Would the Celtics be a Better Team if they moved Kyrie?

[ProfessaPackMan]

Basically, do you think they would be better if had Rozier instead of Kyrie starting?

And would Kyrie prevent them from being able to improve over the long run?

Figured we’d just make a thread since it would probably get asked after every Celtics game.

[3304Life]

Re: Would the Celtics be a Better Team if they moved Kyrie?

I don’t think we can even really answer that yet. Celtics pretty much got their two best players back from injury last night and nobody really knows yet how Hayward fits into the Celtics team. If I’m not mistaken that was his first game at the Garden.

Conventional wisdom would say no. Kyrie is a top 10 player in the league and is a 45/40/85 guy which is invaluable if he can score 25 points a game.

I think he still needs to be a better facilitator. This is year 8 now, he’s still hardly cracking six assists per game. He only has 30 games in those seven years of double digit assists. With that said, I still trust him running an offense more than Rozier.

But mostly, I think the potential of the Celtics hinges heavily on Hayward being able to produce on a level like he did in Utah without taking away from what Tatum and Brown did so well last year, and what Tatum looks set to continue to do so this year also.

[DieHardYankee26]

Re: Would the Celtics be a Better Team if they moved Kyrie?

Depends on the return.

[ojandpizza]

Re: Would the Celtics be a Better Team if they moved Kyrie?

I posted too much on this last night in the game thread, and I'll spoiler the same thing here to repeat typing any of it over. But the short answer is no, the Celtics are not a better team with Rozier starting rather than Kyrie starting. But, for about 90% of their games they aren't really worse either. My point isn't so much "how good are the Celtics with Kyrie vs Rozier", but more so does signing Kyrie long term effect their core?

If they lock Kyrie up long term and they lose one of Brown, Tatum, Horford, Hayward, or they lose their depth (Smart, Rozier, Baynes, Morris). THAT is what makes them a worse team. If you could tell me right now I had the option of keeping Kyrie for 5 years and the result of that was they lose Brown, Smart, Rozier, I think that makes them a worse team and I would lose Kyrie for nothing to keep that trio paired with their core.

To me, Boston has a chance to do something special, like a 10+ year Spurs-like run special. They MIGHT win a ring with this group that includes Kyrie, but keeping this core lets them compete for more like 6 rings. Maybe that's far-fetched, but to me that's the type of potential they could have.

Again, this isn't really a would you rather have Rozier or Kyrie, or would you rather have these 2-3 guys or Kyrie. This only applies to Boston, because keeping 2 or 3 of those guys knowing they are paired with Horford, Tatum, Hayward, the Celtics coaching staff, that is different than asking a team like the Knicks if they would rather have Kyrie or Rozier+Smart+Brown.

Spoiler

It has nothing to do with how good Kyrie is by himself. Or how much better he is than Rozier. Or how good the other 29 teams in the league would be with him vs Rozier. It’s only about how good the Boston Celtics are as a team.

I think last year they were like 3 points per game worse offensively, but 2 points per game better defensively when he went down. Another year of improvement from Rozier, Tatum, Brown, and having Hayward back and they likely aren’t any worse offensively and more than 2 points better defensively.

Kyrie’s estimated on court TEAM impact, his RPM, ranks 14th out of all point guards. Rozier was 19th in his first season of any substantial minutes. Horford was higher, rookie Tatum higher, Brown, Rozier, Smart not too far behind him. Gordon Hayward ranks ahead of him in the past 3 seasons that they were both healthy.

RPM wins added he’s 15th for point guards, Rozier 19th, Smart 25th, again Horford and Tatum ahead of him, Jaylen Brown less than a point behind him, Hayward ahead of him every year they are both healthy.

This is a revolving theme with Kyrie that was apparent in Cleveland as well, anything that factors his usage and he’s going to rank out among the best. Anything that shows how the team is going to play due to his ability and he’s pretty average. This isn’t much different than Pau Gasol ranking above Kobe on a lot of metrics like this. Biggest difference is Kobe was a good defender, drew double teams, could play off the ball.

Also comparable to when the Bad Boy Pistons were so great, and Adrian Dantley was a great player who could lead them in scoring every season.. yet the trade they made of Dantley for Aguirre instantly made them champions after years of falling short.. why, Aguirre made more plays that helped the team as a whole play better.

It’s plain as day to me. You can just see the energy the team plays with when it’s Rozier or Smart. The hustle plays, the grit, the ball movement. They could never replicate Kyrie scoring the way he does, but the other 4 guys on the floor benefit from it. I think they especially will with Hayward back and Tatum continuing his growth. Kyrie is a better player, he’s the more valuable player. But not every team has Horford, Tatum, Brown, Hayward, Rozier, Smart, Morris, Baynes. They are the deepest team on the league with a chance to IMO replicate what the Spurs have just done for 20 seasons.. they can’t do that if paying Kyrie makes them lose 2-3 of these guys.

Look at it this way. Steph and Kyrie are both considering top 5 guards, top 10 or so players, top MVP candidates. Difference is Steph ranks top 5 in the league in those rpm and rpm wins metrics. If you swapped the two, despite the talent gap being arguably minimal, Boston is likely an instant NBA title favorite. Why? Steph pushes the tempo when it’s there, he makes the quick extra pass, he moves off ball and makes you chase and switch off screens, he advances the ball when someone is up ahead, he chases rebounds, he consistently plays hard defense, Steph makes plays that make the other 4 guys on the floor better, stuff that rarely shows in a box score but is easily noticed with team impact.

This isn’t necessarily a diss at Kyrie, but more so a praise to the rest of the Celtics and coaching staff. They have built one of the best teams in the league, with talent deeper than anyone but GS and an opportunity to add even more to that this off season. I’m not saying it’s necessarily a choice to choose Kyrie/Rozier, or that Kyrie is expendable because of Rozier.. I’m just saying that Boston as a whole is the best team in the East with Kyrie, and they are the best team in the East without him. Obviously keeping him over Rozier is a no brainer, that’s not or never has been my argument. My argument is paying him max long term money now better not cause them to lose Tatum, or Brown, or both, or lose their whole bench, or lose Horford. Kyrie is a great player, but he’s not as valuable to THIS TEAM as keeping that core together for 10+ years is.

[ProfessaPackMan]

Re: Would the Celtics be a Better Team if they moved Kyrie?

You keep harping on the “If they lock up Kyrie, then they’ll lose one of Brown, Tatum or Hayward” which you don’t know yet, especially considering they 2-3 years left of cost controlled Tatum/Brown and you don’t know what type of contract Kyrie will take.

And then you bring up the “They could lose some of their depth like Rozier, Morris, Baynes” and act like they won’t be able to find guys with similar or more production will be difficult to find especially at a low cost. Role players like that are easy to find, it’s just a matter of fit for that particular system.

That’s my beef with your argument. You’re basically saying that he’ll screw them up long term without having any evidence to support that.

But the short answer is no, the Celtics are not a better team with Rozier starting rather than Kyrie starting. But, for about 90% of their games they aren't really worse either.

1. That’s a real high percentage to come up with.
2. So basically you’re saying if they don’t have Kyrie, that there’s no drop off in their play in “90% of their games”.

Hmm interesting.

And let’s be real, the days of teams having the same group of guys for 10+ years in today’s NBA are dead, OJ. And it’s been like that for awhile so I’m not even sure why you’re throwing that “They can have a 10 year Spurs type of run”.

Nobody(especially the elite players)are sticking around with their teams for that long. Even the NBA Gods known as the Golden State Warriors will be breaking up. It’s why you see most teams try to build AND load up for a great 4-5 year Championship run at the most. Not to mention the turnover being too crazy in this NBA for teams to sustain a run as long as 10 years.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[redsox4evur]

Re: Would the Celtics be a Better Team if they moved Kyrie?

For the whole they'll lose one of Tatum, Brown, Horford, Hayward talk, I highly doubt that. Celtics ownership has been on record for the last 2-3 years that they are more than willing to pay into the luxury tax in order to keep their core together.

[ojandpizza]

Re: Would the Celtics be a Better Team if they moved Kyrie?

1. That’s a real high percentage to come up with.
2. So basically you’re saying if they don’t have Kyrie, that there’s no drop off in their play in “90% of their games”.

Hmm interesting.

They are the best team in the East with Kyrie starting every game or Rozier starting every game. The gap between the two as far as their impact on the teams success is very minimal even last year, maybe smaller now that Rozier is a year better and Kyrie added to his injury history. A years worth of growth from Tatum and Brown, with having Hayward back, also helps negate in any offensive drop there might have been otherwise.

As for the other stuff, this thread will still be here 3 or so years from now. I guess we can revisit all that then. Saying they can always replace role players (while technically true) is like saying Golden State can always just get a new Iggy, or Livingston, which isn't likely. In many ways Smart is their Draymond in that many nights he can step on the floor and play 20-30 minutes and have the lowest usage on the floor but provide the largest impact.

As for just the question asked "Would the Celtics be a better team if they moved Kyrie?" that is all 100% dependent on the return they would get. The question to me would be does keeping Kyrie put a cap on what kind of team Boston will be in 3-4 years. I'm not close enough to the team to possibly know that, I don't know if Rozier even wants to stay if Kyrie was moved, I don't know if Kyrie will even want to stay once this year is over, I don't know that Brown or Tatum don't force their way out. I just know that right now the difference Kyrie makes vs whatever other line up they have on the floor appears to be minimal on most nights, and that he can command the type of money that prices out their depth, and that without him they are still the best team in the East, with the best collection of young talent, with the brightest future going forward.

[d11king]

Re: Would the Celtics be a Better Team if they moved Kyrie?

I personally think the logistics and business side of keeping Kyrie is ultimately what’s going to make them not resign him.

Why commit $30/35+ million to Kyrie, when (not saying Terry Rozier is doing the same thing) but Terry is making 3 million and 4 million this year. Eventually, Terry will need a contract extension, Tatum, Brown, as well. Gordon is currently making 30+ million already for the next 3 seasons, there’s just so many factors into deciding to lock that much money into a guy who’s had injury issues, while having young players on the team ready to make some money as well.



EDIT: After looking at the team contract situation, their situation doesn’t look as bad as I thought it could be. However, in answering the question, I think the Celtics wouldn’t be ‘that’ much worse if they lost Kyrie. They obviously made it last year without both Kyrie and Gordon and lost to Lebron. He’s no longer there anymore and their biggest threat seems to still be developing. With or without Kyrie, they should be the team to beat in the East until proven otherwise.

[ProfessaPackMan]

Re: Would the Celtics be a Better Team if they moved Kyrie?

Saying they can always replace role players (while technically true) is like saying Golden State can always just get a new Iggy, or Livingston, which isn't likely.

And you know this how exactly? What is there to suggest that they won’t be able replace the production/skill set of guys like Marcus Morris or Aron Baynes?

The question to me would be does keeping Kyrie put a cap on what kind of team Boston will be in 3-4 years. I'm not close enough to the team to possibly know that, I don't know if Rozier even wants to stay if Kyrie was moved, I don't know if Kyrie will even want to stay once this year is over, I don't know that Brown or Tatum don't force their way out.

You just answered your own question, lol.

I just know that right now the difference Kyrie makes vs whatever other line up they have on the floor appears to be minimal on most nights, and that he can command the type of money that prices out their depth, and that without him they are still the best team in the East, with the best collection of young talent, with the brightest future going forward.

They’ve played one game together with this current lineup, BTW.

And again, you’re acting they’re going to be stuck with either keeping depth/role players or signing Kyrie, when they can do both considering the salary cap steadily rising over the next few years.

Which means when it’s time to talk extensions with Brown/Tatum, they’ll still have a favorable cap situation and Ownership has said they will go into the Luxury Tax to keep guys as long as they’re in contention, which they seemed set up to be. It’s a good thing they locked up Smart right now and depending on how they set up his contract on their books(I don’t know what it is off the top of my head at the moment), it’s a good chance it won’t be much of an issue on their cap either.

[CaseIH]

Re: Would the Celtics be a Better Team if they moved Kyrie?

No, the Celtics wouldnt be better without Kyrie, unless for some odd reason they got a haul in return for him, including a quality backup PG in return, capable of being a solid starting PG. Since Id say the chances of that happening is 0%, the answer is simply No.


You probably wouldnt see a big difference in regular W-L, if Rozier was the starting pg, and Kyrie wasnt on the team. But you would notice it deep into the playoffs.


Kyrie has ice in his veins, and isnt afraid to take the big shot, and he knows what it takes to win it all. To beat a Super Team like the Warriors, you have to be a Super Team yourself, that is if you want to go toe to toe with the Warriors, being at their best. Sure a team may get lucky and knock the Warriors off like the Cavs did a few yrs ago, or like Houston almost doing it last yr, but you cant count on the Warriors beating themselves.


If Hayward is able to get back to where he was before the injury, and Kyrie stays healthy, the Celtics is the only team, IMO that could take the Warriors best shot, and still come out on top.



Now I did pick the Warriors to win it all again, and beat Boston in 7, but the Celtics if Hayward gets back to the player he was before the injury, and Kyrie is able to stay healthy, they are the only team that I feel could beat the Warriors, with the Warriors being at their best.

The thing the Celtics have that the the Warriors dont is depth, Celtics have a deep bench, IMO the deepest in the league.

[lilteapot]

Re: Would the Celtics be a Better Team if they moved Kyrie?

I mean, depends who they move him for, but most likely they wouldn't. Kyrie shines in the playoffs which is where you need players like him, who can explode, take over offensively and change the momentum of a game. His ability to score in a halfcourt set is crucial for playoff defenses, and nobody else on the team is quite on his level yet (Tatum is closing in, though)

[DamnYanks2]

Re: Would the Celtics be a Better Team if they moved Kyrie?

No. I truly believe if he doesn't get hurt last year. They beat Cleveland handily. And push golden st to the brink.

Kyrie is just cold blooded. I would imagine he's one of the hardest players to gameplan for be because he is simply unguardable. I still don't believe anybody has better handles then Kyrie in the history of the game.

Lebron loses a ring if it's not for Kyrie.

Sent from my SM-J337VPP using Tapatalk

[jake44np]

Re: Would the Celtics be a Better Team if they moved Kyrie?

You keep harping on the “If they lock up Kyrie, then they’ll lose one of Brown, Tatum or Hayward” which you don’t know yet, especially considering they 2-3 years left of cost controlled Tatum/Brown and you don’t know what type of contract Kyrie will take.

And then you bring up the “They could lose some of their depth like Rozier, Morris, Baynes” and act like they won’t be able to find guys with similar or more production will be difficult to find especially at a low cost. Role players like that are easy to find, it’s just a matter of fit for that particular system.

That’s my beef with your argument. You’re basically saying that he’ll screw them up long term without having any evidence to support that.


1. That’s a real high percentage to come up with.
2. So basically you’re saying if they don’t have Kyrie, that there’s no drop off in their play in “90% of their games”.

Hmm interesting.

And let’s be real, the days of teams having the same group of guys for 10+ years in today’s NBA are dead, OJ. And it’s been like that for awhile so I’m not even sure why you’re throwing that “They can have a 10 year Spurs type of run”.

Nobody(especially the elite players)are sticking around with their teams for that long. Even the NBA Gods known as the Golden State Warriors will be breaking up. It’s why you see most teams try to build AND load up for a great 4-5 year Championship run at the most. Not to mention the turnover being too crazy in this NBA for teams to sustain a run as long as 10 years.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Dude I am being dead serious when I say this.
You should be a NBA beat writer or at least getting paid to write about the NBA from someone. I could read about what you write concerning the NBA for days.
What to you do for a living if i might ask?
Your knowledge of the game is pretty deep my man.

[tru11]

Re: Would the Celtics be a Better Team if they moved Kyrie?

how many teams have been better without their best player?

[ojandpizza]

Re: Would the Celtics be a Better Team if they moved Kyrie?

how many teams have been better without their best player?

I think the only reason there is a general argument in this specific scenario is that he's not their best player, at least in terms of overall impact. He's their best high usage player, who is going to produce the most load volume relative to how high his usage climbs, but they have players who do more things more consistently on their team. And they are unique in the sense that they don't NEED his volume usage stats the way a team like the Knicks would need it, so simply saying "if they lose their best player" isn't really an apples to apples comparison across the league.

The argument gets chalked as a simple "oh sure they would be just as good with Rozier lol" or "why would they be better off without their best player" but to me I just feel like his usage would be absorbed by guys like Horford, Tatum, Brown, Hayward, while his replacements already provide more defense and energy and his return would likely be pretty large and give them the money to retain all of the guys mentioned before. It's not a situation where you lose your best scorer and then one guys has to fill the void, or a bunch of role players have to fill the void, there are 4 other all-star level guys on this team more than capable of absorbing that role between them all, possibly even being better off in the long run with all of them getting a bigger piece of the pie.

I mean it's all hypothetical anyways, sort of being a video game GM. None of us know if Rozier even wants to stay with the team if Kyrie is out, we don't know that everyone would stay healthy, we don't know what the return would be, or if guys like Brown, Tatum, etc would stay rather than force themselves out.