Author Topic: Why do so many see Sully as "untouchable" in trades?  (Read 20006 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: Why do so many see Sully as "untouchable" in trades?
« Reply #105 on: December 11, 2012, 04:08:21 PM »

Offline kozlodoev

  • NCE
  • Kevin Garnett
  • *****************
  • Posts: 17914
  • Tommy Points: 1294
I'll be happy if a 25yo Sullinger can be half the player a 25yo Boozer was -- the 12-rebound half.
"I don't know half of you half as well as I should like; and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve."

Re: Why do so many see Sully as "untouchable" in trades?
« Reply #106 on: December 11, 2012, 04:18:07 PM »

Offline Snakehead

  • Paul Silas
  • ******
  • Posts: 6846
  • Tommy Points: 448

If you mean 25 year old (or younger) Sully is likely to ever be better than prime Boozer (21 points, 12 rebounds, 56% shooting while being the best player on a 50 win team), I think that's not very probable.  Possible, but not "much closer than 5 years to being a better player" than Boozer.

You really think Boozer was better than Deron Williams?


I'll be happy if a 25yo Sullinger can be half the player a 25yo Boozer was -- the 12-rebound half.

I'll take that.  And hopefully a better defender.  That's always been my issue with Boozer.
"I really don't want people to understand me." - Jordan Crawford

Re: Why do so many see Sully as "untouchable" in trades?
« Reply #107 on: December 12, 2012, 06:15:22 AM »

Offline chambers

  • Tiny Archibald
  • *******
  • Posts: 7482
  • Tommy Points: 943
  • Boston Celtics= Championships, nothing less.
To many observers, not only those wearing green glasses, Sully is much closer than 5 years to being a better player than Carlos Boozer.

Who other than Celtics fans is saying that Sully is going to be better than Boozer in five years?

If you mean 25 year old Sully is likely to be better than 36 year old Boozer, I think you're probably right.  36 year old Boozer probably isn't going to be a great player.

If you mean 25 year old (or younger) Sully is likely to ever be better than prime Boozer (21 points, 12 rebounds, 56% shooting while being the best player on a 50 win team), I think that's not very probable.  Possible, but not "much closer than 5 years to being a better player" than Boozer.

Sorry. I should re-state that to; Sullingers ceiling leading up to the NBA draft was that he was a potential All Star, akin to Carlos Boozer (same style of game) If he reaches that ceiling, I can't see why he wouldn't be the number 2 option on a 50 win team like Boozer...

Sully was overweight coming in, but he's already dropped at least 15 pounds and hasn't had any problems with his diet reported unlike baby.
I still don't think you can compare Sully to Big Baby. Sully is an immediate contributor, with an NBA ready basketball IQ. Baby was a strong, big athletic project that turned out reasonably well for the Celtics.
But yeah, I'd say that most agree Sully's got a much higher ceiling than Big Baby.
"We are lucky we have a very patient GM that isn't willing to settle for being good and coming close. He wants to win a championship and we have the potential to get there still with our roster and assets."

quoting 'Greg B' on RealGM after 2017 trade deadline.
Read that last line again. One more time.

Re: Why do so many see Sully as "untouchable" in trades?
« Reply #108 on: December 12, 2012, 09:46:07 AM »

Offline BballTim

  • Dave Cowens
  • ***********************
  • Posts: 23724
  • Tommy Points: 1123
I'll be happy if a 25yo Sullinger can be half the player a 25yo Boozer was -- the 12-rebound half.

  Sully (20 year old rookie) has a 16.5% rebound rate, Boozer (21 year old rookie) had a 16.6% rate and a career rate of 18.1%. I don't think Sully being a similar rebounder to Boozer is out of the question.

Re: Why do so many see Sully as "untouchable" in trades?
« Reply #109 on: December 16, 2012, 05:18:10 PM »

Offline jyyzzoel

  • Al Horford
  • Posts: 410
  • Tommy Points: 47
1.  sully isnt untouchable. he's tradeable, but only in the right deal.
2.  sullinger is a top ten pick essentially.  you only move a top ten pick for a superstar.
3.  even with gortat this team isnt going to win. green is horrible. bass and lee are mediocre. pierce is having his worst season in years.  the only ones who can play on this team atm are kg, rondo, and wilcox.
4.  before trading sully i would trade bass, green, lee - without question.
5.  this is the year danny blows it up.  this is the transition year.  you gather assets to land a star in the future. sully is an asset.  unless you can trade for dwight howard and sign him to a 5 yr deal, i doubt sully goes anywhere.  his worth is only improving.

Re: Why do so many see Sully as "untouchable" in trades?
« Reply #110 on: December 16, 2012, 05:56:07 PM »

Offline jyyzzoel

  • Al Horford
  • Posts: 410
  • Tommy Points: 47
I said this in another thread... I think this is a good place for it, though.


Let me ask the "SULLY IS UNTOUCHABLE!" crowd a serious question. 

Sully probably had late lotto talent, but slipped to #21.  Fine, let's pretend he was a legit late lotto pick.  At the moment he's #11 in Efficiency amongst rookies... behind the likes of Alexey Shved  and Kyle Singler.  That's nice.

Take off the homer goggles for a second.  Meyers Leonard is the same age, is over 7 feet tall, was picked 10 spots higher than Sully (legit lotto pick), probably has more potential, and is putting up the same type of stats in the same type of minutes. 

Would you rather have Meyers Leonard or Pau/Big Al/Josh Smith/etc?

I'm curious if people are that attached to Sully simply because he's played 20 games as a Celtic and they are emotionally invested... or if they'd legitimately rather have a late lotto pick with perceived potential who averages 5 points/5 boards (Leonard)... over a guy who can contribute 20 and 10 immediately.

So who would consider Meyers Leonard untouchable?  Serious question.

i hope all general managers (other than danny) think like you do, because man that would be great.  allow me to educate you. 

taking off the homer goggles:  sully should have gone about number 7 in the draft.  leonard went at 11.

per is a flawed metric to use in evaluating a players ability.  position adjusted winscore per 40 minutes or 48 minutes is a lot more reliable.  Sullinger has a current winscore per48 of .140 whereas leonard has a current winscore of .097 - that is to say, sullinger is playing a lot better than meyers leonard.

as far as potential goes, meyers leonard may be more athletic, but as to whether he has as much potential as sullinger, that is debateable.  personally i would go with sullinger.  i think sullinger has the chance to make an all-star team eventually.  i dont think leonard does.

as far as alexy sheved and kyle singler go:  they are both about 4 years older than sullinger and are much closer to reaching their peak than sullinger who is only 20 (yes, you are comparing two 24 year old bench players close to their peak with a 20 year old future borderline all-star)

futhermore - pau gasol is done.  he's not worth the money, and isnt gonna be the difference between a ring or no ring.  al jefferson cant play defense, and yes, i'd rather have sullinger over both of these guys.  josh smith - i'd take him, but i'd rather give up jeff green and lee or bass.  josh smith is no better than sullinger will eventually become.

Re: Why do so many see Sully as "untouchable" in trades?
« Reply #111 on: December 16, 2012, 06:58:50 PM »

Offline Tr1boy

  • Paul Pierce
  • ***************************
  • Posts: 27260
  • Tommy Points: 867
Sully is definitely not an untouchable. I would trade him for Gortat in 1 second. There are many guys i would trade him for

For me the untouchables are:

Bradley and Rondo

Thats it. Unless we get an offer you cant refuse (say James Harden for Bradley)

Everyone else i'm open to make a trade if we can get the pieces we need. Right now, we need upfront manpower. I would trade Pierce for Gortat if the suns would do such a trade. Like i mentioned on the trade forum, I would trade Pierce for Ezeli, Draymond Green and 1st, 2nd round pick

Re: Why do so many see Sully as "untouchable" in trades?
« Reply #112 on: December 16, 2012, 09:11:47 PM »

Offline LarBrd33

  • Robert Parish
  • *********************
  • Posts: 21238
  • Tommy Points: 2016
I said this in another thread... I think this is a good place for it, though.


Let me ask the "SULLY IS UNTOUCHABLE!" crowd a serious question. 

Sully probably had late lotto talent, but slipped to #21.  Fine, let's pretend he was a legit late lotto pick.  At the moment he's #11 in Efficiency amongst rookies... behind the likes of Alexey Shved  and Kyle Singler.  That's nice.

Take off the homer goggles for a second.  Meyers Leonard is the same age, is over 7 feet tall, was picked 10 spots higher than Sully (legit lotto pick), probably has more potential, and is putting up the same type of stats in the same type of minutes. 

Would you rather have Meyers Leonard or Pau/Big Al/Josh Smith/etc?

I'm curious if people are that attached to Sully simply because he's played 20 games as a Celtic and they are emotionally invested... or if they'd legitimately rather have a late lotto pick with perceived potential who averages 5 points/5 boards (Leonard)... over a guy who can contribute 20 and 10 immediately.

So who would consider Meyers Leonard untouchable?  Serious question.

i hope all general managers (other than danny) think like you do, because man that would be great.  allow me to educate you. 

taking off the homer goggles:  sully should have gone about number 7 in the draft.  leonard went at 11.



lol.  ok

Re: Why do so many see Sully as "untouchable" in trades?
« Reply #113 on: December 16, 2012, 09:31:40 PM »

Offline LarBrd33

  • Robert Parish
  • *********************
  • Posts: 21238
  • Tommy Points: 2016
I'm not trying to argue that Sully is a bad prospect.  I'm giving the benefit of the doubt here and pretending he's a legit late lotto pick.  The kid can play... reminds me of a young Ryan Gomes.  I'm saying that just because he can play and is young doesn't make him untouchable.  I'd move him in the right deal.  I feel the same way about Bradley.  Just because she's a young player who has shown sign of life doesn't automatically mean he's a future superstar who is untouchable.  That's nonsense.

Re: Why do so many see Sully as "untouchable" in trades?
« Reply #114 on: December 17, 2012, 04:24:48 AM »

Offline jyyzzoel

  • Al Horford
  • Posts: 410
  • Tommy Points: 47
I said this in another thread... I think this is a good place for it, though.


Let me ask the "SULLY IS UNTOUCHABLE!" crowd a serious question. 

Sully probably had late lotto talent, but slipped to #21.  Fine, let's pretend he was a legit late lotto pick.  At the moment he's #11 in Efficiency amongst rookies... behind the likes of Alexey Shved  and Kyle Singler.  That's nice.

Take off the homer goggles for a second.  Meyers Leonard is the same age, is over 7 feet tall, was picked 10 spots higher than Sully (legit lotto pick), probably has more potential, and is putting up the same type of stats in the same type of minutes. 

Would you rather have Meyers Leonard or Pau/Big Al/Josh Smith/etc?

I'm curious if people are that attached to Sully simply because he's played 20 games as a Celtic and they are emotionally invested... or if they'd legitimately rather have a late lotto pick with perceived potential who averages 5 points/5 boards (Leonard)... over a guy who can contribute 20 and 10 immediately.

So who would consider Meyers Leonard untouchable?  Serious question.

i hope all general managers (other than danny) think like you do, because man that would be great.  allow me to educate you. 

taking off the homer goggles:  sully should have gone about number 7 in the draft.  leonard went at 11.



lol.  ok

if you think thats lol - then you just dont know your stuff.  draft express had him going at 7, espn had him going at 10 before the phantom (aka relatively non-existent) back problems surfaced.  the year before that he was projected to be top three in the draft, and some said #1... if you want links for any of these i have them... oh yeah, and ryan mcdonough had sully in the top 10 of the draft too - he's dannys right hand man.

im being very objective - giving evidence rather than opinions, the epitome of taking off the homer glasses. point anything i said out, i can give you links, or just go thru my previous posts - theyre all there... where am i going wrong?

Re: Why do so many see Sully as "untouchable" in trades?
« Reply #115 on: December 17, 2012, 05:22:31 AM »

Offline crimson_stallion

  • Rajon Rondo
  • *****
  • Posts: 5964
  • Tommy Points: 875
Sullinger is higher value to me then Leonard because of two critical aspects:

1. IQ
2. Attitude

Leonard has size and athleticism, and on paper he has more potential than Sullinger.  People thought the same about Ryan Hollins when he came into the league - he had size and athleticism but questionable mentality and lacking in IQ.  Look where Hollins is now.

Sullinger is putting up similar numbers but he's doing so on a better (adn deeper) team where he gets less opportunities. 

He's less athletic, but the style of game he plays is not very dependant on athleticism - he plays to his strengths.  He's very good at moving the ball, plays with smarts, and he's started to get very good at taking charges.  He does the 'little things' that makes the coach like him because it's those things that allow a player to work well in a team, and this team focussed mentality is something any coach would love to see in a 20 year old rookie. 

Sully's understanding of the game is out of this world for a player of his age and experience, and his exceptional rebounding is a skill that some team will always have a need for.

Offensively he may not be big but he knows how to use his weight and body to get a good shot, he's talented around the basket, and he's got a solid jumpshot out to the three point line. 

He's very much a young Boris Diaw in terms of skillset, and I'd probably take Boris Diaw over Ryan Hollins. 

Re: Why do so many see Sully as "untouchable" in trades?
« Reply #116 on: December 17, 2012, 09:34:25 AM »

Offline Roy H.

  • Forums Manager
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 58470
  • Tommy Points: -25640
  • Bo Knows: Joe Don't Know Diddley
I said this in another thread... I think this is a good place for it, though.


Let me ask the "SULLY IS UNTOUCHABLE!" crowd a serious question. 

Sully probably had late lotto talent, but slipped to #21.  Fine, let's pretend he was a legit late lotto pick.  At the moment he's #11 in Efficiency amongst rookies... behind the likes of Alexey Shved  and Kyle Singler.  That's nice.

Take off the homer goggles for a second.  Meyers Leonard is the same age, is over 7 feet tall, was picked 10 spots higher than Sully (legit lotto pick), probably has more potential, and is putting up the same type of stats in the same type of minutes. 

Would you rather have Meyers Leonard or Pau/Big Al/Josh Smith/etc?

I'm curious if people are that attached to Sully simply because he's played 20 games as a Celtic and they are emotionally invested... or if they'd legitimately rather have a late lotto pick with perceived potential who averages 5 points/5 boards (Leonard)... over a guy who can contribute 20 and 10 immediately.

So who would consider Meyers Leonard untouchable?  Serious question.

i hope all general managers (other than danny) think like you do, because man that would be great.  allow me to educate you. 

taking off the homer goggles:  sully should have gone about number 7 in the draft.  leonard went at 11.



lol.  ok

if you think thats lol - then you just dont know your stuff.  draft express had him going at 7, espn had him going at 10 before the phantom (aka relatively non-existent) back problems surfaced.  the year before that he was projected to be top three in the draft, and some said #1... if you want links for any of these i have them... oh yeah, and ryan mcdonough had sully in the top 10 of the draft too - he's dannys right hand man.

im being very objective - giving evidence rather than opinions, the epitome of taking off the homer glasses. point anything i said out, i can give you links, or just go thru my previous posts - theyre all there... where am i going wrong?

Well, I think it's hard to describe a kid as the #7 pick in the draft, and essentially trumpet that as a fact, when he fell to #21.

Maybe in a re-draft, Sully would go #7.  (I don't think so; the top-7 should be some combo of Davis, MKG, Lillard, Waiters, Beal, Barnes and Drummond.  Robinson probably goes ahead of Sully, too.)  However, to state it like it's basically a fact seems counter to the actual reality of the situation.


I'M THE SILVERBACK GORILLA IN THIS MOTHER——— AND DON'T NONE OF YA'LL EVER FORGET IT!@ 34 minutes

Re: Why do so many see Sully as "untouchable" in trades?
« Reply #117 on: December 17, 2012, 09:42:13 AM »

Offline Roy H.

  • Forums Manager
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 58470
  • Tommy Points: -25640
  • Bo Knows: Joe Don't Know Diddley

Leonard has size and athleticism, and on paper he has more potential than Sullinger.  People thought the same about Ryan Hollins when he came into the league - he had size and athleticism but questionable mentality and lacking in IQ.  Look where Hollins is now.

I think this is pretty flawed analysis.  People also said the same thing about Javale McGee and DeAndre Jordan.  Would you also take Boris Diaw over them?


I'M THE SILVERBACK GORILLA IN THIS MOTHER——— AND DON'T NONE OF YA'LL EVER FORGET IT!@ 34 minutes

Re: Why do so many see Sully as "untouchable" in trades?
« Reply #118 on: December 17, 2012, 11:33:00 AM »

Offline D.o.s.

  • NCE
  • Cedric Maxwell
  • **************
  • Posts: 14061
  • Tommy Points: 1239
To many observers, not only those wearing green glasses, Sully is much closer than 5 years to being a better player than Carlos Boozer.

Who other than Celtics fans is saying that Sully is going to be better than Boozer in five years?

If you mean 25 year old Sully is likely to be better than 36 year old Boozer, I think you're probably right.  36 year old Boozer probably isn't going to be a great player.

If you mean 25 year old (or younger) Sully is likely to ever be better than prime Boozer (21 points, 12 rebounds, 56% shooting while being the best player on a 50 win team), I think that's not very probable.  Possible, but not "much closer than 5 years to being a better player" than Boozer.

No love for D-Will?
At least a goldfish with a Lincoln Log on its back goin' across your floor to your sock drawer has a miraculous connotation to it.

Re: Why do so many see Sully as "untouchable" in trades?
« Reply #119 on: December 17, 2012, 04:38:48 PM »

Offline jyyzzoel

  • Al Horford
  • Posts: 410
  • Tommy Points: 47
I said this in another thread... I think this is a good place for it, though.


Let me ask the "SULLY IS UNTOUCHABLE!" crowd a serious question. 

Sully probably had late lotto talent, but slipped to #21.  Fine, let's pretend he was a legit late lotto pick.  At the moment he's #11 in Efficiency amongst rookies... behind the likes of Alexey Shved  and Kyle Singler.  That's nice.

Take off the homer goggles for a second.  Meyers Leonard is the same age, is over 7 feet tall, was picked 10 spots higher than Sully (legit lotto pick), probably has more potential, and is putting up the same type of stats in the same type of minutes. 

Would you rather have Meyers Leonard or Pau/Big Al/Josh Smith/etc?

I'm curious if people are that attached to Sully simply because he's played 20 games as a Celtic and they are emotionally invested... or if they'd legitimately rather have a late lotto pick with perceived potential who averages 5 points/5 boards (Leonard)... over a guy who can contribute 20 and 10 immediately.

So who would consider Meyers Leonard untouchable?  Serious question.

i hope all general managers (other than danny) think like you do, because man that would be great.  allow me to educate you. 

taking off the homer goggles:  sully should have gone about number 7 in the draft.  leonard went at 11.



lol.  ok

if you think thats lol - then you just dont know your stuff.  draft express had him going at 7, espn had him going at 10 before the phantom (aka relatively non-existent) back problems surfaced.  the year before that he was projected to be top three in the draft, and some said #1... if you want links for any of these i have them... oh yeah, and ryan mcdonough had sully in the top 10 of the draft too - he's dannys right hand man.

im being very objective - giving evidence rather than opinions, the epitome of taking off the homer glasses. point anything i said out, i can give you links, or just go thru my previous posts - theyre all there... where am i going wrong?

Well, I think it's hard to describe a kid as the #7 pick in the draft, and essentially trumpet that as a fact, when he fell to #21.

Maybe in a re-draft, Sully would go #7.
  (I don't think so; the top-7 should be some combo of Davis, MKG, Lillard, Waiters, Beal, Barnes and Drummond.  Robinson probably goes ahead of Sully, too.)  However, to state it like it's basically a fact seems counter to the actual reality of the situation.

so let me get this straight - you're saying that draft position completely dictates reality, and because of that, there's no way that sullinger was in reality the seventh best player in the draft? or are you saying that perhaps due to having now seen him play in the nba, he was the seventh best player in the draft, former draft position aside?  your post is a little confusing as it seems to state both...

going a little further with that point, that would be like saying that there's no way anyone can say that manu ginobilli was one of the top ten players of the 1999 draft since he was number 57 overall because to state it like it's an actual fact seems counter to the actual reality of the situation.... additionally, just out of curiosity, what is the reality of the situation regarding sullinger? isn't that what we're debating?