The case against the Kyrie Irving trade

David Richard/USA TODAY Sports

Two days later, the dust is still settling around the biggest August trade in Celtics team history. Boston added 25-year-old star point guard Kyrie Irving to their lineup for at least the next two years, and they dug deep into their collection of assets to do it. My initial reaction to the deal is this was a risky gamble by Danny Ainge. That mindset has not changed over the last 48 hours as I’ve dug into the various implications of the deal in both the short and long-term. Without further ado, here’s a look at the case against the Irving deal. (In the interest of fairness, I’ll also have the case for the Irving deal on Friday.)

1) Who were the Celtics outbidding here?

I guess we have to start with the hefty trade package that the Celtics gave up for Irving. A underpaid 28-year-old All-Star point guard (with a bad hip), a valuable role player under contract for $21 million over the next three seasons, a 20-year-old center under team control for the next four seasons, and one of the most valued draft picks (not owned by the original team) in the league.