I am curious, how do you figure?
That was a great trade, all things considered.
They got a decent bench scorer/defender, a top pick who won't help them keep LeBron James nor make any meaningful impact until at least 3 years from now, a prospect big man, and a small guard who has had two good seasons coming off a major injury and is still not healthy yet and is unknown to be healthy when the season starts, and when he returns to health might not be in the best shape and possibly not the same player he was before the injury.
For Kyrie Irving, a superstar scorer, clutch and big time performer, and to a conference rival who has vastly improved AND plaed in the ECF last year.
Yeah, that's a bad deal. The only thing of value was the draft pick. If I was Cleveland I would have held out for Tatum or Brown in addition to the pick, Thomas, and Crowder. If they wouldn't do it the rumored deal with the Suns seemed interesting, and even though Phoenix was unwilling to do the deal today, possibly they would have during the season. Which brings me to my next point of the Cavs didn't have to trade Kyrie even though he wanted out. It wasn't a toxic thing. I bet if the season started he would have reported to camp and would have had a big boy talk with LeBron and smoothed things out enough where things could have been professional.
I wouldn't have dealt Kyrie without a young potential star coming back (Tatum, Brown, or Jackson), a proven NBA point guard (Thomas, Bledsoe), and some bench help (Crowder). I would have also tried to unload horrible salary (Shumpert), but that would probably not happen. I wouldn't trade a superstar unless I got a huge deal.