Agreed. Count my in the minority that does not drink the IT kool-aid. I've said it numerous time before; giving Thomas the max would be the biggest mistake Celtics could make. Now, Ainge has made that clear as well. A few years from now, Celtics will come out as the clear winners in this trade, long after LeBron has left Cleveland hanging dry, again. Also like you said, Cavs may have the worst perimeter defense in the league -- while trying to build a team with the sole purpose of defeating the Warriors. Thus, Curry and Thompson happily endorse this trade!
Don't know why you consider him desperate here, it's not like he gave up Tatum like the Cavs wanted...Thomas is a less good Irving with 3/4 years more, coming off a potentially bad injury and he's also going to ask a max next summer when he'll be basically 30...Ainge probably didn't want to pay him like others said.
Yes, they did play him. Thomas could be the most disrespected player in NBA history. All the guy does is continue proving people wrong over and over again. Kings threw him aside, Suns threw him aside, Celtics now throw him aside. This is a guy who was the third best scorer in the NBA last season, and one of the most efficient scoring guards in the NBA. Yes, he's not a max player for $30 million a year, but he's certainly worth $22-$25 million/year. The guy will be a prolific scorer for several more years and will age nicely, not as a #1 scorer, but will be like Jason Terry into his mid-30s. He still has probably another 3 years of elite play and will drop off. One other thing, yes he's almost 29 years old, but he has only played 13,000 minutes to date, whereas Iverson at the same age had logged 22,000 minutes (a good comparison to Thomas style and limitations physically).
PG didn't ask to be traded; he announced he was only interested in one team once he becomes UFA. The analogy is not Kyrie. The analogy is more like Melo without a No-Trade clause and NY trades him to a team other than Houston. PG announced he was only going to play for one team when his contract ended. So, he announced that he is a one year rental. I'm not understanding the comparisons being made between PG and Irving. PG = 1yr rental who announced plans to sign with the Lakers Irving = disgruntled 25yr star with 2 years left on his contract. Youi mean George not Hayward, right? Why would Ainge trade IT for Hayward when he instead just signed Hayward outright for nothing in return?
Yeah, they don't tank, but that doesn't mean they will win games since they suck -> see last season. And for how bad the East is i still think the Pacers will try to make the playoffs lol, not saying it's not possible they'll tank the last games/weeks if there's no chance to make the playoffs in the end, but again, other teams did this last season, Nets pick still went in top 3. @hoopster325 i think Boston, Cleveland, Washington, Toronto, Milwaukee, Miami are 100% in, Charlotte, Detroit, Philly (if Embiid stays healty) and Indiana will probably fight for the last two spots.
imo, this is forgetting the circumstances surrounding what everyone was discussing with regard to Ainge's options....who was plenty over the cap. Bare in mind that at the time everyone was saying that Ainge is risking a lot in hopes he clears capspace and signs Hayward. PG and Butler were traded prior to Free Agency. People were saying that Ainge is waiting on Hayward, and were criticizing him for not jumping on PG or Bulter. Turns out he got his man. So are we now saying he could have gotten Hayward and PG or Hayward and Bulter, when no one was really saying that at the time. Would he have had enough cap space to get Hayward and make those earlier trades for PG or Butler. As it is, Boston had to scramble to trade away salary after Hayward agreed to sign. Further, CLE cleared a lot of caproom in this trade, so Celtics went up in salary. bottomline: Maybe Ainge can get IND or CHI to take equal or more salary back, but since IT barely gets paid, BOS has to package a lot of hot garbage to do it (and garbage not counting who they had to dump anyhow for Hayward). I assume BOS/IND insist on the BKN pick and IT in order to do equal or more salary, so you're back at same situation: Hayward and Butler or PG (with no IT and BKN Pick) versus Hayward and Kyrie (with no IT and BKN Pick)
I still don't get why the Celtics get so much hype. Even before this trade, people acted like they were 3rd best team in the league. My opinion remains the same. Celtics would be 6th seed at best in the West. Cavs got worse and Celtics won the trade, but Celtics still can't get past Cleveland and will probably struggle against Toronto(if they don't choke) or Milwaukee. Cavs still easily steam roll through the EAST.
Smart for Cleveland. They stay competitive and "all-in" this year with LeBron in limbo. They keep flexibility in case LeBron bolts. If LeBron leaves, they can transition right into rebuilding with the Brooklyn pick. Trade Kevin Love for the best package during that summer. You would still have crowder who is a good asset to fetch an additional return. You let IT walk so your going to suck and get a top pick. So you could compete year 1 Restart and build around bkn pick Move all assets and tank Add your own high 1st the next year along with everything you acquire for your assets. It looks to be a quick transition and rebuild.
I wonder what the Rockets' odds of winning the championship would be if they were in the East? Would it be higher than Cleveland?
That's fine. Predicting who will "break out" is a skill set an NBA team would give you a TON of money for if you were good at it. I respect people who think Kyrie will "breakout"... I just personally am cautious about it, simply because I have a lot of facts that say otherwise. But I recognize a lot of that can be discounted. Pre-Lebron Kyrie was still very young and the team wasn't very good around him. With Lebron on the team, but when Lebron rests or is off the court, Kyrie isn't exactly producing wins, but I recognize there are a lot of variables at play there. What I know is that they are actually very similar players and generally speaking IT was better at the things they are both good at across the board last year. More points, assists per possession, notably higher TS%, better in the clutch. IT was 2nd team all NBA. The caution is that he's 3 years older, might have a hip issue, and is not just undersized, but one of those so small players that he's an outlier that can't be believed to keep it up. They weren't trying to trade him, they were seeing what his value was and what they could get back. They were testing the market. Which you basically do for every non-clearly top top guy. And that action in itself didn't lead to Kyrie demanding the trade. Things weren't good before then, as we've found out. But once the news became public, their hand was ABSOLUTELY effectively forced. They want to try and win another championship in 2017-2018. Impossible with him/Lebron not on the same page. Plus, he's got 2 years left, not 3 or 4. He is at his highest trade value now, not next year. That will never happen, because factually it will never happen. Cleveland can do whatever they want with IT next offseason. The ONLY way they're hand would be forced would be if Lebron says re-sign IT and I'll stay... in which case, GREAT for Cleveland. In any case, this really comes down to whether or not you think Kyrie is a true top tier guy, or can be. Can Kyrie be the true #1 guy on a championship team? I personally don't see it. He could barely do it as the #2 guy next to one of the top 5 NBA players of all time. But I don't think it's a bad deal for the Celtics necessarily. IT is in deed nearing 30, and will be looking for that brinks cash truck, and is on the final year of his deal. The Nets pick might not be top 5. And Crowder is potentially replaceable since he's basically a 3, and Hayward, Brown and Tatum are all also essentially 3's. I do think the Celtics have an overall roster issue that may come up to bite them in that they STILL didn't address their rebounding issue and GOT WORSE - meaningfully - defensively. Perhaps more head-scratching than anything for me, from the Celtics perspective, has been how they moved Bradley. Avery Bradley was the real deal, seriously good 2 way player. Obviously not top tier offensive player but way more than capable and SO SO good defensively. Add Bradley back to this Celtics squad, and now you have balance. Marcus Smart is so horrible offensively, and not as good as Bradley defensively anyway. The way this works for the Celtics is if Brown and/or Tatum turn out to be REALLY good. And I like both... But I DO think it is about as good a deal for Cleveland as imaginable. I think they "won" the trade, bar none, on that level. Even if IT takes a step backward, it won't be a huge step. I mean part of his increased scoring was just taking more 3 pointers. He increased his scoring almost 4 ppg on three point volume alone. Cleveland isn't exactly going to change that trend - they love to take threes. I think they got a similar offensive player, and a VERY VERY solid defensive wing. I still don't think they can get past GSW, especially given GSW beefed up some. And I don't love Rose. But if I think of Rose replacing Deron Williams, who was AWFUL AWFUL AWFUL. If I think of Crowder adding a piece. Then if IT can give them offense in the post-season, and if JR and Tristan can go back to good Finals form, then they have a REAL chance. I think as a TEAM, the Cavs are better.
Their last rebuilt didn't do to well despite having 3 no1 picks. Without Lebron it might be another 30 years before they make it. They need to do all they can to keep him.
I don't think giving IT the max is a great idea either... though I'll also note it isn't necessarily as damaging as it might be. Lots of guys get the max. IT at 80% of what he was last year is still a max player. The concern is that he's getting older, but he's 28, not 32. But you still would absolutely be cautious since he really only has one all-nba season, and maybe it was flash in the pan. IT for Kyrie absolutely makes sense. The question is was IT, Crowder, 2018 Nets pick too much. Absent Kyrie actually becoming a much better #1 option/leader than he's proven to be historically, and actually becoming a top 10 type player, I don't see how it makes the Celtics better this season. Because again, they parted not just with IT, but also Crowder. After already losing Bradley. Maybe it's "slightly" worse. Kyrie was a HORRIBLE defender, too.
I think the problem with this statement is that it makes sense in vacuum, but not in reality. I heard one radio guy today say "we can only judge this on the Cavs side if it gets Lebron to re-sign next offseason". But let's be realistic... WHAT move out there was even remotely possible that would get the Cavs at least a 50/50 shot at a ring? They weren't trading Kyrie for Anthony Davis. That's not possible. The realistic situation they were in is they had to move Kyrie. What more could they have possibly gotten?? What's more... the Cavs know as much as anyone that it doesn't matter what they do, Lebron will consider what's best for Lebron. Cleveland might win the ring next year and Lebron might still go to LA, and fans would be like, "ok, thanks for getting us two". Cleveland might not win next year and Lebron will leave and say, rightfully, "I gave it 4 years, we made 4 straight Finals, won a ring, but can't get move this boat any further, time to move on".. and Cavs fans will be disappointed, but also say "hey, we get it, you got us 1". Basically, Lebron is going to do what Lebron is going to do.
Great haul for the Cavs considering the circumstances. The fact they were able to solve the "short term" and "long term" in the same trade considering weakened leverage is remarkable. Celtics did solid. They did what Morey specifically talked about in the latest WOJ podcast in grabbing a star when one is available. Can't always be choosey. Moreover, LOL at the BULLS and PACERS who are looking at the Cavs haul and then looking at what they got for Butler and George. Brutal.
