Agree with overall point, but you're leaving out the pretty huge "Best player got injured completely tanking his value" in the first paragraph. They're vastly better than IT-less "last year Boston". Still a disaster off season though

Spurs Rockets and Cavs all have more equity than Boston

Woj says the Pelicans are desperate enough to be working out the wooders0n of basketball, Josh Smith.

What makes me criticize Ainge is that he held out all of his treasure trove of assets this off season and could have gotten far better players in return.

Jimmy Butler and Paul George flew by and Ainge passed on it because he is some "NBA GM savant" that is only there to fleece other GM's like Billy King.

Ok, so he lets go of IT, Jae, Brooklyn pick, Zizic, and 2nd round for Kyrie Irving. Meanwhile both Paul George and Jimmy Butler are far superior players. Both of them made all defensive teams, have 2 way impact, and can also score a lot of points. Jimmy Butler was had for Zach Lavine!!

Ainge gave Olynyk, IT, Crowder, Bradley (4 of their top players besides Horford) and got Morris / Kyrie / Hayward in return. I'm extremely disappointed with what kind of haul they got in return.


If you are saying "what else could he have done". Well nobody was pointing the finger at Ainge to mortgage the future on Hayward, Horford and Kyrie. He made all of the 3 above deals because there was nothing left, nobody left to max, no other superstar to trade for so he went all in on them.

If you want to give him credit for draft picks or on draft night, I'll give you Bradley and Olynyk. Ainge made himself a superstar (best GM in the league name) when he fleeced the nets, but other than that, he's about average.

I kind of feel bad for the other mediocre NBA GMs who don't have their mediocre draft records defended every day

not saying a whole lot there, they have to pick someone to fill those spots

6 ppg on 45% gets you 2nd team all rookie now.

No...he let PG go because he was traded prior to them signing Hayward so they wouldn't have had cap space to sign Hayward if they traded for him + the Pacers weren't really interested in trading him to the east for some reason + he would have been a 1 year rental which wouldn't have helped their long term outlook at all.

George is a better player than Kyrie, but what are they going to do with a 1-year rental on a guy who's headed to LA next year regardless? Go all-in to beat the Warriors this year? That's a bad plan.

I'm not sure what the deal is with Butler. I think he might have been a nice addition. Zach Lowe just reported yesterday that the Celtics didn't want to offer much because they were concerned with his fit on & off the court with Hayward et al. If that's a thing, it's a thing.

This is just super odd. Olynyk was a free agent (who now makes $12.5m per year), IT2 is about to be a free agent & is injured, & Bradley is about to be a free agent...Crowder is obviously a good value for 3 more years.

They traded 5 total years of those 4 guys for 4 years of Hayward who is much better than all of them, 2 years of Kyrie who is better than all of them (& seems interested in coming aboard long term), & 2 years of Morris (whatever).

Having an issue with losing those 4 for the incoming 3 is pretty crazy, especially when considering contract situations.

The issue to have with the Kyrie thing is losing the Brooklyn pick, not that 4 for 3 which is clearly a huge upgrade.

I just don't understand what your vision of the Celtics looks like without Horford, Hayward or Kyrie? Just a bunch of randoms on 1 year contracts? Giving Olynyk 4/$50m? Having an injured expiring IT2 & an expiring Bradley?

Like what does your proposed team look like that's better than that? Assets expire at some point. You need to do what you can to spin them forward.

I dunno. Mbn to not get scrutinized for being the same as everyone else in the league at drafting.

Many people are saying the reason they targeted Hayward instead of Butler and PG is to appease their fan base

Hmm, do we sign a guy for 4 years & give up 0 assets, or do we trade lots of assets for a guy who is going to leave after 1 year or be there for 2?

Yup. Must be racism. Trollololol.

Just what many are saying

Kyrie Irving is straight off averaging 30 ppg in 2 consecutive finals, hitting the biggest game 7 shot in NBA history, playing next to LeBron, and wasn't happy. But we're concerned with Jimmy Butler meshing with Hayward... What?

What if Celtics get bounced in the 2nd round 2 years in a row and Kyrie walks? Is that not a 2 year rental in exchange of the half the treasure chest? And Celtics could have given up much less to get even Jimmy Butler.

Yeah its a huge GM gamble to bring in Kyrie as your main playmaker without anybody of substance to back you up. Not even Lonzo Ball as your backup point guard because Ainge wanted gasp, more picks!

Who is the playmaker of the team? Who sets up Hayward and Horford? Brad Stevens from the sidelines?

Horford (or anybody else, very not happy with this player) / Paul George (or other, if Hayward... fine) / Jimmy Butler / Lonzo Ball.

The East sucks. Celtics add Kyrie and Hayward while giving up only Crowder and IT.

Barring injuries or a complete lack of cohesion among the new players how are the Celtics going lose more games this year than they did last year?

I've made a number of posts commending the Celtics for not pulling the trigger on these deals for specifically this reason. Why give anything up if you're confident you can just sign Hayward? But to turn around and just blow your wad (actually give up MORE) for a worse player just makes no sense.

So much this!

In this case LeBron is the Butler afaict, so not really sure why Kyrie & Hayward can't mesh just because Kyrie & LeBron couldn't. Plus LeBron leaving anyway & who wants to stick around for that?

Then that would be a bad result, especially if the Nets pick turns out to be a star? I don't like the Kyrie trade. I don't hate it as much as some, but I've said many times I would have preferred if they didn't make it.

Kyrie is on the record that he'd like to stay in Boston long term & he's excited to be going there. PG has made it very clear he doesn't want to be anywhere but LA.

Of course it might not work out, but it's hugely more likely to be a long term match than PG was.

I don't understand this point at all. They would have been better off with the same backup PGs & an injured IT2?

Irving & Hayward, & Horford is also very good at setting up plays from the elbows. Huh?

Who else other than Horford? There weren't exactly a lot of max free agents floating around wanting to come to Boston that year. Hayward never would have come this year if they hadn't signed Horford. Don't see how they possibly could have traded for both George & Butler & kept this year's 1st pick.

No idea what their window is supposed to be with a 31 y/o center, a 19 y/o pg, & a SF who is about to walk. Just doesn't make any sense, & they'd be even less deep than they are now.

There are some ways that imo they could be better than they are (or almost as good & still have the Nets pick), but I don't think that scenario is either reasonable or even that compelling.

Frank Jackson broken foot. Man pels can't catch a break with injuries. Ridiculous.

Yeah, I don't like the Kyrie trade. I guess what I'm defending is ~everything else (& that the Kyrie trade isn't quite as embarrassingly bad as some people seem to think).

When I went through that Ainge trade history, I saw a bunch of ones that were worthless/neutral that I didn't include, but I didn't really see a single trade that in hindsight I could say, "Yeah, that was a really bad trade." So I guess I have some faith that I might be wrong about the Kyrie one, too.

Raptors are +600 to win the division and a virtual lock to win 50+ games if Lowry and Derozan miss < 20 combined games. If you think Boston may not win 50 games, I think a Raps division bet is way better than a Celtics under bet.

Only you and Steven A Smith

Here's my take on the trade.

Do I think it was the perfect route to go? Not really, but on Aug 22nd after Butler/BallFultz is in the past then I think it is a good move.

You can argue they should've just kept that 52 win 2nd rd team together and brought in BallFultz. Maybe deal IT/Crowder/pick for Butler.

But once that is over with and it doesn't happen, I think the move is OK really.

And again, does Hayward sign if the goal is to have 1 eye on contending and the other on the future? I dunno, maybe. It was a tough line to stradde though I think we can all atleast agree on that.

They added Marcus Morris but lost Bradley, Olynyk, Amir Johnson as well.

Going to be a adjustment period and you've got less depth than last year which matters a lot in the regular season.

57 wins is no joke in the NBA. Especially if the Cavs take the reg season like it is BS and Celts don't have to gun for HCA down the stretch.

I'm not saying drafting Lonzo would've been a bad move but if you aren't trying to contend now then is Hayward signing?

I'm guessing in those meetings they told him that they were trying to contend asap. If not, he likely stays in Utah.

Wtf does drafting lonzo have to do with getting Hayward?

They traded lonzo for Tatum and another pick


How does that show Hayward they're "winning now"?

I don't buy the rumor that the Pacers didn't want to trade PG13 to someone in the East.

It's no lock that he's going to LA. He wants to be part of a winning culture first and foremost, which the Celtics could have provided for him.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nba...d-july-11-2017

Straight from the source: