Brehs, let's get a bead on this:
Michael Holley is incredulous that every other reporter on the air thinks Kyrie is better than IT.
What's the take here?
I definitely understand why people would Kyrie here but I don't think swapping IT for Kyrie doesn't make us any better. It could actually make us worse, considering how he'd fukk up the team chemistry. And I think moving IT would be a HUGE slap in the face of a man who lead us to a 53-win season, willed us to the ECF (especially after the death of his sister), was 3rd in the league in scoring (29ppg), and was an MVP candidate. He also became the league's most clutch 4th quarter player (King in the Fourth). Trading him after all that would fukk up the Celtics' goodwill, especially with us trying to attract more FAs in the near future. Why would a player want to join a team that wouldn't hesitate to flip you after having a Herculean season?
Kyrie is significantly younger than IT but he's not going to get any better on defense. And then there's the fact that a Kyrie-led team has never been to the playoffs, never mind the ECF. Even last season, IT brought a team of Jae Crowder, Avery Bradley, Kelly Olynk and Jared Sullinger to 48 wins and pushed us to 6 games in the first round of the the playoffs against the Millsap, Teague, Horford-led Hawks.
Brehs always point out that IT is 5'9", 29 years old and can't play defense and use that to argue that the Celtics shouldn't max him. If Kyle Lowry, Al Horford, and Otto fukking Porter can command max contracts, it makes absolutely no fukking sense to withhold a max contract from IT. He's definitely a much better player than most of the players being given max contracts these days. Dude has to be the most disrespected #1 in the league.
I say we keep IT and push ahead. If Kyrie was a better defender than IT, I'd consider the swap more. But there's nothing Kyrie does better than IT.