Did this trade really make sense for either side?
It’s been some time since the splashy Kyrie Irving trade, but after soaking in the ramifications for a few weeks, I’m starting to think it may hurt both teams. I know this will be downvoted to death as a result of angering two fanbases, but here are my humble thoughts anyway:
Why I don’t like the trade for Cleveland
The bottom line is: I suspect this trade will hurt Cleveland’s chances of winning the title in the short term.
Obviously, Cleveland’s hand was “forced” in some ways by Kyrie Irving’s trade demand. Given that, the haul that they received was strong — especially in light of the Jimmy Butler/Paul George packages.
That said, I do think it hurts the Cavs’ chances of competing in 2017-18 for a number of reasons. Among them:
1) We’re not sure what Isaiah Thomas the team is getting.
There’s not a major concern if IT misses a month or two and comes back 100%, but the question is: will he come back 100%? Losing a step would be a problem for a little guy like Thomas. Moreover, there’s a chance of regression with Thomas even if he does come back healthy. Last season, Thomas shot 46.3% from the field — way above his 44.3% career number. There’s a chance that he’s simply improving the same way Kyle Lowry did at the same age, but there’s a non-zero chance that regresses back to 44-45% range.
2) Isaiah Thomas is better as a #1 option.
There’s no question that Isaiah Thomas is a defensive liability: the only debate is about how big of a liability he is. ESPN’s real plus/minus (a polarizing stat) had him ranked as the #83 PG among 83 qualifiers in terms of defensive impact. He was #467 of 468 overall qualifiers. Even if that’s exaggerated, it’s fair to say he’s a bad defender — even worse than Kyrie Irving.
Of course, Isaiah Thomas makes up for that deficiency with his offensive arsenal. He had one of the greatest seasons in NBA history last year from an efficiency standpoint. In total, IT is a net “positive” for your team. However, he’s more of a positive when he’s shooting more. If IT goes from about 20 shots a game (19.4, really) down to about 15 or so, then you’re lowering his positive effect on offense. His negative defensive effect will still be there regardless. So all in all, IT is less of a positive the less he has the ball on offense.
His shooting ability will still make IT really effective in Cleveland’s offense, whether he’s spelling LeBron James as the main ball handler, or serving as a #2 or #3 option. However, he won’t be as dominant on offense, and thus won’t be as helpful of a player.
(3) The Brooklyn pick will help the future, but that shouldn’t be the priority.
If the Cleveland Cavaliers acquired the Brooklyn pick with an eye to possibly trade it for help (if LeBron James re-signs) then that makes a lot of sense.
If they acquired the Brooklyn pick, presuming LeBron James is gone as a free agent, then that makes some sense as well. The team wants to set up their future in a post LeBron world on a better foot.
But here’s the thing: Cleveland should NOT prioritize their post LeBron future. LeBron is a once-in-a-generation talent, giving an otherwise afterthought of a franchise a legit chance at championships. Title chances do not come around often. Once LeBron leaves, is a top 5 pick going to lead Cleveland back to the promised land? I’d say the odds of that are probably 10%. Their post LeBron era will most likely suck. Most teams suck. It’s the NBA. A team may wait decades before striking gold and reaching the Finals.
Cleveland’s shot is NOW. This is the defining era in their franchise’s history. Golden State is a juggernaut and perhaps unbeatable if healthy — but there’s no guarantee they stay healthy. I’d estimate at least a 20% chance that Steph Curry or Kevin Durant enter the Finals at less than 100%. If that happened, Cleveland absolutely had a good chance at winning another ring.
That’s why I don’t love this trade for Cleveland: it effectively lowers their chances of winning a title — which should be the ultimate goal for every team.
Why I don’t like the trade for Boston
The opposite is true for Boston: I suspect this trade will hurt Boston’s chances of winning the title in the long term.
Among the reasons I don’t like the move:
(1) The Isaiah Thomas FA drama was exaggerated
Most Boston fans and apologists defend dealing Isaiah Thomas with twofold logic. A) He wasn’t healthy. B) He wouldn’t be worth a max extension.
I can understand an “either or” argument there, but not both. IF Isaiah Thomas didn’t come back 100%, there is NO WAY he was going to get a max offer from Boston or anyone else. In fact, I suspect Isaiah Thomas wouldn’t get max offers even if he was healthy. He’s a 5’9″ guard approaching 30, with an infamous reputation on defense. The talk about max extensions for Kyle Lowry and Paul Millsap turned out to be premature, and I believe the same would be true for Isaiah Thomas.
(2) It locks them into a megastar-less future.
There have been exceptions here and there, but in the vast majority of cases, the NBA title is won by a team with a top 5 overall talent.
Right now, it’s hard to imagine the Boston Celtics finding that megastar. Kyrie Irving is arguably on the fringes of the top 10. Gordon Hayward is in the top 15/20. Al Horford‘s lower than that.
Where is that megastar coming from? I’m not bullish enough on Jaylen Brown or Jayson Tatum to believe that they’re that guy, either. They should be good starters, but it’s doubtful that they’ll be MVP-caliber players.
That superstar could have come from the Brooklyn pick. The Nets won some games at the end of last season, but let’s remember that’s a time when many teams are tanking. At full strength, the Nets are likely a bottom 5 team; the loss of a veteran scorer like Brook Lopez can’t be discounted. Even if the Nets end up with only the 6th or 7th worst record, that still leaves a sizable chance of leaping into the top 1-2 with the lottery.
They still have the Lakers/Kings pick, but effectively, the Celtics are locked into this roster. And this is a roster without an MVP candidate. There’s a chance that the team can parlay some of these assets into a true megastar like Anthony Davis, but that’s still hypothetical and hard to envision right now.
(3) The Celtics best chance at winning a title would have in the future
Basically, Boston improved their team this summer, but it most likely won’t matter in the short term. Winning the East is a realistic goal, but I don’t see a circumstance in which the Celtics can compete for an NBA title for the next few years while Golden State still reigns supreme.
Golden State’s window is probably 2-3 years before they’re going to face salary cap hell and may have to let one of their stars go. In 3 years, Kyrie Irving will still be in his prime, but Gordon Hayward will be over 30 and Al Horford will be 34. I don’t see that team as championship caliber either.
If we accept the hypothesis (which may not be true) that winning titles is the only true goal, then the Celtics would have been better off staying young and building around future and possible superstars like Markelle Fultz (or Josh Jackson, whom I liked better), and the Nets’ pick. Right now, they have an A- team in a league that needs an A+ roster to win.
So at the end of the day, I really admire both franchises for making such a bold and risky gamble, but it’s one that may backfire on both of them.
