OutlawImmortal
Certified Member
Better player overall than Irving though.
Matter of opinion on that. What I was getting at was the pressure Hayward faced in Utah to create and score.
Better player overall than Irving though.
After trading Paul, Clippers wouldn't even get a meeting.Probably the Lakers since they have a boat load of cap space and potential. I don't see the Clips having much promise in the next few years.
I see Luke Walton has changed his look for the upcoming season.
I wouldn't see it that way. I see it more like Ainge broke up a core that likely reached its ceiling. You were never going to win a title with IT being your best player.
Ainge is gambling right now. If Hayward and Irving can play together, then it's worth bringing in Irving who's a slight upgrade from IT and is younger.
Because of the draft picks, he had the luxury to keep the core and add and mix in pieces as needed.
I thought that was a good strategy.
But he went the way of the superstar arms race, adding two all stars from different teams. To be fair, that is the NBA these days.
But a very risky strategy. Rarely do NBA teams trade away all of the key players from a 50 win team.
The Miami Heat in '03 had a 42-win team and traded off promising pieces highlighted by Caron Butler and Lamar Odom for Shaq.
The thing is, the Celtics had a ton of above average to good players on its roster. Adding star players is better given that those aforementioned above average to good players were on contracts that were nearing their end and they were about to get a contract that fits todays NBA cap. Avery Bradley's likely going to make $20 mil per on his next contract, or somewhere in that neighborhood depending on what the market dictates.
Hayward is a significant upgrade from what the C's were bringing out on the wing and Irving's on a cap friendly deal given his talent and is a marginal upgrade over IT.
You assume that chemistry means nothing.
And in today's NBA, it doesn't mean as much as it did.
The Thomas trade actually ain't bad. I don't believe in IT as a starting point guard for a championship team. But he didn't have to trade away the whole team.
To get Irving and free up cap space for Hayward, he actually did.
The Hayward thing is just dumb. They have Tatum and Brown.
You assume that chemistry means nothing.
And in today's NBA, it doesn't mean as much as it did.
The Thomas trade actually ain't bad. I don't believe in IT as a starting point guard for a championship team. But he didn't have to trade away the whole team.
I actually think Amir is a very solid 3rd big --- off the bench type of guy. Cavs could really use someone like him, - kind of like in the mold of a James Johnson that the Heat just resigned too......nothing special--- but solid hard-nosed players that have some versatility--- important for todays game. Can play the 5 except against all but the biggest centers.....can guard the 4 very well- and have the athleticism to do a decent job switching/staying on the perimeter.He had to move some guys like Bradley.
Some of the guys weren't huge losses.
Losing Crowder and Amir are the big losses.
Thomas can be a starter on a championship team----- hell Mario Chalmers was a starter on a championship team---- he just cant be your best guy...thats for sure.You assume that chemistry means nothing.
And in today's NBA, it doesn't mean as much as it did.
The Thomas trade actually ain't bad. I don't believe in IT as a starting point guard for a championship team. But he didn't have to trade away the whole team.
id rather have him than Morris tbh.I don't think they will miss Amir one bit.
Thomas can be a starter on a championship team----- hell Mario Chalmers was a starter on a championship team---- he just cant be your best guy...thats for sure.
Amir Johnson had a solid NBA career... but it's about time to stick a fork in him.id rather have him than Morris tbh.
Losing Crowder and Amir are the big losses.