Trade Irving to Boston for IT and a bunch more

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
BoomChakaLaka

BoomChakaLaka

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2008
Messages
3,376
Likes
2,074
Points
113
Blockbuster

Irving to Celtics

Cavs get Isaiah Thomas, Crowder, one other plus Brooklyn's pick 2018
 
That's a very good deal for Cavaliers to be honest. Thomas is a downgrade but he is still a damn good point guard, Crowder has a great contract and is a good all-round player, Zizič has been rated highly in Europe and 2018 unprotected Nets pick should end up being top 10 and even top 5 comfortably. Cavaliers will remain contenders next season and they may even have a better chance with IT and Crowder, and they could still remain competitive if LeBron decides to ditch them plus they could acquire another building block through 2018 draft now.

I feel Boston overpaid here. They probably did not want to give IT a huge deal in the offseason.
 
Zizic is a player! Would've loved to have swooped in and got him on the cheap.

Thomas' hip is an issue - you're then forced to start the corpse of D. Rose.

IF he's healthy, plus Crowder, the Cavs will be better this year.

They are also in position to draft LBJ's replacement next year - Michael Porter.
 
Crowder and Thomas was a better deal for the Cavs. Perhaps Boston wants to be division dominant since the Sixers improved and prematurely jumped on the Irving deal.
 
Boston will not be much better this season despite getting Hayward and Tatum. Irving/Brown backcourt is not a massive step above Thomas/Bradley and considering Brown's age and average shooting it could actually be worse.

Both will be more fun to play in 2K than this season though.
 
I am glad Kyrie did not land in the west. There were a couple of teams I did not want to see getting him.

Boston got the best player in the trade....so they won IMO. Who would you seriously rather have IT or Kyrie?
Role players are all easily replaced within a year, and in Boston's case they had the depth to consolidate.
 
Anyone who thinks Cleveland killed Boston in this trade, I still have to ask: how confident would you feel about giving Thomas a 5 year ~$200M max at age 29 next off-season, when last season was by far his best year? If Portland were staring down the barrel of that decision, I'd feel queasy. And if Cleveland doesn't re-sign him, it was Irving for Crowder, Zizic and the Nets pick--not great for a young star.

IMO, Boston is thrilled not to have to make that call on Thomas next year. Instead, they have a 25 year old who's better and proven over significantly more years of that caliber of play. Could they have gotten a better deal on another player? George was a rental who's made it clear that LA is his clear-cut top choice, so I wouldn't say he would have been a clearly superior option. Butler would have been. But both players were moved before free agency opened and Boston had to wait til after they signed Hayward. Given that stricture, I think they did fine.
 
This has got to be the first time in history that the #1 player in a draft gets traded for the #60 player in that draft...and it's an open question which team won.

No it isn't: the Cavs won.

Celtics only have 4 players left from last season's team... and Horford is the only important one. Crazy. Also: remember they used to have a good defense?
 
Minstrel said:
Anyone who thinks Cleveland killed Boston in this trade, I still have to ask: how confident would you feel about giving Thomas a 5 year ~$200M max at age 29 next off-season, when last season was by far his best year? If Portland were staring down the barrel of that decision, I'd feel queasy. And if Cleveland doesn't re-sign him, it was Irving for Crowder, Zizic and the Nets pick--not great for a young star.
Click to expand...

A lot depends on how well the Nets play. If that pick is top 3 then there's no question who won. And also bear in mind: this is an attempt to get LeBron to stay while at the same time clearing the ground if he leaves. You settle whether or not LeBron is re-signing before you even THINK about Thomas. If LeBron stays - pay IT whatever. If he goes, then blow the whole thing up and start rebuilding with the Brooklyn pick (and whatever you can get for Kevin Love).
 
Pinwheel1 said:
I am glad Kyrie did not land in the west. There were a couple of teams I did not want to see getting him.

Boston got the best player in the trade....so they won IMO. Who would you seriously rather have IT or Kyrie?
Role players are all easily replaced within a year, and in Boston's case they had the depth to consolidate.
Click to expand...

I'd rather have IT, Crowder, Zizc, and a top 5 pick. :dunno:
 
dviss1 said:
I'd rather have IT, Crowder, Zizc, and a top 5 pick. :dunno:
Click to expand...

I think that both teams got what they were looking for. Boston did get the best player in the trade, and he's younger and healthier than IT. He fits their main objective of making a run at a title in the next couple of years. Cleveland got enough back that they won't fall off much in what is likely LeBron's last year as a Cav. They also more young depth and what will likely be a top-5 draft pick that will help them in their eventual rebuild.
 
Rastapopoulos said:
A lot depends on how well the Nets play. If that pick is top 3 then there's no question who won.
Click to expand...

I'm assuming that pick is top-three. But I disagree that that makes it an automatic win. As I said, the decision to max out a player who is currently a one-year wonder (that may have changed by next off-season but now, when they made the decision to trade, that's what he is) to a gigantic deal at age 29 is not a slam dunk one--and yet if they don't do it, they automatically lose the deal. But even if they max him out, they could still lose the deal if it turns out that an outlier-small player who's utterly reliant on his quickness starts to decline.

As a thought experiment, would we be thrilled to trade Lillard for what Cleveland got? The Nets pick would be sweet, but converting Lillard into Thomas would be sports-stressful (i.e. wouldn't raise my actual stress level, but I'd worry in a sports context). I think Lillard and Irving are pretty comparable players. Irving may even be a bit more valuable since he's two years younger.
 
SlyPokerDog said:
Celtics would have been better off going after Butler.
Click to expand...

Even if it meant no Hayward, since they had to use their cap space before a big trade and Butler was traded before free agency?
 
e_blazer said:
I think that both teams got what they were looking for. Boston did get the best player in the trade, and he's younger and healthier than IT. He fits their main objective of making a run at a title in the next couple of years. Cleveland got enough back that they won't fall off much in what is likely LeBron's last year as a Cav. They also more young depth and what will likely be a top-5 draft pick that will help them in their eventual rebuild.
Click to expand...

Yeah.. No...

Kyrie averages 51 games per season:
upload_2017-8-23_9-16-2.png

IT averages 63 games per season:
upload_2017-8-23_9-20-1.png
 
Looks like Klay is the first stop on every prospective trade...

 
I think Irving is overrated. This deal was a massive score for the Cavs. I see little downgrade at PG and the addition of a solid two way player is only going to give LeBron needed support. The draft pick is the cherry on top of the icing on the cake. The Cavs get to retool on the fly while contending.
 
My quick/dirty evaluation of the Celtics' offseason roster turnover.

upload_2017-8-23_9-33-34.png
(If I switch Smart and Brown in the 2018 chart, it looks even worse, IMO)

Disagreements? Basically looks to me like they've upgraded their starting lineup, but their bench quality appears to have taken a pretty significant hit, especially in the frontcourt. Unless Tatum/Ojeleye are both quality players from day 1, they're going to be extremely reliant on Hayward.
 
Nice haul for Cleveland. They got a really good pick, they got two guys that can help immediately, but they also dealt Kyrie to most likely their main rival in the east. Not sure if that was a good move.

I agree with Denny that I think Kyrie is extremely overrated, but I guess we'll see if he can lead now. Kyrie/Hayward/Horford is a pretty good trio. Sprinkle in Tatum and Brown and you have a pretty solid lineup. Kyrie might be overrated, but I like him better than Thomas.
 
Minstrel said:
As a thought experiment, would we be thrilled to trade Lillard for what Cleveland got? The Nets pick would be sweet, but converting Lillard into Thomas would be sports-stressful (i.e. wouldn't raise my actual stress level, but I'd worry in a sports context). I think Lillard and Irving are pretty comparable players. Irving may even be a bit more valuable since he's two years younger.
Click to expand...
Quick answer: no. Longer answer: I wouldn't be thrilled to trade Lillard for Kyrie, either. Kyrie's not a leader, not efficient and hella injury prone.
Follow-up question: are we pretending Lillard publicly demanded a trade in this scenario?
 
The one thing Boston still lacks like they did last year is a SG who can shoot. But still between Smart, Hayward, Tatum, and Brown they are pretty deep at the wings. Plus they can use Kyrie as the SG and play him with Smart. I doubt Danny is worrying about depth right now. He is building for the future, this year's depth chart is not that important.
 
PtldPlatypus said:
My quick/dirty evaluation of the Celtics' offseason roster turnover.

View attachment 15796
(If I switch Smart and Brown in the 2018 chart, it looks even worse, IMO)

Disagreements? Basically looks to me like they've upgraded their starting lineup, but their bench quality appears to have taken a pretty significant hit, especially in the frontcourt. Unless Tatum/Ojeleye are both quality players from day 1, they're going to be extremely reliant on Hayward.
Click to expand...
Marcus Morris is not a PF. Certainly not on D. They really have cratered their defense.
 
Rastapopoulos said:
Follow-up question: are we pretending Lillard publicly demanded a trade in this scenario?
Click to expand...

I guess that's the only scenario in which Lillard would be on the market. People keep saying Cleveland had no leverage, but he was signed for two more years. They didn't have to make a bad deal quickly, or anything.
 
SlyPokerDog said:
Celtics would have been better off going after Butler.
Click to expand...
Fun fact: Butler was picked in the same draft.
Less fun fact: Butler, Chandler Parsons and IT were all picked after we took Nolan Smith. IT was picked after we took Jon Diebler.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

SlyPokerDog
OT Dan Gilbert said the Cavaliers ‘killed it’ in the Kyrie Irving trade. Here’s why he’s right
Replies
4
Views
457
BlazerWookee
BlazerWookee
BoomChakaLaka
Move Dame now?
4 5 6
Replies
176
Views
10K
BoomChakaLaka
BoomChakaLaka
SlyPokerDog
OT - Report: Cavs don't want to give Kyrie Irving maximum extension
Replies
10
Views
748
illmatic99
illmatic99
Further
Draft Trade Idea: Blazers and Cavs
2
Replies
34
Views
3K
RR7
RR7
B
hypothetical lillard/irving question
2 3
Replies
60
Views
4K
BrianFromWA
BrianFromWA

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top