OT: Celtics / Cavs megadeal

[the Q]

Those things you mentioned aren't process or a system, they are decisions. Process is building over time via acquiring undervalued players, using a draft strategy (timed) , maybe with respect to decisions selecting types or players that fit your system or style of play vs best available. And if the Celtics 'process/system' is built to peak in 2018+ when their draft picks mature, then they can't overpay & be hamstrung when they get there = that's exactly why they traded both Avery Bradley and Isaiah when they did.

On the negative side, definitely the Celtics process has taken a step back with the massive team turnover. It takes time for players to learn to play together and the Celtics have absolutely burnt down a lot of what was built over last 2 seasons. Teams need a lot of time to build and its likely the Celtics will have a worse 17-18 regular season despite upgrading talent.

But their analysis told them Isaiah might never be the same and even if he was, its only 1yr before a big payday (& they shouldn't pay him for 4yrs thru a likely decline), that the Net's pick was most likely going to be 6+ and that Kyrie fits into their system is younger and could do what Isaiah does only better in the playoffs. Its pretty undeniable that to this point Ainge has done one of the most remarkable rebuild jobs ever in a very short time (compare the Celtics to Sixers who are lauded poster-child of process but still haven't won dick) so I think we gotta trust him a bit on his process & decision making.

Incidentally its both sides of your mouth for criticizing Olynyk over Greek Freek - Ainge is clearly not perfect at drafting and its admittedly by all an inexact science. You cannot pin all your hopes on getting lucky in lottery (Net's 18 pick), picking right and getting lucky with your selections.

To me they needed to try and OKC this thing.

Irving isn't the transcendent star that just gets you to the finals.

I'm ok moving Bradley for Hayward. That was the salary cap not going up as much as expected. It happens. Plus they weren't going to pay him 20+m next summer and needed a PF anyway. Danny did the best he could there.

Overpaying for 2 years of Kyrie when your timeline is probably years 3-5 from now is a bad move. And just assuming Kyrie will resign is just the flat out wrong way to evaluate this trade. You HAVE to evaluate it as 2 years of Kyrie for 3 of Crowder, 1 of IT and 4 from the first round pick.

As for GF v Kelly, when you're a rebuilding team, you need to be taking high upside guys, especially in that late lottery and beyond slot. You don't take a low upside college senior. Even at the time of the draft, they were saying on air that teams thought GF had the highest upside in the entire draft.

 

[Dogdeacon]

To me they needed to try and OKC this thing.
Overpaying for 2 years of Kyrie when your timeline is probably years 3-5 from now is a bad move. And just assuming Kyrie will resign is just the flat out wrong way to evaluate this trade. You HAVE to evaluate it as 2 years of Kyrie for 3 of Crowder, 1 of IT and 4 from the first round pick.
As for GF v Kelly, when you're a rebuilding team, you need to be taking high upside guys, especially in that late lottery and beyond slot. You don't take a low upside college senior. Even at the time of the draft, they were saying on air that teams thought GF had the highest upside in the entire draft.

I get what you are saying, although its 0.75yrs of Isaiah and the draft pick doesn't timeline well with your other core assets (whether its the 1yr of Isaiah or the yrs of Horford, Brown, Tatum, etc..). And exacerbating that problem was in 17-18 they couldn't get over Cleveland or GState as constituted and were arguably equal or inferior to Eastern competitors Washington & Toronto (esp w/diminished Isaiah). The downside of Isaiah not being healthy became riskier than betting on Kyrie to grow & resign.
I would have preferred they make a title run with the previous core (Isaiah, Hayward, Horford, Tatum) intact and trying to land Anthony Davis or some other 3rd star, but that being successful was contingent on Isaiah remaining a Celtic star for multiple years (health+ payout) and they obviously thought its more likely that doesn't happen. For example it could simply be when Isaiah opted out of surgery they thought he'll recover into 17-18, get a big payout and then the hip diminishes his value or needs surgery over that contract = they decided now that they wouldn't do that contract so trade him before value gets to 0.

 

[intlzncster]

I get what you are saying, although its 0.75yrs of Isaiah and the draft pick doesn't timeline well with your other core assets (whether its the 1yr of Isaiah or the yrs of Horford, Brown, Tatum, etc..). And exacerbating that problem was in 17-18 they couldn't get over Cleveland or GState as constituted and were arguably equal or inferior to Eastern competitors Washington & Toronto (esp w/diminished Isaiah). The downside of Isaiah not being healthy became riskier than betting on Kyrie to grow & resign.
I would have preferred they make a title run with the previous core (Isaiah, Hayward, Horford, Tatum) intact and trying to land Anthony Davis or some other 3rd star, but that being successful was contingent on Isaiah remaining a Celtic star for multiple years (health+ payout) and they obviously thought its more likely that doesn't happen. For example it could simply be when Isaiah opted out of surgery they thought he'll recover into 17-18, get a big payout and then the hip diminishes his value or needs surgery over that contract = they decided now that they wouldn't do that contract so trade him before value gets to 0.

While I agree with much of that, listening to all this analysis, and thinking about it myself, the C's had absolutely no choice to move on from Isaiah. Way, way too many headwinds there. And I love the guy.

• Size of next contract for what he is
• Advanced age under next contract
• Especially for a guy who relies so much on athleticism to score
• Odds of recovering form that type of injury at that age
• Defensive weakness on top of everything else
• Add in the height thing

I mean, there was no choice. The only choice is HOW they moved on.

 

[auror]

Overpaying for 2 years of Kyrie when your timeline is probably years 3-5 from now is a bad move. And just assuming Kyrie will resign is just the flat out wrong way to evaluate this trade. You HAVE to evaluate it as 2 years of Kyrie for 3 of Crowder, 1 of IT and 4 from the first round pick.

You have to include Bird rights in there for Kyrie. You're right to mostly consider it 2 years, but you have to also include the inherent advantages the Celtics will possess.

 

[the Q]

You have to include Bird rights in there for Kyrie. You're right to mostly consider it 2 years, but you have to also include the inherent advantages the Celtics will possess.

True. But I'm unsure how you quantify that. It also assumes you want to pay him more than a superior player in Hayward

 

[Dogdeacon]

While I agree with much of that, listening to all this analysis, and thinking about it myself, the C's had absolutely no choice to move on from Isaiah. Way, way too many headwinds there. And I love the guy.

• Size of next contract for what he is
• Advanced age under next contract
• Especially for a guy who relies so much on athleticism to score
• Odds of recovering form that type of injury at that age
• Defensive weakness on top of everything else
• Add in the height thing

I mean, there was no choice. The only choice is HOW they moved on.

That's all correct, this was the Belichek move. Only counter argument is everyone has bet against Isaiah in the past and the little guy consistently proves them wrong. I'm hoping he does it again and wins a title in 17-18 & gets his big contract, again he is 'owed' for last 2 years with Celtics in that his production far exceeded his $6M salary.

With respect to Hayward vs Kyrie salaries, Avery Bradley made almost $2M more than Isaiah last year and Amir Johnson 2 x and Horford 4 x. Hayward signed to max they could pay him and is getting 128M = I think they can deal with it.

 

[the Q]

That's all correct, this was the Belichek move. Only counter argument is everyone has bet against Isaiah in the past and the little guy consistently proves them wrong. I'm hoping he does it again and wins a title in 17-18 & gets his big contract, again he is 'owed' for last 2 years with Celtics in that his production far exceeded his $6M salary.

With respect to Hayward vs Kyrie salaries, Avery Bradley made almost $2M more than Isaiah last year and Amir Johnson 2 x and Horford 4 x. Hayward signed to max they could pay him and is getting 128M = I think they can deal with it.

But you're paying 90 mil then for a core of al, GH (seriously he needs a cool nickname) and kyrie. Which is just flat out not a title contending core.

 

[HuskyHawk]

That's all correct, this was the Belichek move. Only counter argument is everyone has bet against Isaiah in the past and the little guy consistently proves them wrong. I'm hoping he does it again and wins a title in 17-18 & gets his big contract, again he is 'owed' for last 2 years with Celtics in that his production far exceeded his $6M salary.

With respect to Hayward vs Kyrie salaries, Avery Bradley made almost $2M more than Isaiah last year and Amir Johnson 2 x and Horford 4 x. Hayward signed to max they could pay him and is getting 128M = I think they can deal with it.

I root for teams, not the players on them. I like IT, and love the class he showed with his statement this week. Great guy. I wish him personal good will. On the other hand, I hate the Cavs, and want them to lose as much as possible. None of this changes any of that. I'll root for the Celtics.

I am torn on the trade, not because we lose a guy like IT, but because we lose the Nets pick, and I don't know what Kyrie will give us, mostly on the defensive side, but also as a distributor. He is a point guard, and I guarantee you that Stevens is going to expect him to do more than score. If he buys in, plays D, distributes and scores like he can, this is a great trade and Irving can turn himself into a hall of fame player. What I'm looking for there is something like what we saw James Harden do last year for Houston.

 

[auror]

But you're paying 90 mil then for a core of al, GH (seriously he needs a cool nickname) and kyrie. Which is just flat out not a title contending core.

And ideally Jayson Tatum is an all-star on his rookie deal and Jaylen Brown is a solid starter on the last year of his rookie deal, and Bamba is on his rookie deal. Etc.

 

[NielsisGood]

True. But I'm unsure how you quantify that. It also assumes you want to pay him more than a superior player in Hayward

I enjoy that you keep saying this. If we polled all the GMs in the league as to who was better between Kyrie/Hayward, what do you suppose the results would be?

 

[the Q]

I enjoy that you keep saying this. If we polled all the GMs in the league as to who was better between Kyrie/Hayward, what do you suppose the results would be?

Because it's fact

 

[NielsisGood]

Because it's fact

What about the rest of my post? You want to find me any knowledgeable source that shares your opinion?

 

[the Q]

What about the rest of my post? You want to find me any knowledgeable source that shares your opinion?

Can you find a source with a direct q and a about this?

We know Hayward has been more valuable. That's not up for debate. And Irving has never been the same since he was injured in the 2015 finals.

 

[NielsisGood]

Can you find a source with a direct q and a about this?

We know Hayward has been more valuable. That's not up for debate. And Irving has never been the same since he was injured in the 2015 finals.

Can you find me a single knowledgeable source that shares your opinion that Hayward is better than Kyrie? This is about the 3rd time I've asked.

 

[the Q]

Can you find me a single knowledgeable source that shares your opinion that Hayward is better than Kyrie? This is about the 3rd time I've asked.

Why do you care about opinion when the data already exists proving that it's true?

 

[HuskyHawk]

Why do you care about opinion when the data already exists proving that it's true?

Since they are on the same team, and play different positions, how is this stupid argument even remotely relevant to anything?

 

[nomar]

Why do you care about opinion when the data already exists proving that it's true?

If I was a lawyer, and I am, I'd call this non-responsive.

 

[the Q]

If I was a lawyer, and I am, I'd call this non-responsive.

i'd say he's asking for something that doesn't exist.

There's no 30 gm poll asking this specific question out there.

 

[the Q]

If I was a lawyer, and I am, I'd call this non-responsive.

Plus he's been ignoring my points anyway, so him being unresponsive first means....do your job counselor.

 

[the Q]

Since they are on the same team, and play different positions, how is this stupid argument even remotely relevant to anything?

Nielson is throwing a hissy fit because Hayward is clearly the better player and he won't let it go.

 

[NielsisGood]

Why do you care about opinion when the data already exists proving that it's true?

What data is that? 1 not entirely reliable metric? So you think all 30 GMs would vote 30-0 for Hayward?

 

[HuskyHawk]

Nielson is throwing a hissy fit because Hayward is clearly the better player and he won't let it go.

You are both acting like morons because (a) it isn't anything provable and (b) it is completely irrelevant.

 

[the Q]

What data is that? 1 not entirely reliable metric? So you think all 30 GMs would vote 30-0 for Hayward?

You don't consider any metric reliable.

 

[the Q]

You are both acting like morons because (a) it isn't anything provable and (b) it is completely irrelevant.

Sure it is.

VORP
RPM
or any number of metrics are out there

there are multiple ways this can be proved.

His way can't be proved because the survey he's asking for has never been taken.

 

[Dogdeacon]

FWIW on Lowe post this week both Zach L & Howard Beck agreed that Hayward might be better. It'll be interesting to see who is better under Stevens. I do think there's some chance Kyrie wilts in Boston whereas almost sure GH will flourish.

If Tatum is an all star-ish the core of a optimized Kyrie - Hayward - Horford is enough in a post Warriors post LeBron world.

 

[NielsisGood]

FWIW on Lowe post this week both Zach L & Howard Beck agreed that Hayward might be better. It'll be interesting to see who is better under Stevens. I do think there's some chance Kyrie wilts in Boston whereas almost sure GH will flourish.

If Tatum is an all star-ish the core of a optimized Kyrie - Hayward - Horford is enough in a post Warriors post LeBron world.

Do you have eyes? Then you can plainly see Kyrie is the better player. This isn't baseball, not everything is segmented and lends itself to metrics.

You are both acting like morons because (a) it isn't anything provable and (b) it is completely irrelevant.

Can't believe you actually needed a lead in for this absolute dud of a post. Take a lap.

Sure it is.

VORP
RPM
or any number of metrics are out there

there are multiple ways this can be proved.

His way can't be proved because the survey he's asking for has never been taken.

Your entire argument is based upon 1-2 analytics in a sport where analytics aren't totally reliable to begin with. If everything in the sport could be defined by metrics then there would be no need for human GMs. I assume that people actually being paid to make these decisions probably know how to weight and regard RPM better than some kid looking at what the basketball reference algorithm spits out. I've yet to see a single respectable person in or around the league mention Hayward in the same tier of players that Kyrie is in, and that's not because there's any kind of "anti analytics movement", it's because basketball analytics don't define things nearly as well as they do in baseball.

 

[Walker11]

Do you have eyes? Then you can plainly see Kyrie is the better player. This isn't baseball, not everything is segmented and lends itself to metrics.



Can't believe you actually needed a lead in for this absolute dud of a post. Take a lap.



Your entire argument is based upon 1-2 analytics in a sport where analytics aren't totally reliable to begin with. If everything in the sport could be defined by metrics then there would be no need for human GMs. I assume that people actually being paid to make these decisions probably know how to weight and regard RPM better than some kid looking at what the basketball reference algorithm spits out. I've yet to see a single respectable person in or around the league mention Hayward in the same tier of players that Kyrie is in, and that's not because there's any kind of "anti analytics movement", it's because basketball analytics don't define things nearly as well as they do in baseball.

I made a post this winter in the general NBA thread expressing outrage that Tom Haberstroh was on ESPN arguing Hayward over Irving. I still strongly disagree but I have heard more and more people make this argument. We may be on the outside on this one, absurd as it seems to me.

 

[nomar]

The fact is, and it's a great one for us Celtics fans, that both players are on the rise and we don't know who'll have the highest actual ceiling when all is said and done.

Kyrie is better right now, I think, but his D needs major improvement, and his decision-making needs to get better. Hayward isn't nearly as big a threat to drop 50 on you any given night but he's a great two-way player and seems to get better every year.

 

[Dogdeacon]

Do you have eyes? Then you can plainly see Kyrie is the better player. This isn't baseball, not everything is segmented and lends itself to metrics.

You need to settle down on this. I posted the opinions of others (legit, respected by the way) and you asked if I have eyes?! Kyrie is a better offensive player, Hayward better defensive player and b/c Hayward is closer to Kyrie offensively than Kyrie to Hayward defensively its not unreasonable for some people to think Hayward is better all around. And since they are now on the same team I struggle to see why it matters so much if at all.

 

[mauconnfan]

You need to settle down on this. I posted the opinions of others (legit, respected by the way) and you asked if I have eyes?! Kyrie is a better offensive player, Hayward better defensive player and b/c Hayward is closer to Kyrie offensively than Kyrie to Hayward defensively its not unreasonable for some people to think Hayward is better all around. And since they are now on the same team I struggle to see why it matters so much if at all.

I don't see the other wing nuts replies (Ignore) but he's a real dope dd, not worth your time as I am sure you are finding out. Your point here is spot on. Like you and nomar have basically said it's a great debate for C's fans as it's a win-win and who cares who's better if they both perform to their abilities and potentially more this team could be really good.