>the team might actually as good or better
>without him:

no. hayward is an elite shot creator, and the Celtics dont have anyone who can do that other than Irving. not to mention, the second unit would be turbocharged with either Brown or Tatum.

>Heyward was waaaay less valuable than Gobert
>on Utah

probably why the Jazz this year are .500 without him and 7-11 with him! without hayward that team went nowhere, and is headed back that way without him.

>Tatum and Brown are just
>below
>All-Stars *this* season and surefire next

14/6 is cusp of all star? theyre good young players, but they are benefitting from playing secondary roles alongside elite veteran winners.

>(as in, both will
>be better all around players than Heyward by next season...by a good bit)

well for that to be true, both would have to take a MASSIVE leap in their ability to create for others. because as of right now they arent even at 3 combined assists, while over half their 2pt buckets are assisted. hayward meanwhile has had less than half of his 2pt buckets assisted in each of the last 4 years and is an elite PnR ballhandler.

>So I'm not talking about Stevens.

no youre just being super dishonest.

>>But Casey and McMillan have done two of the best three or
>four
>>coaching jobs in the NBA this year.

Casey is good but he isnt doing what Lue, Stevens, and Pop are doing with All NBA players on the shelf. Thats your top 3 in order.