All the Celtics fans whining that they need to get rid of Kyrie because they have better chemistry without him need to STFU, IMO. They beat my Wolves last night...without three of the Wolves' top seven players (Rose, Teague, Covington). Wiggins and KAT had big games. No one else showed up. Had Rose, Teague and Covington played, they would have beat the Celtics without Kyrie, and likely would have been a dog fight into the last minute even if Kyrie was playing.
The Celtics' "issue" is ego. They won last year, got to the playoffs, and did well, but had no "closer" to get over the hump. This year, they have their closer, who is ball dominant, and now the team stands around and watches him work, instead of moving and cutting. I've watched four Celtics games this year. Three with Kyrie, one without him. It's as plain as day.
What Brad Stevens needs to do is get these guys to play as a team when Kyrie is on the floor, and get Kyrie off the ball a bit. Tatum could initiate the offense, or Smart. Use Kyrie off the ball a bit, and get things free-flowing. It'd be dumb to trade Kyrie -- you need a superstar guy. You just need them to find a middle ground in how they play when he is on the floor. Stevens is a great coach, he'll figure it out.
As for the Wolves. Man. What a comeback in the second half. Towns and Wiggins were on fire. But their intensity on the floor was not matched by anyone else on the Wolves and the Celts (particularly Hayward) picked them apart. I was pleased to see Wiggins driving to the cup, and really making an effort on defense (he was good at his defensive rotations). Okogie was overmatched by Hayward, and Gibson and Saric looked slow.
But again, would have been a totally different game had Covington been on Hayward, and we had Rose and Teague back in the rotation. Just not sure what the answer is for the Wolves. If they don't finish January above .500, it may be time for a new coach and a system that plays to their strengths, instead of forcing the half court game on them.