the Pacers for a year and 3 months of Paul George. So, Danny has been known to put protections on the Brooklyn picks in deals for star players. I just think he really, really likes Irving and what he can become in Boston and decided that Irving's future value is going to be equal to or exceed the value of wherever that pick may land. I think that the right combination of circumstances(star player in his prime with multiple years at a cheaper than IT rate) presented a unique opportunity. It's known that Danny wants to win now and also build for the future and I think his stockpiling of guys like Tatum, Brown, and Smart combined with win-now moves like Hayward and Irving proves that he's doing that. I also think if they simply picked at #1 this year that this deal doesn't even happen. Danny wouldn't have punted on having a chance at a top-5 pick altogether in 2018. People are also forgetting that they'll have 3 first round picks in 2019 that they could either use in a trade, used at the draft to supplement the roster, package together to try to move up into the lottery, and also the Grizzlies pick could be in the lottery anyways.

 

[lovegtm]

According to Celtics reports prior to the trade, Boston didn't expect Thomas to be ready for the start of the season, a fact they reiterated at the time of the deal. So while Irving is likely to keep missing 15-20 games per year, the 28 year old 5'9" guy whose game is predicated on quickness that has an arthritic hip is always the bigger injury concern. Because once his quickness declines the rest of the game is going to go south quickly.

This. Everyone keeps comparing Kyrie to 2016-2017 IT, but the Celtics pretty clearly think that guy isn't walking through that door.

 

[JakeRae]

If we're looking at the whole picture, continuity-wise I'd rather have

Fultz+BKN pick+Thomas+Crowder (and Zizic)

than

Tatum+Irving+LAL/SAC/PHI pick.

If we are just falling back on Trust in Ainge that's fine, he's earned it (at least trade wise) but doesn't make for much discussion.

I'd take the latter, but it's a product of thinking we got really good value to move from 1 to 3, most of which we gave up to add Irving.

That said, I think I, and several of those against this trade, are underrating the likelihood Irving could take a leap. For example, while CARMELO doesn't expect him to improve from here, the Curry comp is not crazy, he's his #3 comp. I also look at a similar player, like Lillard, who made a big leap from 25 to 26, or IT, who has done the same the last few years.

Playing a faster paced, more open game that is designed more around his skills could also open up possibilities for him. An offensive leap won't mean we just acquired Curry, since he is better at pretty much every nonscoring aspect of the game, but if he does it and exerts effort on defense, we could be getting someone on the level of Harden, instead of the guy Irving has been so far. If Ainge thinks we are getting that level of player, it's a lot easier for me to understand this trade.

 

[BigSoxFan]

If the Celtics pushed for protections, Cleveland probably would have wanted something along the lines of what the C's got from Philly: a shot at a very high draft pick in this or another draft if it didn't convey.

Based on reports that Cleveland would have taken the LAL/SAC pick, the likely story is that Boston's front office felt significantly more bullish about the Nets than Cleveland did, and want to take advantage of what they see as a large chance that Brooklyn picks between 5 and 10.

tldr; the Celtics probably see the Nets pick as worth a lot less than you do.

I wish we could find out the Celtics' thinking re: Nets vs. Lakers/Kings because I just don't see it. Even if you are more bullish on the Nets, the absolute worst case for the 2018 pick is, what, #10 if everything breaks their way? And I mean EVERYTHING would have to. That roster is complete shit.

Conversely, a lot would have to go right for the Celtics to get the Lakers' pick in the 2-5 range so realistically it becomes the Kings' 2019 pick, a team that has been picking 5-10 for basically the last decade. And that pick is top 1 protected and could turn into Philly's pick so there is additional downside with this pick that simply doesn't exist with 2018 Nets pick. It's obviously a remote chance though.

I'm sure there was a lot of statistical analysis that went into this and would love to know how they arrived at the decision. I figure when you're talking comparable shitty teams, you'd take the pick that isn't protected, has less downside, and is closer to being realized.

 

[lovegtm]

I wish we could find out the Celtics' thinking re: Nets vs. Lakers/Kings because I just don't see it. Even if you are more bullish on the Nets, the absolute worst case for the 2018 pick is, what, #10 if everything breaks their way? And I mean EVERYTHING would have to. That roster is complete shit.

Conversely, a lot would have to go right for the Celtics to get the Lakers' pick in the 2-5 range so realistically it becomes the Kings' 2019 pick, a team that has been picking 5-10 for basically the last decade. And that pick is top 1 protected and could turn into Philly's pick so there is additional downside with this pick that simply doesn't exist with 2018 Nets pick. It's obviously a remote chance though.

I'm sure there was a lot of statistical analysis that went into this and would love to know how they arrived at the decision. I figure when you're talking comparable shitty teams, you'd take the pick that isn't protected, has less downside, and is closer to being realized.

I'm guessing that a lot of the analysis of Lakers vs. Nets came down to two things:

1. The specific type of shittiness--the Nets have a collection of mediocre veterans and young guys, the Lakers have a lot more high-upside young guys. The latter tend to perform worse in terms of immediate record, while having much more long-term value. I think people forget how bad SEA/OKC was early on, even with 2-3 future hall of famers on the roster. Young guys just take awhile to produce wins.

2. The West/East imbalance is at insane levels, and a lot of the teams that were propping the East up took complete nosedives in the offseason. That leads to a double whammy where the Lakers have to play much better teams more often than the Nets do, and the Nets have a lot more teams under them to take advantage of.

 

[Hagios]

This is fucking ridiculous. When the possibility of this trade was debated on this exact forum, nobody, and I mean nobody, was willing to consider it if the Cavs were asking for the Lakers pick. Now the nets pick and Zizic have been sent and a majority support it. There is some, as of yet unnamed psychological phenomenon, at play here that I don't understand.

It's called the Endowment Effect. People tend to value things they own higher simply by virtue of owning them. Here is a very apropos video in which people refused to sell their lottery tickets (see what I did there) for more than face value.

 

[Eddie Jurak]

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.

How do you expect Kyrie's "hero ball" to differ from what IT did when he was here? The Celtics built their team offense around IT and they will do the same with Kyrie. Is there really any good reason to think he's going to object to being the Celtics go-to, 25+ ppg leading scorer? Why? Because someotiems the offense will run through Hayward/Horford/Smart? I don't really see it.

Whatever Brad asks of Kyrie, it won't be "pattern your game on Rajon Rondo.

Irving has played as the lead guy on crap teams, and he's played as the #2 guy on teams that were built around LeBron.

This will be a different situation.

 

[PC Drunken Friar]

Hero Ball is such a fucking stupid term

Sent from my XT1650 using SoSH mobile app

 

[Papelbon's Poutine]

This will be a different situation.

It will also be a different situation for IT and Crowder going to Cleveland and playing in their system. There's a very grey area in evaluating whether their improvements were a product of them developing or of Stevens' system. People are citing Irving is 25 and "is the player he is", while ignoring the player IT was at that age and how he has performed the last two and half years in Stevens' system. I would not be shocked in the least if either players regressed playing for LeBron...I mean, Tyrone Lue.

 

[nighthob]

I'm guessing that a lot of the analysis of Lakers vs. Nets came down to two things:

1. The specific type of shittiness--the Nets have a collection of mediocre veterans and young guys, the Lakers have a lot more high-upside young guys. The latter tend to perform worse in terms of immediate record, while having much more long-term value. I think people forget how bad SEA/OKC was early on, even with 2-3 future hall of famers on the roster. Young guys just take awhile to produce wins.

2. The West/East imbalance is at insane levels, and a lot of the teams that were propping the East up took complete nosedives in the offseason. That leads to a double whammy where the Lakers have to play much better teams more often than the Nets do, and the Nets have a lot more teams under them to take advantage of.

I don't think people have fully processed yet that there will be a dozen teams vying for western conference playoff berths next year. And that from a Lakers perspective that means that there are going to be 36-40 games against WC playoff contenders and ten games against the five good teams in the east. I'll be shocked if the Lakers can play more than .250 ball during those games.

That gives them roughly 30 games where they'll be playing teams at their own level, even if they could play .500 ball in those games, how many more victories do people think they'll be accumulating in the other 50+ games against teams jockeying for seeding. The only two teams that won't (Golden State and Cleveland) might be able to pound LA with their benches playing all 48 minutes.

By contrast the Nets, thanks to the terrible East, get around 40 games where they'll be competitive, and due to the sheer number of vets on the roster, more likely to get those "We're going to be scrappy for 48 minutes and wear down the other guy that was hoping to cruise to victory" wins than LA. Put another way, it's a lot easier to see Brooklyn winning 32 games than the Lakers. And I'm sure that Boston's analytics staff has done exacting studies giving odds on possible victory totals for both teams and the Nets likely grade out better than LA in nearly every scenario (even where you expect both teams to be bottom five).

It's a gigantic gamble since there's a nonzero chance that the Lakers pick ends up #1 and Boston's reward is a mid first in 2019. But that's why Danny gets paid the big bucks, because he has balls of steel.

 

[DeJesus Built My Hotrod]

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?

Because that's what he is already.

There is a lot of emotion creeping into this discussion, because IT was so beloved the last two years. Understandable, but it's happening.

I hate to say it given recent context but the emotion is creeping in on both sides.

In the other thread I posted Irving's regular season and playoff D ratings for the past three years. Setting aside issues with D rating, the data shows no discernible difference between regular season Kyrie defense and playoff time Kyrie. It was summarily waved away by folks who pointed out how great the Warriors and other teams are offensively which may be a fair point. But it also goes in the face of the arguments here that Playoff Kyrie is where he steps up on defense. Maybe he is exerting more effort and he looks good in those big games. However the data says otherwise and maybe it's because he can't get the job done against the level of competition he sees in the playoffs.

smas is right- people are wishcasting for a player that Irving may yet become but hasn't been to date.

Last thing - yes, Kyrie is "only 25" but he has been in the league six years and has been a starter for all of those seasons. In the NBA, a player with that tenure and playing time is generally a seasoned veteran with a defined style of play. In other words, he is who he is. As a point of reference, we pretty much saw the best that Rondo had to offer by his sixth NBA season.

I strongly suspect most Celtics fans want this trade to work out for Boston. To my way of thinking, it means accepting the player the Cs acquired versus what he *might* become if only to temper expectations.

edit: I see upthread that PP noted that Thomas was 25 when he arrived in Boston. The difference is that Thomas hadn't yet established himself in the league yet and had only started 154 games over three plus seasons playing for three different teams. By Irving's fourth season he had already started 256 games for one organization.

 

[tbrown_01923]

Dejesus (et al), are their opinions that Kyrie's shortcomings on defense are easier to hide than IT4s? For example Keeping his hand in Korver's face has to be easier for him than IT - no?

 

[RedOctober3829]

I hate to say it given recent context but the emotion is creeping in on both sides.

In the other thread I posted Irving's regular season and playoff D ratings for the past three years. Setting aside issues with D rating, the data shows no discernible difference between regular season Kyrie defense and playoff time Kyrie. It was summarily waved away by folks who pointed out how great the Warriors and other teams are offensively which may be a fair point. But it also goes in the face of the arguments here that Playoff Kyrie is where he steps up on defense. Maybe he is exerting more effort and he looks good in those big games. However the data says otherwise and maybe it's because he can't get the job done against the level of competition he sees in the playoffs.

smas is right- people are wishcasting for a player that Irving may yet become but hasn't been to date.

Last thing - yes, Kyrie is "only 25" but he has been in the league six years and has been a starter for all of those seasons. In the NBA, a player with that tenure and playing time is generally a seasoned veteran with a defined style of play. In other words, he is who he is. As a point of reference, we pretty much saw the best that Rondo had to offer by his sixth NBA season.

I strongly suspect most Celtics fans want this trade to work out for Boston. To my way of thinking, it means accepting the player the Cs acquired versus what he *might* become if only to temper expectations.

Are the people against this trade wishcasting for the player IT has been the last couple years and not factoring in him getting older and playing on what could be a chronically injured hip? Would the critics be comfortable re-signing IT to a long-term, expensive deal knowing that his hip will probably get worse as the years go on? Also, if Danny saw these things and let IT walk after this year how would they replace his 25-30 ppg going forward?

 

[Eddie Jurak]

If we're looking at the whole picture, continuity-wise I'd rather have

Fultz+BKN pick+Thomas+Crowder (and Zizic)

than

Tatum+Irving+LAL/SAC/PHI pick.

If we are just falling back on Trust in Ainge that's fine, he's earned it (at least trade wise) but doesn't make for much discussion.

In all honesty, the Crowder part is the only real sticking point for me. (That seems weird, but...). I'm willing to trust Ainge on the Fultz vs Tatum+pick question, and on what he thinks about how the current Brooklyn team compares to the rest of the east.

I think an IT+ for Irving deal looks better on consideration of contract/injury status for both players.

But for all of that, I still hate to lose Crowder, who I think is underrated by a strict focus on the numbers and measurables. I would rather have seen them include Morris plus more salary filler (assuming they have any more). Despite whatever limitations he had, he was effective, knew his role, and was familiar with Brad's system and coaching style.

Moving on from Crowder really puts the onus on Brown and Tatum to be productive in fairly large roles.

 

[Jed Zeppelin]

In all honesty, the Crowder part is the only real sticking point for me. (That seems weird, but...). I'm willing to trust Ainge on the Fultz vs Tatum+pick question, and on what he thinks about how the current Brooklyn team compares to the rest of the east.

I think an IT+ for Irving deal looks better on consideration of contract/injury status for both players.

But for all of that, I still hate to lose Crowder, who I think is underrated by a strict focus on the numbers and measurables. I would rather have seen them include Morris plus more salary filler (assuming they have any more). Despite whatever limitations he had, he was effective, knew his role, and was familiar with Brad's system and coaching style.

Moving on from Crowder really puts the onus on Brown and Tatum to be productive in fairly large roles.

He would have been pretty great in a complementary role but I also like the idea of forcing Brown and Tatum to grow up a bit faster. Crowder is what he is, but we need Brown and Tatum to reach their much higher ceilings and become great if we're going to eventually take a leap to become legit contenders. Calculated risk for sure, but I like that the leash will by nature be a bit longer this season.

 

[djbayko]

It's called the Endowment Effect. People tend to value things they own higher simply by virtue of owning them. Here is a very apropos video in which people refused to sell their lottery tickets (see what I did there) for more than face value.

I think there's probably more superstition than Endowment Effect involved in this example, but it's definitely interesting.

 

[DeJesus Built My Hotrod]

Are the people against this trade wishcasting for the player IT has been the last couple years and not factoring in him getting older and playing on what could be a chronically injured hip? Would the critics be comfortable re-signing IT to a long-term, expensive deal knowing that his hip will probably get worse as the years go on? Also, if Danny saw these things and let IT walk after this year how would they replace his 25-30 ppg going forward?

You are right if referring to those who wanted the Cs to keep Thomas. He is a deeply flawed player and as others have noted, was likely to decline rapidly even without a bum hip.

FWIW, I am not in that camp and don't dislike the trade because of the pieces Ainge surrendered. It's just that I was hoping a package like that would net Boston something more transformational. I am now convinced that my expectations were unrealistic.

In any event I am looking forward to seeing how Irving fares alongside Hardwood and Horford as well as how Stevens schemes for them. As others have noted here, if anyone can maximize Irving's talents, it's Stevens.

 

[Eddie Jurak]

Last thing - yes, Kyrie is "only 25" but he has been in the league six years and has been a starter for all of those seasons. In the NBA, a player with that tenure and playing time is generally a seasoned veteran with a defined style of play. In other words, he is who he is. As a point of reference, we pretty much saw the best that Rondo had to offer by his sixth NBA season.

edit: I see upthread that PP noted that Thomas was 25 when he arrived in Boston. The difference is that Thomas hadn't yet established himself in the league yet and had only started 154 games over three plus seasons playing for three different teams. By Irving's fourth season he had already started 256 games for one organization.

I don't know as I buy this. Kyrie spent his first 3 years as the lone glimmer of talent on an awful team in a poorly run organization. Then he spent the next 3 playing Lebron ball. As those are both pretty atypical situations for an NBA player to be in, I don't think it's a given that "he is what he is" is going to apply.

 

[DeJesus Built My Hotrod]

I don't know as I buy this. Kyrie spent his first 3 years as the lone glimmer of talent on an awful team in a poorly run organization. Then he spent the next 3 playing Lebron ball. As those are both pretty atypical situations for an NBA player to be in, I don't think it's a given that "he is what he is" is going to apply.

Perhaps Kyrie has another gear. But defensive ability is one skill that NBA players seem to establish early on in their careers.

 

[Jed Zeppelin]

You are right if referring to those who wanted the Cs to keep Thomas. He is a deeply flawed player and as others have noted, was likely to decline rapidly even without a bum hip.

FWIW, I am not in that camp and don't dislike the trade because of the pieces Ainge surrendered. It's just that I was hoping a package like that would net Boston something more transformational. I am now convinced that my expectations were unrealistic.

In any event I am looking forward to seeing how Irving fares alongside Hardwood and Horford as well as how Stevens schemes for them. As others have noted here, if anyone can maximize Irving's talents, it's Stevens.

It took a unique situation for a package like this to even be on the table. Something more transformational will/would require a package more along the lines of top pick + Brown/Tatum/Smart. Palatable for the right player but that hasn't come up yet, Cousins being the closest if not for his issues. We still have the goods to make that kind of deal if it comes up, with the right mix of young players, picks, and salary fodder.

 

[lovegtm]

In any event I am looking forward to seeing how Irving fares alongside Hardwood and Horford as well as how Stevens schemes for them. As others have noted here, if anyone can maximize Irving's talents, it's Stevens.

This is why I'm so excited. I would have been similarly excited to see IT with those two, but, as mentioned, last year's IT probably won't exist anymore.

I think that if they can find 2 guys on the current roster to be reliable shooters, lineups with those 3 are going to border on unguardable, and we simply haven't seen anything like that with the Celtics in pretty much ever. It's going to be very, very fun.

 

[lovegtm]

Moving on from Crowder really puts the onus on Brown and Tatum to be productive in fairly large roles.

This might be a feature as much as a bug, especially if the timetable is "have an outside chance in 2017-18, and then REALLY be going for it starting the season after."

 

[DourDoerr]

I'm surprised by the numbers against the trade. I've long been a proponent of keeping high draft picks and building a team from there. Well, the C's drafted 2 players sky-high and then used a potential high pick to grab one of the league's brightest young stars. And at a position that's not only vital in today's game, but whose best players are mid to late primes, meaning Irving should only move up that ladder even if he just maintains his performance.

I get the hope for a more transformational return, but at the Irving age range, there's only a few examples that even exist like Davis or Leonard and then you need the other trading partner to cooperate. And, if they're not nuts, they won't.

 

[teddykgb]

In addition to my previous post, I just don't see what people who are against this trade saw as the next step. Has anyone done the cap math on what would have happened in a play out the string but not resign IT scenario? I don't think we had a way to create max cap space to sign another FA nor is there an impending FA I could really envision us chasing.

Letting Isaiah walk and getting nothing in return, not even the ability to go sign another superstar, would have been a really bad outcome. I get the wishcasting on the potential of the Nets pick but there aren't a lot of rookies who can immediately dominate in any way. Horford + Hayward really compels you to try to compete to some extent now.

 

[RedOctober3829]

Perhaps Kyrie has another gear. But defensive ability is one skill that NBA players seem to establish early on in their careers.

It's not about physical defensive ability with Kyrie. He has all the physical tools to be a good defensive player. Defense is about having the mindset and the willingness to do it. The question is that is Brad Stevens the coach to get it out of him?

 

[wade boggs chicken dinner]

In addition to my previous post, I just don't see what people who are against this trade saw as the next step. Has anyone done the cap math on what would have happened in a play out the string but not resign IT scenario? I don't think we had a way to create max cap space to sign another FA nor is there an impending FA I could really envision us chasing.

Yes, the cap figures are in the attached: http://www.celticshub.com/2017/07/08/celtics-post-hayward-roster-cap-review/. Summary:

The Cs were at $103+MM prior to the Irving trade. Reupping Smart for $10MM and adding two top 5 picks and factoring all of the raises gets the Cs to approximately $122MM, which is near the tax threshold IIRC. If Smart's shot has approved, $10MM might not be enough.

From a purely financial standpoint, next year's cap situation improves by getting rid of IT and the BRK pick.

 

[queenb]

There's no current coach-GM combo I'd rather have, and I wasn't attached to IT so I don't mind an overhaul of the current team, but I don't like this trade.

I could see an argument for rejecting the "window" binary -- partly because Hayward could end up spanning both -- but let's say it exists. The 2017/18/19/20 core of Horford-Hayward-Irving has no chance of being the best team in the NBA. Which is fine. They don't have any of the 15-20 best players and truly dominant teams usually have several, so that would be hard to accomplish. (And that's not a complaint: they've rebuilt insanely quickly.) But I also don't think this group will break through and win a title. Not just because the Warriors are built to dominate, but because if the Warriors somehow fell apart it's easy to imagine another group of superstars coalescing during this time-frame and being heavily favored over this core. Houston is 2/3 of the way there. The Spurs -- with their system, culture, coaching -- have a similar but superior pitch to the Celtics and already have Kawhi in place. Wherever LeBron goes (accounting for who goes with him) will almost certainly have more top-level talent than the Celtics.

Then you have the 2020/21/22/23 core of Brown-Tatum-Irving. There's a chance neither Brown nor Tatum turn out to be as good as either Hayward or Horford, and if that's the case, this probably isn't a title contention window either, and the stakes are lower than any of us currently imagine. If a superstar emerges from those two and the other is a solid, Harrison Barnes-type starter and contributor, the Celtics are in a good spot. But either way this core needs another star (drafted or established). Cue the BRK and LAL picks. Obviously the draft is a crap-shoot but for those saying the chances of drafting the next Kobe, Durant, LeBron, etc. are minuscule -- sure. So are the chances of building a dynasty. Those guys are basically what you need. And it just so happens that the Celtics had the best-possible chance of landing a superstar in the draft of any team in recent memory by virtue of having two bites at the apple in a class that looks top-heavy.

TL;DR: I don't think the short-term Celtics are talented enough to win a title, and the long-term Celtics either need to hit on another high draft pick (which they now have one shot at, not two) or leverage their assets (now slightly diminished) to land another star.

 

[BaseballJones]

It's not about physical defensive ability with Kyrie. He has all the physical tools to be a good defensive player. Defense is about having the mindset and the willingness to do it. The question is that is Brad Stevens the coach to get it out of him?

And let's be honest... he only really needs to be a good/great defender in the playoffs. Which he's shown the ability to do already. So we know it's in him. And we know big playoff situations can bring it out of him.

 

[JakeRae]

And let's be honest... he only really needs to be a good/great defender in the playoffs. Which he's shown the ability to do already. So we know it's in him. And we know big playoff situations can bring it out of him.

Except for the part where he hasn't shown that ability, ever?

 

[Jed Zeppelin]

I don't think he necessarily needs to be a great defender anyway. He just needs to not be the raging tire fire that comes from being 5'9". Thomas cannot be hidden on defense and everyone else on the floor has to work doubly hard just to make sure he isn't constantly stuck singled up against the opponent's best scorer on a simple switch or swallowed whole by a pick. Being undersized throughout the roster certainly didn't help in that regard either.

 

[BaseballJones]

Except for the part where he hasn't shown that ability, ever?

I thought it was common knowledge here that he played good defense in the NBA finals the past couple of years. Maybe I'm wrong.

 

[InstaFace]

queenb: I think saying we don't have any of the 15-20 best players undersells both Irving and Heywhadyaknow considerably. 538's excellent article about the best players on championship teams puts Hayward in the middle of the 2nd tier of players, and Irving in the middle of the 3rd.

 

[teddykgb]

Yes, the cap figures are in the attached: http://www.celticshub.com/2017/07/08/celtics-post-hayward-roster-cap-review/. Summary:

The Cs were at $103+MM prior to the Irving trade. Reupping Smart for $10MM and adding two top 5 picks and factoring all of the raises gets the Cs to approximately $122MM, which is near the tax threshold IIRC. If Smart's shot has approved, $10MM might not be enough.

From a purely financial standpoint, next year's cap situation improves by getting rid of IT and the BRK pick.

Isn't this a really big deal? If IT walked there was no path to adding another star to replace him. They probably would have had to re-sign him just to have a max slot and hope they could trade him to some team at some point in the future with picks to offload a superstar they didn't want (which is basically what they just did?)

 

[DeJesus Built My Hotrod]

Thomas last three regular season D ratings from B Ref (in order):

109
107
112

Kyrie's:

108
106
112

Thomas playoffs were horrible last season at 118 (the only year with any decent sample size).

Irving's last playoffs was 115.

 

[smastroyin]

I am not attached to Thomas and would have played out the season and then let him shop for deals. I think I've been pretty clear on this in many threads. So please don't say my opinion is colored by overrating Thomas, except to say that objectively I just don't see the Thomas-Irving gap that is worth the price Danny just paid. And yes that includes having Marcus Smart, starting PG, as the plan for 2018-19.

To me, there are several arguments you can make, and I don't find any of them compelling.

Entertainment wise - I think Thomas is the easier player to root for, has more of an underdog thing going because of his height. Trade that for Irving's incredible handle and finish which is fun to watch. Regardless in terms of just fan value watching the team, I do think coming into this year this is at best a wash.

Value on the court - Thomas and Irving are very similar, achieving most of their value on the offensive end. You can argue that Irving has more ceiling simply because he doesn't have Thomas's physical disadvantage. That is fine, but he will also need to take advantage of that far more often. Essentially, though, Irving has never done anything to say that he's going to make the team better on his own, and in this way, I'd be worried about giving him a max in two years and ending up with a post-Horford/Hayward team with Irving as the centerpiece. A lot can happen between now and then but a lot could have happened without this trade being made.

Value Part 2 - Stevens system - Thomas even though he was by far the Celtics best player offensively was not a ball stopper. Irving despite playing with one of the best players in the history of the NBA often was. You can argue, again, the Irving has the skills necessary to be coached into ball movement and playing the "Celtics way." But again, this is what I'm talking about with the magic wand.

Value Part 3 - playoffs. Here's where Irving has historical advantage. Always, though, under the shadow of a much better player. Shade he will not enjoy in Boston. As well, once you gave Thomas a couple of options, he was able to light up a few playoff games himself.

Window-wise - Irving is a very good player. While I don't see the gap as wide as some he is better and more versatile than Thomas. But, is he better enough? Is he a rare enough player that you have to make this kind of deal? Will the Celtics even be better than the Cavs during Irving's tenure as a Celtic? Everyone seems to be making the assumption that LeBron is going to cut and run and they will deal Love for whatever they can get and rebuild again. What about the situation where LeBron convinces a star to come to Cleveland and now that BKN pick gives them the trade piece they need to make it happen? Or simply if LeBron doesn't leave at all? Even beyond that, can they compete with the iron of the West with this team?

If it weren't for Stevens I would be much more emotional. To me on paper this is a completely shit trade in terms of present day and in terms of future planning. It doesn't get you closer enough to immediate goals at the price of longer term goals and continuity. The only thing it achieves is keeping you from being the bad guy who didn't re-sign Thomas when you had the chance. I hope Danny's not that much of a coward. (I don't think he is, either). So I have to assume they know what they can do with Irving. But right now I still don't like it.

 

[teddykgb]

Can someone define ball stopper or hero ball in any reasonable way? Thomas had a higher Usage rate than Kyrie last season. How is one a ball stopper and the other is a great fit for the Celtics? Kyrie had a better AST/TO ratio as well, with Thomas slightly getting him on Ast%. I read these posts about Kyrie Irving like he's somehow way different or worse at playing with teammates and it just doesn't ring true to me at all.

 

[godownswinging]

Has Kyrie always had the ballstopper label?

Looks to me like his assist rate changed pretty significantly when he started playing with Lebron. Before condemning the man for pounding the ball, let's acknowledge the possibility that part of the reason he wanted to leave Cleveland is to play in a motion-style offense.

 

[bradmahn]

Isn't this a really big deal? If IT walked there was no path to adding another star to replace him. They probably would have had to re-sign him just to have a max slot and hope they could trade him to some team at some point in the future with picks to offload a superstar they didn't want (which is basically what they just did?)

Well, the argument is that 18BKN is the path to add another max player, or it's wishcasting on a 30-year-old IT, or it's laying in wait for another pre-prime superstar to burn the assets on, which would have a deadline of its own.

I think Ainge felt he had accumulated enough lottery shots at a star, especially in acquiring the LAL/SAC/PHI pick on top of the Tatum ticket, that it was time to hedge against the real possibility none of the tickets hit and in 2020 you are where we were when Brad arrived with no stars and a bunch of mediocre-to-bad role players.

Maybe separate of the calculus, maybe not... does Stevens stick around through another re-build? I don't know and I'm glad I don't have to ponder that more than I just did.

 

[riboflav]

In addition to my previous post, I just don't see what people who are against this trade saw as the next step. Has anyone done the cap math on what would have happened in a play out the string but not resign IT scenario? I don't think we had a way to create max cap space to sign another FA nor is there an impending FA I could really envision us chasing.

Letting Isaiah walk and getting nothing in return, not even the ability to go sign another superstar, would have been a really bad outcome. I get the wishcasting on the potential of the Nets pick but there aren't a lot of rookies who can immediately dominate in any way. Horford + Hayward really compels you to try to compete to some extent now.

For me, it's not the talent level of Kyrie that bothers me about this trade (though I do think he's overrated by many on SoSH), it's the TYPE of player he is. I don't want to rehash all my other posts arguing this but needless to say that is the major problem I and some others have with the trade.

 

[DJnVa]

I think many think they know what type he is, but can't actually articulate it and show the numbers.

 

[DourDoerr]

Maybe separate of the calculus, maybe not... does Stevens stick around through another re-build? I don't know and I'm glad I don't have to ponder that more than I just did.

This is a good point - although I'd be surprised if none of the 3 Nets picks panned out. I'd add that Stevens has to be happy to have the problem of going into a season (and presumably playoffs) with a defensive black hole that he might be able to solve if he imparts the correct motivation rather than being stuck with that hole no matter what motivation or scheme he devises.

 

[queenb]

queenb: I think saying we don't have any of the 15-20 best players undersells both Irving and Heywhadyaknow considerably. 538's excellent article about the best players on championship teams puts Hayward in the middle of the 2nd tier of players, and Irving in the middle of the 3rd.

Fair point, and thanks for the link. Hayward rates as no. 15 so I stand corrected. But this particular system does seem to support the point that the Celtics aren't good enough yet, and if they won they'd be a huge outlier in recent history. You have to go back 27 years to the 1990 Pistons for a championship team with a best player as "bad" as Hayward, when Laimbeer had an identical player rating of 3.8. I guess we have to see how much Hayward and Irving improve before we know just how close the Celtics are to serious contention. But either way, it underlines how hard it is to win a championship, especially without an Alpha. It's wild that only 4 of the 29 Betas and Gammas currently in the league have rings, and each of them -- Draymond, Klay, Irving, Love -- was hitched to an Alpha.

 

[lovegtm]

Fair point, and thanks for the link. Hayward rates as no. 15 so I stand corrected. But this particular system does seem to support the point that the Celtics aren't good enough yet, and if they won they'd be a huge outlier in recent history. You have to go back 27 years to the 1990 Pistons for a championship team with a best player as "bad" as Hayward, when Laimbeer had an identical player rating of 3.8. I guess we have to see how much Hayward and Irving improve before we know just how close the Celtics are to serious contention. But either way, it underlines how hard it is to win a championship, especially without an Alpha. It's wild that only 4 of the 29 Betas and Gammas currently in the league have rings, and each of them -- Draymond, Klay, Irving, Love -- was hitched to an Alpha.

My only problem with your otherwise good analysis is that it's very static.

The Celtics are banking on significant improvement from Hayward and Irving simply from their being used by the best NBA coach not named Popovich. I'd be surprised if we don't see both players in a completely different light after Brad figures out how to use them better.

It's certainly not a lock to happen, but there's probably a 75%+ chance that both players are somewhat better on the Celtics, a 30% chance that one takes a big leap, and a 10-20% chance of both doing so. That drastically improves the team's championship equity.

 

[Cellar-Door]

Can someone define ball stopper or hero ball in any reasonable way? Thomas had a higher Usage rate than Kyrie last season. How is one a ball stopper and the other is a great fit for the Celtics? Kyrie had a better AST/TO ratio as well, with Thomas slightly getting him on Ast%. I read these posts about Kyrie Irving like he's somehow way different or worse at playing with teammates and it just doesn't ring true to me at all.

Kyrie ISOs a lot, like a real lot, something like 80% more than IT last season.
Of course the Cavs ISO all the time, so some of that is system based, and in his defense, despite the high volume Kyrie is one of the very best players in ISO in the NBA.

Moving on to other topics covered here....

1 partial year of IT is worth far less than 2 years of Kyrie, especially since IT was bound for regression even if fully healthy, while Kyrie would be as likely to improve as regress given age and career norms. Beyond that... it's 2 years of Kyrie and significant advantages in the path to his next contract when he'll be 27. IT had zero upside beyond this year, either he was gone or you were overpaying for his decline phase (and history suggests it will be a quick and ugly decline). Kyrie gives you 2 seasons and a shot at locking him up for his prime and only the beginning of his decline phase (and his build and game are more conducive to a slower decline).

The second is this.... Kyrie is 25 years old. There is definite room for him to improve on both ends of the floor. Add in that Stevens is by far the best coach he's played with, and that this will be the first time he's on a team where he has both good teammates and a system not built around another ball-dominant player (LeBron) and there are definite reasons that growth of his game can be projected.


Edit- I exaggerated, it was about 65% more 248 for IT, 409 for Kyrie (or 178 vs 267 depending who you use). Kyrie has a 1.12 PPP on ISO which is absurd. LeBron had roughly the same amount of ISO plays (told you Cleveland ran a ton of ISO) and put up 0.97 PPP.

 

[riboflav]

I think many think they know what type he is, but can't actually articulate it and show the numbers.

So you're saying you disagree with my characterizations of his style of play?