I'm talking about IT's hip, not his past health. Maybe it's not an issue, but there seems to be quite a bit of concern being expressed about it.
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. (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.
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.
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.
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.
Yes, I wasn't saying they made a bad deal. I was saying that people saying that Cleveland had no leverage (I've seen this on Twitter a lot) and therefore it's crazy Boston had to give up real value are off-base. Cleveland had plenty of leverage--they didn't have to make a deal and plenty of teams were interested in him.
I'll guarantee you that's the position he's going to play (and defend) on their squad though, regardless of whether or not his game matches the traditional 4.
This I find a bit hard to believe. PG is the most overstocked position these days and Kyrie's awesome offense doesn't really make up for his abysmal defense. Of course, I also find it hard to believe that the Cavs bothered to call Golden State. A Curry/Irving backcourt would make Lillard/McCollum look like Jordan/Pippen on D.
Another reason I don't like this trade for Boston: Kyrie's a ball-stopper who wanted an even BIGGER role in the offense and that doesn't seem a good fit with Brad Stephens' system.
Yeah. I know. That was kind of part of the point of the chart. Just like plugging Jaylen Brown into the SG section even though he's not a 2 by any stretch. They've consolidated talent in the 1/3 positions, but I would argue that they're not better overall, their positional imbalance being a major part of that.
i read somewhere they also saved like 30MM in lux tax next year with this deal. 30 fucking million dollars...boston should have been able to keep the pick.
Thomas didn't step up in the playoffs, while Irving did. That's likely the attraction that made him worth all that Boston gave up. Plus Irving has physical size that's reasonable for a PG, while Thomas is puny (but effective!). Irving has the build to play better D, if he tries. On paper, the regular season Thomas put up superior numbers vs. Irving. He was good enough as a starting PG for the Celtics to have the best record in the East, such as it was (53 wins, meh). Crowder gave the Celtics depth that they'll seriously miss. Hayward made him somewhat expendable, but I wouldn't have just given him away considering the modest (potentially) improvement at PG, loss of depth, and loss of a really good draft pick.
Didn't Thomas have a fairly significant family issue occur during the playoffs? I don't blame him at all.
