Celtics owner mentions Kyrie Irving's departure to explain team's issues

“We had hoped Kyrie would stay forever and lead us all the way,” he said.

“He’s on maybe the best team on the league right now and so that’s that. That change touched off a lot of stuff because he left, we weren’t maybe able to recruit free agents in the same way, and a bit of a domino effect. But it is what it is. We went for it with Kyrie. We had a good year with him. He tried hard and then he moved on.”

Grousbeck’s point is certainly somewhat accurate. Clearly the Celtics had invested in the idea that an Irving-Gordon Hayward nucleus, coupled with the promise of a rapidly-developing Jayson Tatum, would be enough to entice free agents.

That plan fell apart when Irving dipped.

Of course, what Irving’s departure doesn’t explain is why the Celtics have consistently dropped the ball on potential moves since then.

Boston was very much in the running for James Harden, but ultimately opted not to pull the trigger on a deal for a very odd reason. Moreover, the Celtics have been linked to a big trade involving the New Orleans Pelicans, are one of three serious suitors for JJ Redick, and one of two legit contenders for Hassan Whiteside’s services.

Yet for whatever reason, general manager Danny Ainge simply refuses to do anything to improve the roster.

There are rumors that Boston is plotting two big moves, but thus far nothing has materialized. And for all the brouhaha about how the organization planned to utilize Hayward’s $28.5 million trade exception, despite having three great players to choose from, nothing has been done.

As presently constructed, the Celtics cannot compete for a title. Heck, they may not even be able to make the playoffs. They can lick their wounds over Irving’s departure all they want, but it won’t change the reality that moves need to be made. The sooner they commit to that, the quicker they’ll climb out of this increasingly deepening hole.