Cleveland should take the deal even if IT doesn't pass. It is that one-sided.

Jeremy Lin, D'Angelo Russell, Demarre Carroll, Rondae Hollis-Jefferson, and Timothy Mozgov is not better than most of those teams. If Russell doesn't take a step forward in his 3rd year, it's one of the worst lineups in years in the NBA.

I will say this -- Ainge built a championship team, then saw his players age, and built a team that went to the Conference finals a few years later, and has amassed an amazing, AMAZING amount of assets.

And now everyone wants to knock him for a trade as if he's some clueless idiot. I think he's earned WAY more latitude than that. Time will tell, but I have no problem at all with this trade. Literally the only piece that cost the Celtics anythign they truly cared about is the Nets pick, and from what I'm hearing, it's far less certain that it's a top 3 or whatever pick.

Why is why I stated this trade comes down to if you believe a proven KI is worth a Top 5 pick that is an unproven. Just like in the NFL there is alot of high NBA draft picks that never do shit.

And then he used that collection of assets he amassed to bail the Cavs out from a shit situation where they had absolutely no leverage while not improving his team in the short or long term at all.

LeBron will continue to beat the Celtics every year he stays in the East (which could be a lot longer now that the Celtics made this deal). There is no real upside here.

Go look at the Bulls roster (without Wade), the Hawks and Magic roster and then let's talk. I am not saying the Nets will be good just they may win more games just because the East IS THAT BAD. Someone has to win those turd fests games. :D

By your logic, there is no upside to any deal the Celtics do then.

Look, maybe that Nets pick turns into the next Michael Jordan, but there is a ton of uncertainty around it. Where will the pick end up? Who will be available when the pick is made? Will that guy actually turn into a star?

Sure, it's a potentially very valuable piece, but you can't bank on it. Armchair GMs always, ALWAYS overvalue draft picks. The bust rate is high in all sports.

And beyond the pick, it's a better player who is 25 whose rights are controlled for two years versus a wing the Cs didn't need, a center with some promise, and a 29 year old under control for one year who just had a career year.

Brooklyn and Orlando have the lowest odds in the league (500:1) of winning the title this year for a reason. And I think I'm still taking Payton, Fournier, Ross, Gordon, and Vucevic over the Nets if Russell doesn't progress at all.

It's going to be a really high pick.

it maybe but if they draft a bust it doesn't matter now does it? Time will tell who got the better of this trade but to say the Cavs did for sure is not being fair.

Except they could have beaten LeBron this year had they made the Butler trade and still kept the Nets pick for the long-term (or traded it later as part of a package for an actual superstar, not a flawed, one dimensional overrated one). This doesn't improve them in 2017-2018 or the future and makes the Cavs (their main competition in the conference) better in both regards.

You said the Cavs made a good trade and the Celtics made a bad trade a hour ago.

I changed my mind after reading Amnorix's posts. He made a lot of good points. So what?

Which actual superstar would that be? If Anthony Davis was on the block, sure! But that doesn't seem to be happening.

Bottom line -- I trust Danny. I think he's MORE than earned that.

I don't think trading for Butler or George would have gotten them past Lebron this year especially since they don't know the health of IT.

AD is exactly who I would have been waiting for. Kyrie Irving simply isn't that good of a player and won't change anything for that team this year or in the future.

I'm not a Celtics fan, I don't care whether you trust him or not. I just call a terrible deal when I see one and this one couldn't get much worse. I've been trying to rationalize as you have and I still can't do it.