Author Topic: Source: Garnett To Clippers Trade Was 'Closer To Happening Than People Think' -  (Read 5844 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline BballTim

  • Sam Jones
  • **********************
  • Posts: 22674
  • Tommy Points: 1042
  I'm wondering whether he'd trade Bradley or Lee (and possibly Bass) to get a halfway decent big.

I think trading Bradley requires the return of a big who is more than "halfway decent".

  Sure, trade him for the best player you can get. If you look at fairly similar players (Lee or Tony Allen to name a few) how much would you expect to get in return for them?

Offline BballTim

  • Sam Jones
  • **********************
  • Posts: 22674
  • Tommy Points: 1042
  I'm wondering whether he'd trade Bradley or Lee (and possibly Bass) to get a halfway decent big.

I think trading Bradley requires the return of a big who is more than "halfway decent".

Agreed. I value his contributions to our perimeter defense too much. In part is why I'm more willing to trade Rondo than Bradley.

  In the 2010 playoffs Tony Allen played terrific defense against all three of Wade, LeBron and Kobe. As good as TA played he wasn't anywhere close to being one of our 4 most important players in those playoffs. Wanting to keep a role player over someone who plays like Rondo does in the playoffs won't do much for our chances of being contenders.

Online LooseCannon

  • Satch Sanders
  • *********
  • Posts: 9518
  • Tommy Points: 721
  I'm wondering whether he'd trade Bradley or Lee (and possibly Bass) to get a halfway decent big.

I think trading Bradley requires the return of a big who is more than "halfway decent".

I'm a fan of bradley but even I think you're overrating him if you think hes going to get us a really good BIG by himself. Unless you're talking about a package deal that's borderline laughable.

If I were to trade him, I would want a starting-caliber big.  Since he is a young player with upside on a rookie scale contract who is a legitimate NBA starter, I would want an above-average starter.  That changes if Bradley is likely to command too big of a salary in free agency.

I don't think there is a realistic deal out there that gets the necessary sort of return.  That doesn't mean Ainge should lower his standards to get a deal done.  It just means trading Bradley as the principal value going out is probably not a good idea and he should only be dealt as part of a package.
"The worst thing that ever happened in sports was sports radio, and the internet is sports radio on steroids with lower IQs.” -- Brian Burke, former Toronto Maple Leafs senior adviser, at the 2013 MIT Sloan Sports Analytics Conference

Offline BudweiserCeltic

  • Frank Ramsey
  • ************
  • Posts: 12294
  • Tommy Points: 1185
  I'm wondering whether he'd trade Bradley or Lee (and possibly Bass) to get a halfway decent big.

I think trading Bradley requires the return of a big who is more than "halfway decent".

Agreed. I value his contributions to our perimeter defense too much. In part is why I'm more willing to trade Rondo than Bradley.

  In the 2010 playoffs Tony Allen played terrific defense against all three of Wade, LeBron and Kobe. As good as TA played he wasn't anywhere close to being one of our 4 most important players in those playoffs. Wanting to keep a role player over someone who plays like Rondo does in the playoffs won't do much for our chances of being contenders.

Yes, because we're trading Rondo for potato chips.

All that said, the guard rotation, depth, and amount of ball-handling this team has is superior to what we had back then.

Offline celtics2

  • Rajon Rondo
  • Posts: 847
  • Tommy Points: 42
Oh I thought this story was originally about Pierce. Must be both were *close* to happening.

Offline BballTim

  • Sam Jones
  • **********************
  • Posts: 22674
  • Tommy Points: 1042
  I'm wondering whether he'd trade Bradley or Lee (and possibly Bass) to get a halfway decent big.

I think trading Bradley requires the return of a big who is more than "halfway decent".

Agreed. I value his contributions to our perimeter defense too much. In part is why I'm more willing to trade Rondo than Bradley.

  In the 2010 playoffs Tony Allen played terrific defense against all three of Wade, LeBron and Kobe. As good as TA played he wasn't anywhere close to being one of our 4 most important players in those playoffs. Wanting to keep a role player over someone who plays like Rondo does in the playoffs won't do much for our chances of being contenders.

Yes, because we're trading Rondo for potato chips.

All that said, the guard rotation, depth, and amount of ball-handling this team has is superior to what we had back then.

  I would hope that you're not comparing our current guard rotation without Rondo to our 2010 guards. Even aside from Rondo, Ray was significantly better than anyone else we have and the combination of Ray, Nate, Quis and TA would easily hold up in terms of depth and ball-handling to what we have now.

Offline Casperian

  • Ray Allen
  • **
  • Posts: 2615
  • Tommy Points: 160
I dont believe this for one second.

Danny simply put a price tag on these guys which was way too high for any GM to seriously consider.

Keeping KG and Pierce makes his job one of the safest in the league for years to come. Boston fans would defend these guys even if they were 5 years older, so Danny can say his hands are tied in regards to major trades. When they finally retire, Danny will have nothing to work with, so his job is safe for at least another five years, when expectations are low during the rebuild.

I would like to know which of these rumoured trades were started by Danny. Did he actively call other teams to explore trades for KG and Pierce, or did he just put their alleged availability on the trading block and waited until some stupid GM made an offer he could then easily refuse?
Considering everything that´s transpired so far I could bet money it´s the latter. He just rattled a tree, and the media reported apples falling soon.

I have come to realize that this franchise says one thing and does another, and is more concerned with making money than winning championships. That wouldn´t be a problem per se, but they also feel the need to tell us they´re all about winning, since it´s part of the Celtics history.

From trading for KG, letting Posey walk or trading Perk, to being interested in every guy with the name Green, having the reddest of redheads (Scal) or a big man with an irish name (O´Bryant) on the roster, it´s all about having an identity to sell, filling the seats in the Garden, selling shirts and making money.
You think KG was "day-to-day" in 2009 because Danny was playing mind games?

The Celtics have to compete with the Pats, Red Sox and Bruins, and the Garden wasn´t even sold out every night anymore. KG changed all that, and their just trying to wring out this new-found casual interest in the Celtics for as long as possible.

Mama don't take my Kodachrome away

Offline BudweiserCeltic

  • Frank Ramsey
  • ************
  • Posts: 12294
  • Tommy Points: 1185
  I'm wondering whether he'd trade Bradley or Lee (and possibly Bass) to get a halfway decent big.

I think trading Bradley requires the return of a big who is more than "halfway decent".

Agreed. I value his contributions to our perimeter defense too much. In part is why I'm more willing to trade Rondo than Bradley.

  In the 2010 playoffs Tony Allen played terrific defense against all three of Wade, LeBron and Kobe. As good as TA played he wasn't anywhere close to being one of our 4 most important players in those playoffs. Wanting to keep a role player over someone who plays like Rondo does in the playoffs won't do much for our chances of being contenders.

Yes, because we're trading Rondo for potato chips.

All that said, the guard rotation, depth, and amount of ball-handling this team has is superior to what we had back then.

  I would hope that you're not comparing our current guard rotation without Rondo to our 2010 guards. Even aside from Rondo, Ray was significantly better than anyone else we have and the combination of Ray, Nate, Quis and TA would easily hold up in terms of depth and ball-handling to what we have now.
Well, was really putting more weight on our preparedness of a team without Rondo.

Of all Nate clearly has the better handles, but gives up too much size as defender. Tony Allen, turnover machine.

Ray is the interesting one because he is indeed the superior offensive player, but he really can't fill in effectively as a ball-handler for us.

Quis is the X factor for me because he's really the SG/SF role we're currently missing, and been calling for Ainge to fill since the season began, and he has pretty good ball handling.

TA and Quis are also very limited offensive players, they gave us no floor spacing. Nate, well who knows what the heck he was going to do once he got on the floor.

I much rather have the balance our current team has, defense + ballhandling + shooting + capability of creating shots from multiple places on the floor. But since we have an incomplete roster at the moment, I'm at a disadvantage particular since Barbosa went down, he would've been another player capable of filling the role.

Also, still haven't filled that SG/SF role. Closest we have is Terrence Williams on a 10-day contract, but we'll see what he will manage to bring, but on a skillset level, he's a superior playmaker than all of the above. Maybe we should give Green some consideration? But I'm not going there. Lastly we have Crawford who can also do some ball-handling, and it's as wild as Nate was pretty much (probably even wilder), but he's just an extra body at this point.

But most important of all, we have Bradley, Terry, and Lee all at least under contract for at least 3 years, other than trade plans Ainge has, there's zero uncertainty of what we have with them and what our guard rotation would look like in the coming years if we decided to move Rondo, and what it would mean for our ability to run an offense. They take care of the ball much better than TA, Nate, Quis, Ray.

So yes, if the exercise is what team is better prepared to lead a team without Rondo, I'd take our current situation over that one. I'm still a bit on wait and see mode on how they'll look in the playoffs, but I'm fairly confident they'll do just fine.

Offline BballTim

  • Sam Jones
  • **********************
  • Posts: 22674
  • Tommy Points: 1042
  I'm wondering whether he'd trade Bradley or Lee (and possibly Bass) to get a halfway decent big.

I think trading Bradley requires the return of a big who is more than "halfway decent".

Agreed. I value his contributions to our perimeter defense too much. In part is why I'm more willing to trade Rondo than Bradley.

  In the 2010 playoffs Tony Allen played terrific defense against all three of Wade, LeBron and Kobe. As good as TA played he wasn't anywhere close to being one of our 4 most important players in those playoffs. Wanting to keep a role player over someone who plays like Rondo does in the playoffs won't do much for our chances of being contenders.

Yes, because we're trading Rondo for potato chips.

All that said, the guard rotation, depth, and amount of ball-handling this team has is superior to what we had back then.

  I would hope that you're not comparing our current guard rotation without Rondo to our 2010 guards. Even aside from Rondo, Ray was significantly better than anyone else we have and the combination of Ray, Nate, Quis and TA would easily hold up in terms of depth and ball-handling to what we have now.
Well, was really putting more weight on our preparedness of a team without Rondo.

Of all Nate clearly has the better handles, but gives up too much size as defender. Tony Allen, turnover machine.

Ray is the interesting one because he is indeed the superior offensive player, but he really can't fill in effectively as a ball-handler for us.

Quis is the X factor for me because he's really the SG/SF role we're currently missing, and been calling for Ainge to fill since the season began, and he has pretty good ball handling.

TA and Quis are also very limited offensive players, they gave us no floor spacing. Nate, well who knows what the heck he was going to do once he got on the floor.

I much rather have the balance our current team has, defense + ballhandling + shooting + capability of creating shots from multiple places on the floor. But since we have an incomplete roster at the moment, I'm at a disadvantage particular since Barbosa went down, he would've been another player capable of filling the role.

Also, still haven't filled that SG/SF role. Closest we have is Terrence Williams on a 10-day contract, but we'll see what he will manage to bring, but on a skillset level, he's a superior playmaker than all of the above. Maybe we should give Green some consideration? But I'm not going there. Lastly we have Crawford who can also do some ball-handling, and it's as wild as Nate was pretty much (probably even wilder), but he's just an extra body at this point.

But most important of all, we have Bradley, Terry, and Lee all at least under contract for at least 3 years, other than trade plans Ainge has, there's zero uncertainty of what we have with them and what our guard rotation would look like in the coming years if we decided to move Rondo, and what it would mean for our ability to run an offense. They take care of the ball much better than TA, Nate, Quis, Ray.

So yes, if the exercise is what team is better prepared to lead a team without Rondo, I'd take our current situation over that one. I'm still a bit on wait and see mode on how they'll look in the playoffs, but I'm fairly confident they'll do just fine.

  Offensively the trio of Lee/Bradley/Terry is roughly equivalent to the trio of TA/Quis/Nate. Lee and Terry's numbers are fairly equivalent to Quis and a little below TA. Tony scores more. While he turns the ball over more he's also a better rebounder, I'd say 1 more turnover and 1 more offensive rebound somewhat cancels out. Nate scored the most, had the highest efg% and the most assists out of the 6 players so looking at the numbers you'd choose the 2010 group over the current group:

http://bkref.com/tiny/Y5nB1

  That's the 2010 squad *without including Ray* who was head and shoulders above any of the current players. You'd be right to give the defensive edge to the current team but when people talk about how good Lee and Bradley are on offense remember that their productivity is in the same range as Quis and Tony's in 2010, and both of them would be lucky to be called average offensive players.

Offline BudweiserCeltic

  • Frank Ramsey
  • ************
  • Posts: 12294
  • Tommy Points: 1185
  I'm wondering whether he'd trade Bradley or Lee (and possibly Bass) to get a halfway decent big.

I think trading Bradley requires the return of a big who is more than "halfway decent".

Agreed. I value his contributions to our perimeter defense too much. In part is why I'm more willing to trade Rondo than Bradley.

  In the 2010 playoffs Tony Allen played terrific defense against all three of Wade, LeBron and Kobe. As good as TA played he wasn't anywhere close to being one of our 4 most important players in those playoffs. Wanting to keep a role player over someone who plays like Rondo does in the playoffs won't do much for our chances of being contenders.

Yes, because we're trading Rondo for potato chips.

All that said, the guard rotation, depth, and amount of ball-handling this team has is superior to what we had back then.

  I would hope that you're not comparing our current guard rotation without Rondo to our 2010 guards. Even aside from Rondo, Ray was significantly better than anyone else we have and the combination of Ray, Nate, Quis and TA would easily hold up in terms of depth and ball-handling to what we have now.
Well, was really putting more weight on our preparedness of a team without Rondo.

Of all Nate clearly has the better handles, but gives up too much size as defender. Tony Allen, turnover machine.

Ray is the interesting one because he is indeed the superior offensive player, but he really can't fill in effectively as a ball-handler for us.

Quis is the X factor for me because he's really the SG/SF role we're currently missing, and been calling for Ainge to fill since the season began, and he has pretty good ball handling.

TA and Quis are also very limited offensive players, they gave us no floor spacing. Nate, well who knows what the heck he was going to do once he got on the floor.

I much rather have the balance our current team has, defense + ballhandling + shooting + capability of creating shots from multiple places on the floor. But since we have an incomplete roster at the moment, I'm at a disadvantage particular since Barbosa went down, he would've been another player capable of filling the role.

Also, still haven't filled that SG/SF role. Closest we have is Terrence Williams on a 10-day contract, but we'll see what he will manage to bring, but on a skillset level, he's a superior playmaker than all of the above. Maybe we should give Green some consideration? But I'm not going there. Lastly we have Crawford who can also do some ball-handling, and it's as wild as Nate was pretty much (probably even wilder), but he's just an extra body at this point.

But most important of all, we have Bradley, Terry, and Lee all at least under contract for at least 3 years, other than trade plans Ainge has, there's zero uncertainty of what we have with them and what our guard rotation would look like in the coming years if we decided to move Rondo, and what it would mean for our ability to run an offense. They take care of the ball much better than TA, Nate, Quis, Ray.

So yes, if the exercise is what team is better prepared to lead a team without Rondo, I'd take our current situation over that one. I'm still a bit on wait and see mode on how they'll look in the playoffs, but I'm fairly confident they'll do just fine.

  Offensively the trio of Lee/Bradley/Terry is roughly equivalent to the trio of TA/Quis/Nate. Lee and Terry's numbers are fairly equivalent to Quis and a little below TA. Tony scores more. While he turns the ball over more he's also a better rebounder, I'd say 1 more turnover and 1 more offensive rebound somewhat cancels out. Nate scored the most, had the highest efg% and the most assists out of the 6 players so looking at the numbers you'd choose the 2010 group over the current group:

http://bkref.com/tiny/Y5nB1

  That's the 2010 squad *without including Ray* who was head and shoulders above any of the current players. You'd be right to give the defensive edge to the current team but when people talk about how good Lee and Bradley are on offense remember that their productivity is in the same range as Quis and Tony's in 2010, and both of them would be lucky to be called average offensive players.

There are various things you need to take into consideration. First Lee had a very slow start to the season, he's been very good last 3 months, particularly in February shooting 47% from the field and 41% from 3s.

Also, Avery Bradley didn't have training camp, missed "half" a season and coming from double shoulder surgery.

Also, you're not considering roles, you give TA a role where he's forced to handle the ball more you'll see that turnover rate climb.

And I don't see what you're seeing as far as efg% goes. I see Jason Terry as the highest, followed by Nate. I think there's reasonable expectation to expect Courtney Lee to keep climbing if he continues he's play since 3 months ago and lessen the impact those first two months had.

No clue how Avery will keep progressing as the season goes on, so that's an X factor for me offensively.

You bring a good point as far as rebound goes, but rebounds is not something I put too much stock in as far as guards go, so I don't care much for it.

Assist totals are meaningless to me too all told, just like I didn't care for Rondo's high assist totals, it's not something I put much importance to.

I'll admit this much, "superior" was an exaggeration. But I'm considerably more comfortably with our current guard rotation, which is more disciplined, particularly defensively, space the floor better than the group from Ray Allen.

That all said, this group is thriving without Rondo. We'll see if that continues. Also, big fan of that 2010 group, particularly of Tony Allen, but it's not a group I'd be comfortable with in any shape or form without Rondo, particularly for a long stretch.

Offline BballTim

  • Sam Jones
  • **********************
  • Posts: 22674
  • Tommy Points: 1042
  I'm wondering whether he'd trade Bradley or Lee (and possibly Bass) to get a halfway decent big.

I think trading Bradley requires the return of a big who is more than "halfway decent".

Agreed. I value his contributions to our perimeter defense too much. In part is why I'm more willing to trade Rondo than Bradley.

  In the 2010 playoffs Tony Allen played terrific defense against all three of Wade, LeBron and Kobe. As good as TA played he wasn't anywhere close to being one of our 4 most important players in those playoffs. Wanting to keep a role player over someone who plays like Rondo does in the playoffs won't do much for our chances of being contenders.

Yes, because we're trading Rondo for potato chips.

All that said, the guard rotation, depth, and amount of ball-handling this team has is superior to what we had back then.

  I would hope that you're not comparing our current guard rotation without Rondo to our 2010 guards. Even aside from Rondo, Ray was significantly better than anyone else we have and the combination of Ray, Nate, Quis and TA would easily hold up in terms of depth and ball-handling to what we have now.
Well, was really putting more weight on our preparedness of a team without Rondo.

Of all Nate clearly has the better handles, but gives up too much size as defender. Tony Allen, turnover machine.

Ray is the interesting one because he is indeed the superior offensive player, but he really can't fill in effectively as a ball-handler for us.

Quis is the X factor for me because he's really the SG/SF role we're currently missing, and been calling for Ainge to fill since the season began, and he has pretty good ball handling.

TA and Quis are also very limited offensive players, they gave us no floor spacing. Nate, well who knows what the heck he was going to do once he got on the floor.

I much rather have the balance our current team has, defense + ballhandling + shooting + capability of creating shots from multiple places on the floor. But since we have an incomplete roster at the moment, I'm at a disadvantage particular since Barbosa went down, he would've been another player capable of filling the role.

Also, still haven't filled that SG/SF role. Closest we have is Terrence Williams on a 10-day contract, but we'll see what he will manage to bring, but on a skillset level, he's a superior playmaker than all of the above. Maybe we should give Green some consideration? But I'm not going there. Lastly we have Crawford who can also do some ball-handling, and it's as wild as Nate was pretty much (probably even wilder), but he's just an extra body at this point.

But most important of all, we have Bradley, Terry, and Lee all at least under contract for at least 3 years, other than trade plans Ainge has, there's zero uncertainty of what we have with them and what our guard rotation would look like in the coming years if we decided to move Rondo, and what it would mean for our ability to run an offense. They take care of the ball much better than TA, Nate, Quis, Ray.

So yes, if the exercise is what team is better prepared to lead a team without Rondo, I'd take our current situation over that one. I'm still a bit on wait and see mode on how they'll look in the playoffs, but I'm fairly confident they'll do just fine.

  Offensively the trio of Lee/Bradley/Terry is roughly equivalent to the trio of TA/Quis/Nate. Lee and Terry's numbers are fairly equivalent to Quis and a little below TA. Tony scores more. While he turns the ball over more he's also a better rebounder, I'd say 1 more turnover and 1 more offensive rebound somewhat cancels out. Nate scored the most, had the highest efg% and the most assists out of the 6 players so looking at the numbers you'd choose the 2010 group over the current group:

http://bkref.com/tiny/Y5nB1

  That's the 2010 squad *without including Ray* who was head and shoulders above any of the current players. You'd be right to give the defensive edge to the current team but when people talk about how good Lee and Bradley are on offense remember that their productivity is in the same range as Quis and Tony's in 2010, and both of them would be lucky to be called average offensive players.

There are various things you need to take into consideration. First Lee had a very slow start to the season, he's been very good last 3 months, particularly in February shooting 47% from the field and 41% from 3s.

Also, Avery Bradley didn't have training camp, missed "half" a season and coming from double shoulder surgery.

Also, you're not considering roles, you give TA a role where he's forced to handle the ball more you'll see that turnover rate climb.

And I don't see what you're seeing as far as efg% goes. I see Jason Terry as the highest, followed by Nate. I think there's reasonable expectation to expect Courtney Lee to keep climbing if he continues he's play since 3 months ago and lessen the impact those first two months had.

No clue how Avery will keep progressing as the season goes on, so that's an X factor for me offensively.

You bring a good point as far as rebound goes, but rebounds is not something I put too much stock in as far as guards go, so I don't care much for it.

Assist totals are meaningless to me too all told, just like I didn't care for Rondo's high assist totals, it's not something I put much importance to.

I'll admit this much, "superior" was an exaggeration. But I'm considerably more comfortably with our current guard rotation, which is more disciplined, particularly defensively, space the floor better than the group from Ray Allen.

That all said, this group is thriving without Rondo. We'll see if that continues. Also, big fan of that 2010 group, particularly of Tony Allen, but it's not a group I'd be comfortable with in any shape or form without Rondo, particularly for a long stretch.

  You're right, I missed Terry's highest efg%. But we've established that the current group of guards is somewhat better than the 2010 guards *aside from Rondo and Ray*. In the 2010 playoffs we got roughly 40 points, 10 rebounds and 12 assists a game from our guards, we'll be hard pressed to get anywhere remotely near that when we're playing slower paced games against the better defenses in the league.

Offline BudweiserCeltic

  • Frank Ramsey
  • ************
  • Posts: 12294
  • Tommy Points: 1185
  I'm wondering whether he'd trade Bradley or Lee (and possibly Bass) to get a halfway decent big.

I think trading Bradley requires the return of a big who is more than "halfway decent".

Agreed. I value his contributions to our perimeter defense too much. In part is why I'm more willing to trade Rondo than Bradley.

  In the 2010 playoffs Tony Allen played terrific defense against all three of Wade, LeBron and Kobe. As good as TA played he wasn't anywhere close to being one of our 4 most important players in those playoffs. Wanting to keep a role player over someone who plays like Rondo does in the playoffs won't do much for our chances of being contenders.

Yes, because we're trading Rondo for potato chips.

All that said, the guard rotation, depth, and amount of ball-handling this team has is superior to what we had back then.

  I would hope that you're not comparing our current guard rotation without Rondo to our 2010 guards. Even aside from Rondo, Ray was significantly better than anyone else we have and the combination of Ray, Nate, Quis and TA would easily hold up in terms of depth and ball-handling to what we have now.
Well, was really putting more weight on our preparedness of a team without Rondo.

Of all Nate clearly has the better handles, but gives up too much size as defender. Tony Allen, turnover machine.

Ray is the interesting one because he is indeed the superior offensive player, but he really can't fill in effectively as a ball-handler for us.

Quis is the X factor for me because he's really the SG/SF role we're currently missing, and been calling for Ainge to fill since the season began, and he has pretty good ball handling.

TA and Quis are also very limited offensive players, they gave us no floor spacing. Nate, well who knows what the heck he was going to do once he got on the floor.

I much rather have the balance our current team has, defense + ballhandling + shooting + capability of creating shots from multiple places on the floor. But since we have an incomplete roster at the moment, I'm at a disadvantage particular since Barbosa went down, he would've been another player capable of filling the role.

Also, still haven't filled that SG/SF role. Closest we have is Terrence Williams on a 10-day contract, but we'll see what he will manage to bring, but on a skillset level, he's a superior playmaker than all of the above. Maybe we should give Green some consideration? But I'm not going there. Lastly we have Crawford who can also do some ball-handling, and it's as wild as Nate was pretty much (probably even wilder), but he's just an extra body at this point.

But most important of all, we have Bradley, Terry, and Lee all at least under contract for at least 3 years, other than trade plans Ainge has, there's zero uncertainty of what we have with them and what our guard rotation would look like in the coming years if we decided to move Rondo, and what it would mean for our ability to run an offense. They take care of the ball much better than TA, Nate, Quis, Ray.

So yes, if the exercise is what team is better prepared to lead a team without Rondo, I'd take our current situation over that one. I'm still a bit on wait and see mode on how they'll look in the playoffs, but I'm fairly confident they'll do just fine.

  Offensively the trio of Lee/Bradley/Terry is roughly equivalent to the trio of TA/Quis/Nate. Lee and Terry's numbers are fairly equivalent to Quis and a little below TA. Tony scores more. While he turns the ball over more he's also a better rebounder, I'd say 1 more turnover and 1 more offensive rebound somewhat cancels out. Nate scored the most, had the highest efg% and the most assists out of the 6 players so looking at the numbers you'd choose the 2010 group over the current group:

http://bkref.com/tiny/Y5nB1

  That's the 2010 squad *without including Ray* who was head and shoulders above any of the current players. You'd be right to give the defensive edge to the current team but when people talk about how good Lee and Bradley are on offense remember that their productivity is in the same range as Quis and Tony's in 2010, and both of them would be lucky to be called average offensive players.

There are various things you need to take into consideration. First Lee had a very slow start to the season, he's been very good last 3 months, particularly in February shooting 47% from the field and 41% from 3s.

Also, Avery Bradley didn't have training camp, missed "half" a season and coming from double shoulder surgery.

Also, you're not considering roles, you give TA a role where he's forced to handle the ball more you'll see that turnover rate climb.

And I don't see what you're seeing as far as efg% goes. I see Jason Terry as the highest, followed by Nate. I think there's reasonable expectation to expect Courtney Lee to keep climbing if he continues he's play since 3 months ago and lessen the impact those first two months had.

No clue how Avery will keep progressing as the season goes on, so that's an X factor for me offensively.

You bring a good point as far as rebound goes, but rebounds is not something I put too much stock in as far as guards go, so I don't care much for it.

Assist totals are meaningless to me too all told, just like I didn't care for Rondo's high assist totals, it's not something I put much importance to.

I'll admit this much, "superior" was an exaggeration. But I'm considerably more comfortably with our current guard rotation, which is more disciplined, particularly defensively, space the floor better than the group from Ray Allen.

That all said, this group is thriving without Rondo. We'll see if that continues. Also, big fan of that 2010 group, particularly of Tony Allen, but it's not a group I'd be comfortable with in any shape or form without Rondo, particularly for a long stretch.

  You're right, I missed Terry's highest efg%. But we've established that the current group of guards is somewhat better than the 2010 guards *aside from Rondo and Ray*. In the 2010 playoffs we got roughly 40 points, 10 rebounds and 12 assists a game from our guards, we'll be hard pressed to get anywhere remotely near that when we're playing slower paced games against the better defenses in the league.

I think we'll be around that, but also consider that our crop of guards are pretty much exclusive guards, they don't stray to SF minutes other than the occasional Lee minutes there which would be far from the norm, and severely limited if at all.

The 2010 team had TA, Quis, and Allen all who covered for the back-up SF minutes as needed. In this current team, Green takes all those minutes, and on occasions, Pierce plays some SG minutes when Green is on the floor, so is that a consideration also (or would you consider Green the SG in those occasions)?

In all it's a different dynamic as far as our roster usage, but certainly very interested in seeing how it'll perform.

Offline Surferdad

  • Bailey Howell
  • ***
  • Posts: 3011
  • Tommy Points: 152
  • "He fiddles...and diddles..."
Clippers ownership blocked the trade and rightly so. This was a non-trade that benefitted both teams to not do.

are you sure about this? did they publicly admit it

I believe more on the speculation KG said no. If KG comes to the clippers, they have a better chance to win it all plus paul having his request listened to, signs an extension over the summer.  Remember Paul might still jet over the summer
Adrian Woj said it on draft night. No one will ever know for sure but he's as good a source as there is out there. I think they made the right choice.   They have a chance to win WITHOUT giving up one of the best young big men and one of the best young guards in the league. No reason to mortgage the future.

Offline scaryjerry

  • Don Chaney
  • *
  • Posts: 1628
  • Tommy Points: 72
Clippers ownership blocked the trade and rightly so. This was a non-trade that benefitted both teams to not do.

are you sure about this? did th publicly admit it

I believe more on the speculation KG said no. If KG comes to the clippers, they have a better chance to win it all plus paul having his request listened to, signs an extension over the summer.  Remember Paul might still jet over the summer
Adrian Woj said it on draft night. No one will ever know for sure but he's as good a source as there is out there. I think they made the right choice.   They have a chance to win WITHOUT giving up one of the best young big men and one of the best young guards in the league. No reason to mortgage the future.

That's silly....Jordan and bledsoe 2 of the best young players in the game? No. their future is Blake Griffin and keeping Chris Paul. It should also be winning a title now for one of the worst franchises in the history of sports.....which they had a MUCH better chance of doing with kg.
Bledsoe was completely expendable...and Jordan pretty much was to if you got kg and a title.

Offline Roy H.

  • Forums Manager
  • Dave Cowens
  • ***********************
  • Posts: 23650
  • Tommy Points: -29129
  • 33,333 posts and counting . . .
Quote
I have come to realize that this franchise says one thing and does another, and is more concerned with making money than winning championships. That wouldn´t be a problem per se, but they also feel the need to tell us they´re all about winning, since it´s part of the Celtics history.

From trading for KG, letting Posey walk or trading Perk, to being interested in every guy with the name Green, having the reddest of redheads (Scal) or a big man with an irish name (O´Bryant) on the roster, it´s all about having an identity to sell, filling the seats in the Garden, selling shirts and making money.
You think KG was "day-to-day" in 2009 because Danny was playing mind games?

The Celtics have to compete with the Pats, Red Sox and Bruins, and the Garden wasn´t even sold out every night anymore. KG changed all that, and their just trying to wring out this new-found casual interest in the Celtics for as long as possible.

I have a hard time buying this.  The Celtics have been one of the very few franchises that have repeatedly paid the luxury tax.  This off-season, the team aggressively attempted to add payroll, bringing in Courtney Lee in a creative and expensive deal. 

Danny had a bad off-season before the 2009 season, but otherwise the team has gone all-out financially every season to field a contending team.  As a fan, I'm not sure what more we can ask for.


D. Cousins / F. Ezeli / P. Antic
D. West / R. Anderson / C. Copeland
L. Deng / V. Carter / D. Rudez
A. Iguodala / M. Ginobil / B. Gordon
K. Irving / S. Livingston / S. Blake

Once a CrotoNat, always a CrotoNat.  CelticsBlog Draft Champions, 2009 & 2012