Unequivocally, the city of Cleveland has experienced angst more than any city hosting a major sports team.

In 2016, it had been 50 years since a Cleveland-based team won a championship. The Cleveland Cavaliers managed to dethrone the reigning champions in the form of the Golden State Warriors.

For the better part of two decades, the Cavs seem to have landed in a wealth of fortune in the form of 2003 selection Lebron James. In 2011, following the free agent departure of James, the Cavs were fortunate to draft Kyrie Irving with the number one overall selection.

After a few years as the bottom feeders of the league, James promptly announced his return to the Cavaliers in 2015. The team immediately reached three straight finals, winning one in 2016.

With what seems as a bright future, why would Irving demand to be traded away from a team with great success which holds arguably the world’s active best player? Practically since his rookie season, Lebron has theoretically run the city of Cleveland and all things regarding the NBA.

Much is said about James’ ability to make his teammates better, but rarely is this conversation about those not meshing with the likeness of James. Coupled with a tremendous knack for scoring and perhaps the best ball-handling ability in league history, Irving wants out.

Following a five-game series loss to the Warriors in the NBA finals, Irving made it known of his desire to be traded. Sources close to him said that he has grown tired of James running the show regarding all team decisions.

After multiple attempts, the Cavs found a trade partner in the Boston Celtics. The agreement would be the Cavs sending Irving in exchange for Isaiah Thomas, Jae Crowder, Ante Zizic and an unprotected first round pick in 2018 from the Brooklyn Nets.

The hypocrisy in the NBA is amazing to anyone that follows its news. Just a year ago, Kevin Durant was crucified for making the decision to leave the Oklahoma City Thunder and sign with the Golden State Warriors.

He was labeled as disloyal amongst other adjectives simply for exercising his right as a free agent. On the other hand, Isaiah Thomas tragically mourned the death of his sister and played in a playoff game for the Celtics two days later. If he was able to put his emotions to the side for the sake of his devotion to the team, at what point does the responsibility of loyalty lie with the teams.

With Thomas being involved in the trade discussions for Irving, why aren’t the Celtics being crucified in the same manner that Durant was? Why is it considered as just “business” when the franchise trades and makes decisions, but when the player does the same thing, pundits will question loyalty?

In the event that the trade is completed (at the time of publication, no deal has been finalized), a few things are apparent. The Celtics will have a bonafide scorer that has the ability to manufacture his own offense or to create for others.

Last year, they were lacking this ability despite the efforts of a 5-foot-9-inch Thomas. In return, the Cavs will be getting a defensive specialist in Crowder which will take some of the burden off of James on that end of the floor.

While not likely to have the same production of Irving, the combination of Thomas and newly signed Derrick Rose should at least fill the void of the departure. The Cavs are also protecting themselves in the event that James elects to leave in the free agency sweepstakes of 2018.

By obtaining a draft pick courtesy of the Brooklyn Nets which is likely to be a top five product, the Cavs have the assets to acquire a franchise player to build around. For the caliber of player that Irving is, no team was better suited to reciprocate the level of talent that is requested than the Celtics were able to offer.

Finally, the NBA world seems to be flipped upside down by the number of trades and formed “super team” trends. It remains to be seen if the this trade will pan out as beneficial for all parties.