Author Topic: Will Boston trade up?  (Read 25351 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: Will Boston trade up?
« Reply #30 on: April 21, 2015, 04:56:05 PM »

Offline BudweiserCeltic

  • Dennis Johnson
  • ******************
  • Posts: 18699
  • Tommy Points: 1818

losing AB + Sully + 16 makes us substantially worse next year and is effectively moving 3 mid firsts and several years of invested player development for the # 6 pick. In order to win that trade #6 pick needs to be an absolute stud.


You can probably substantially replace AB and Sullinger without too much trouble in free agency, honestly.  Would the team really be worse if you just re-signed Bass and Jerebko and then signed a guy like Jared Dudley, Arron Afflalo, or Wilson Chandler for somewhere in the 4-7 million per year range?

Anyway, the whole point of spending several years of player development on young role players like AB and Sully is the hope that you can then package them later for a chance at a real star. 

If a trade (or series of trades) is available that allows the Celts a chance at a guy Danny thinks could be a star, they've got to jump on it.


Hypothetical scenarios like this are why I believe there's a solid chance the Celts could actually take a step or two back this summer while going after assets that could prove to be more than just nice role players.  Trying to win games by virtue of having quality 10 man depth is not going to lead to contention.
One benefit of having a team riddled with mediocrity... Literally everyone is easily replaceable.  Only one I'd be nervous about trading is Marcus Smart on the off chance he develops beyond defensive role player. But hes totally on the table in trades if it lands a substantial cornerstone player.

He strikes again! lol  ::)

Seriously. His negativity drowns out the majority of his posts. I'm fairly certain he loved the Billups for Anderson trade went it happened.
Dude... I admittedly slant towards negativity, but the majority of the time I'm just being realistic.   The Celtics have had 1 drafted player in the past 16 years develop into an all-star for the team (Rondo).  And yet every year so-and-so is the next great prospect.   Smart has some promise, but he's also a defensive role player coming off a season where he averaged 8 points on 37%/33%/64% shooting... displaying very little point guard ability and very little scoring ability.  I assure you that nobody outside of Boston is labeling it "negativity" when I say I doubt Smart develops into an all-star. 

If a player with reasonable star potential became available (Embiid, Wiggins, Jabari Parker, Noel, Okafor, Townes), it would cost you a lot more than Marcus Smart and #16.

Well, some of the players we've traded but drafted have been All-Stars, like Joe Johnson.

A case can be made that Al Jefferson has been snubbed through various years of his career, being in teams with subpar rosters hasn't helped his case.

But the gist of it remains, it's extremely hard to make an all-star, in part because it's first a popularity vote more than anything and there's a self-fulfilling prophecy of bringing back players that have been there prior even if undeserved.

Being an all-star to me doesn't necessarily mean actually playing in the all-star game, but more an indication that you're playing on equal/similar levels to those that do arrive... in all, just playing at a high level.

Re: Will Boston trade up?
« Reply #31 on: April 21, 2015, 04:57:40 PM »

Offline jonaslopes

  • Jrue Holiday
  • Posts: 315
  • Tommy Points: 31
Seriously. His negativity drowns out the majority of his posts.

What's the matter with negativism? Optimism, wishful thinking, positive thinking: all disgusting.

http://www.newstatesman.com/culture/2015/02/happiness-conspiracy-against-optimism-and-cult-positive-thinking
It's nice seeing him get exposed as overrated after having argued with fellow fans for years that he was overrated.. but I don't hate him. I'm looking forward to seeing him [...] bounce around to a couple more teams... eventually come back to Boston[...] and helps us as a role player until he runs himself out of the league.
LarBrd33 on Rondo

Re: Will Boston trade up?
« Reply #32 on: April 21, 2015, 05:00:25 PM »

Offline jpotter33

  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 47948
  • Tommy Points: 2906

losing AB + Sully + 16 makes us substantially worse next year and is effectively moving 3 mid firsts and several years of invested player development for the # 6 pick. In order to win that trade #6 pick needs to be an absolute stud.


You can probably substantially replace AB and Sullinger without too much trouble in free agency, honestly.  Would the team really be worse if you just re-signed Bass and Jerebko and then signed a guy like Jared Dudley, Arron Afflalo, or Wilson Chandler for somewhere in the 4-7 million per year range?

Anyway, the whole point of spending several years of player development on young role players like AB and Sully is the hope that you can then package them later for a chance at a real star. 

If a trade (or series of trades) is available that allows the Celts a chance at a guy Danny thinks could be a star, they've got to jump on it.


Hypothetical scenarios like this are why I believe there's a solid chance the Celts could actually take a step or two back this summer while going after assets that could prove to be more than just nice role players.  Trying to win games by virtue of having quality 10 man depth is not going to lead to contention.
One benefit of having a team riddled with mediocrity... Literally everyone is easily replaceable.  Only one I'd be nervous about trading is Marcus Smart on the off chance he develops beyond defensive role player. But hes totally on the table in trades if it lands a substantial cornerstone player.

He strikes again! lol  ::)

Seriously. His negativity drowns out the majority of his posts. I'm fairly certain he loved the Billups for Anderson trade went it happened.
Dude... I admittedly slant towards negativity, but the majority of the time I'm just being realistic.   The Celtics have had 1 drafted player in the past 16 years develop into an all-star for the team (Rondo).  And yet every year so-and-so is the next great prospect.   Smart has some promise, but he's also a defensive role player coming off a season where he averaged 8 points on 37%/33%/64% shooting... displaying very little point guard ability and very little scoring ability.  I assure you that nobody outside of Boston is labeling it "negativity" when I say I doubt Smart develops into an all-star. 

If a player with reasonable star potential became available (Embiid, Wiggins, Jabari Parker, Noel, Okafor, Townes), it would cost you a lot more than Marcus Smart and #16.

I'd hang onto Smart for another season to see if he makes a leap.

Yet, Noel averaged a mere 10 points on 46%/0%/60% in more minutes per game, in a primary scoring role (compared to Smart being the fifth option), and on a much worse team (all while taking a vast majority of his shots in the paint or at the basket. Smart has a 2PFG% of 41%, so compensate for his three point percentage and the difference isn't that great.), yet only Smart is limited to being a "defensive role player" for the rest of his career. The bias is real!

Re: Will Boston trade up?
« Reply #33 on: April 21, 2015, 05:00:53 PM »

Offline PhoSita

  • NCE
  • Robert Parish
  • *********************
  • Posts: 21835
  • Tommy Points: 2182
Doubtful. The NBA isn't like the NFL where mid-firsts are as valuable as top 5 picks. After about pick 7 or 8, the bust rate goes up past 75%. A 16 pick is nearly worthless and a 26 pick completely so.

We'll probably package them for future firsts. Can't see us adding more marginal rooks to the squad..

What makes you think packaging mid-round 1sts in this draft is likely to yield picks that have a decent chance of turning into top picks in the future?  How does it really help the team to roll over the picks into the future?

Even if they're just more role players, adding guys on rookie contracts who still have the allure of some "potential" will increase the trade assets on the Celts roster compared to the expiring veterans and journeymen they've got taking up half the roster right now.
You’ll have to excuse my lengthiness—the reason I dread writing letters is because I am so apt to get to slinging wisdom & forget to let up. Thus much precious time is lost.
- Mark Twain

Re: Will Boston trade up?
« Reply #34 on: April 21, 2015, 05:02:41 PM »

Offline bleedGREENdon

  • Jaylen Brown
  • Posts: 621
  • Tommy Points: 29
I would give all 4 of our draft picks and Sully for Winslow any day of the weak and we'd be over paying. He fits a need and is BPA. Kid can handle the ball, can rebound and already physically ready for the nba. Get HIM AT ALL COSTS DANNY.

If not, I want to see WCS In a trade up.

Aside from that I really don't want anyone else in this draft. ( being realistic btw we are not getting towns or okafor or Russell)

Re: Will Boston trade up?
« Reply #35 on: April 21, 2015, 05:06:25 PM »

Offline Eddie20

  • Don Nelson
  • ********
  • Posts: 8497
  • Tommy Points: 975

losing AB + Sully + 16 makes us substantially worse next year and is effectively moving 3 mid firsts and several years of invested player development for the # 6 pick. In order to win that trade #6 pick needs to be an absolute stud.


You can probably substantially replace AB and Sullinger without too much trouble in free agency, honestly.  Would the team really be worse if you just re-signed Bass and Jerebko and then signed a guy like Jared Dudley, Arron Afflalo, or Wilson Chandler for somewhere in the 4-7 million per year range?

Anyway, the whole point of spending several years of player development on young role players like AB and Sully is the hope that you can then package them later for a chance at a real star. 

If a trade (or series of trades) is available that allows the Celts a chance at a guy Danny thinks could be a star, they've got to jump on it.


Hypothetical scenarios like this are why I believe there's a solid chance the Celts could actually take a step or two back this summer while going after assets that could prove to be more than just nice role players.  Trying to win games by virtue of having quality 10 man depth is not going to lead to contention.
One benefit of having a team riddled with mediocrity... Literally everyone is easily replaceable.  Only one I'd be nervous about trading is Marcus Smart on the off chance he develops beyond defensive role player. But hes totally on the table in trades if it lands a substantial cornerstone player.

He strikes again! lol  ::)

Seriously. His negativity drowns out the majority of his posts. I'm fairly certain he loved the Billups for Anderson trade went it happened.
Dude... I admittedly slant towards negativity, but the majority of the time I'm just being realistic.   The Celtics have had 1 drafted player in the past 16 years develop into an all-star for the team (Rondo).  And yet every year so-and-so is the next great prospect.   Smart has some promise, but he's also a defensive role player coming off a season where he averaged 8 points on 37%/33%/64% shooting... displaying very little point guard ability and very little scoring ability.  I assure you that nobody outside of Boston is labeling it "negativity" when I say I doubt Smart develops into an all-star. 

If a player with reasonable star potential became available (Embiid, Wiggins, Jabari Parker, Noel, Okafor, Townes), it would cost you a lot more than Marcus Smart and #16.

Well, some of the players we've traded but drafted have been All-Stars, like Joe Johnson.

A case can be made that Al Jefferson has been snubbed through various years of his career, being in teams with subpar rosters hasn't helped his case.

But the gist of it remains, it's extremely hard to make an all-star, in part because it's first a popularity vote more than anything and there's a self-fulfilling prophecy of bringing back players that have been there prior even if undeserved.

Being an all-star to me doesn't necessarily mean actually playing in the all-star game, but more an indication that you're playing on equal/similar levels to those that do arrive... in all, just playing at a high level.

Johnson and Billups both became all-stars and are examples of players we gave up too early on. Kind of like you're suggesting with Smart.

As Bud stated, it also doesn't include Big Al who despite not making an all-star team was selected to all nba 3rd team. Also, you conveniently forgot to mention that the last time we had a top 10 pick was back in 2001 (Johnson). In fact, excluding Smart, we drafted in the top 10 5x in the last 19 years. 4 of those 5 (Pierce, Walker, Billups, Johnson) were all stars. All of them multiple times in fact.

Re: Will Boston trade up?
« Reply #36 on: April 21, 2015, 05:06:41 PM »

Offline LarBrd33

  • Robert Parish
  • *********************
  • Posts: 21238
  • Tommy Points: 2016

losing AB + Sully + 16 makes us substantially worse next year and is effectively moving 3 mid firsts and several years of invested player development for the # 6 pick. In order to win that trade #6 pick needs to be an absolute stud.


You can probably substantially replace AB and Sullinger without too much trouble in free agency, honestly.  Would the team really be worse if you just re-signed Bass and Jerebko and then signed a guy like Jared Dudley, Arron Afflalo, or Wilson Chandler for somewhere in the 4-7 million per year range?

Anyway, the whole point of spending several years of player development on young role players like AB and Sully is the hope that you can then package them later for a chance at a real star. 

If a trade (or series of trades) is available that allows the Celts a chance at a guy Danny thinks could be a star, they've got to jump on it.


Hypothetical scenarios like this are why I believe there's a solid chance the Celts could actually take a step or two back this summer while going after assets that could prove to be more than just nice role players.  Trying to win games by virtue of having quality 10 man depth is not going to lead to contention.
One benefit of having a team riddled with mediocrity... Literally everyone is easily replaceable.  Only one I'd be nervous about trading is Marcus Smart on the off chance he develops beyond defensive role player. But hes totally on the table in trades if it lands a substantial cornerstone player.

He strikes again! lol  ::)
I'm going to get labelled a Marcus Smart hater in the same way I was labelled a Rajon Rondo hater.  When you don't get drunk off the irrational koolaid, people assume you are trolling.   I was proven right with Rondo eventually.

Smart is a fine prospect.  Probably the most valuable chip we have.   I'd argue that the #6 pick was more valuable before we used it.   Smart has proven to be maybe the 7-10th best rookie this year.  Not bad.  His defense is spectacular.  He can sporadically be troublesome for opposing guards.  But he's an undersized shooting guard with atrocious offensive ability right now.  Those expecting him to develop into a Russell Westbrook type player are taking a major leap of faith.  Sometimes bad offensive guards remain bad offensive guards.  Sure, Smart could suddenly raise his 36% shooting to a level of competence... we saw it happen with Ben McLemore this year.  Guards usually get more efficient in their 2nd year.   Or maybe Smart follows the Rondo/Rubio (without elite passing) path.   I wouldn't bet money on Smart becoming an all-star some day.

I just can't take you serious anymore. Your pessimism is just too much, and you constantly underrate our guys in favor of overrating your "bae" in Philly. You're the one being irrational in your Smart-hatred, and your claims that you were making last night about "Smart's ceiling is Noel's floor," "Smart's ceiling is at best Avery Bradley," and "at best, Smart will impact the game on the level Noel did as a rookie" are just astronomically biased and asinine. Tell me again, who is the one drinking the irrational red, white, and blue koolaid?  ::)

Actual quotes, by the way, before you say I'm misrepresenting what you said.
Yep.  That's the way it looks right now.  Wicked unfair, right?  Defensive big men impact basketball games more than defensive little men.   Noel's floor was his rookie season... where he averaged 10 points 8 boards, 2 blocks and 2 steals for the season and lead a top 12 defensive team.   As he made strides throughout the year, he proved to be even better after the all-star break... where his team had the best defensive rating in the league in minutes he was on the court.     I'd like to think that if Smart someday was able to develop into a player who could single-handedly make his squad the best defensive team in the league, it would be considered an unprecedented achievement for a 6'4 tweener guard.  While both Smart and Bradley are pests defensively, you'll never see either as the focalpoint of a team's defense.  Nobody is building a defense where they funnel everyone to Marcus Smart.  That's obviously not happening since basketball doesn't work that way.   Unfortunately, for a guard to impact the game in such a significant manner, it has to be on the offensive end...  So if SMart some day develops into a player who can carry his team's offense, it will be as impressive as Noel carrying his team's defense.  Thus, Smart's ceiling is Noel's floor.   

Sure, there's a little hyperbole there, but you didn't seem to be grasping the difference between an elite defensive guard (Tony Allen) and an elite defensive big (Ben Wallace).   The concept continues to baffle, frustrate and anger you.   In peak form, both were EXCEPTIONAL at what they did.  The cream of the crop.   But Tony Allen's defensive impact is enough to make him a solid role player (often off the bench).   Ben Wallace's defensive impact was enough to build a champion around.   Size matters. 

That doesn't mean I "h8r8" Tony Allen, because I accurately mention his trade value never approached the trade value of Ben Wallace.  It doesn't mean I h8r8 Marcus Smart when I point out his current limitations.  Maybe he makes an improbable leap and develops into the next Gary Payton.   He was a pretty weak offensive player in College (42%/29%/72% his sophomore season) and has proven to be a weak offensive player as a rookie.  Maybe it'll happen.  Maybe James Young will develop into a better player than Andrew Wiggins.  Maybe the guy we get #16 will be the next Michael Jordan.  It's not impossible.  I try not to base my evaluation of the team on wild fantasyland expectations. 




Re: Will Boston trade up?
« Reply #37 on: April 21, 2015, 05:14:27 PM »

Offline celticmania

  • Jaylen Brown
  • Posts: 706
  • Tommy Points: 39
I saw an interesting idea last week: Bradley, Olynyk, 16 for Derrick Williams and 6... Maybe use another pick to move into the top four and take Dangelo Russell who I think has the ability and mentality of a superstar.

Re: Will Boston trade up?
« Reply #38 on: April 21, 2015, 05:16:30 PM »

Offline LarBrd33

  • Robert Parish
  • *********************
  • Posts: 21238
  • Tommy Points: 2016

losing AB + Sully + 16 makes us substantially worse next year and is effectively moving 3 mid firsts and several years of invested player development for the # 6 pick. In order to win that trade #6 pick needs to be an absolute stud.


You can probably substantially replace AB and Sullinger without too much trouble in free agency, honestly.  Would the team really be worse if you just re-signed Bass and Jerebko and then signed a guy like Jared Dudley, Arron Afflalo, or Wilson Chandler for somewhere in the 4-7 million per year range?

Anyway, the whole point of spending several years of player development on young role players like AB and Sully is the hope that you can then package them later for a chance at a real star. 

If a trade (or series of trades) is available that allows the Celts a chance at a guy Danny thinks could be a star, they've got to jump on it.


Hypothetical scenarios like this are why I believe there's a solid chance the Celts could actually take a step or two back this summer while going after assets that could prove to be more than just nice role players.  Trying to win games by virtue of having quality 10 man depth is not going to lead to contention.
One benefit of having a team riddled with mediocrity... Literally everyone is easily replaceable.  Only one I'd be nervous about trading is Marcus Smart on the off chance he develops beyond defensive role player. But hes totally on the table in trades if it lands a substantial cornerstone player.

He strikes again! lol  ::)

Seriously. His negativity drowns out the majority of his posts. I'm fairly certain he loved the Billups for Anderson trade went it happened.
Dude... I admittedly slant towards negativity, but the majority of the time I'm just being realistic.   The Celtics have had 1 drafted player in the past 16 years develop into an all-star for the team (Rondo).  And yet every year so-and-so is the next great prospect.   Smart has some promise, but he's also a defensive role player coming off a season where he averaged 8 points on 37%/33%/64% shooting... displaying very little point guard ability and very little scoring ability.  I assure you that nobody outside of Boston is labeling it "negativity" when I say I doubt Smart develops into an all-star. 

If a player with reasonable star potential became available (Embiid, Wiggins, Jabari Parker, Noel, Okafor, Townes), it would cost you a lot more than Marcus Smart and #16.

Well, some of the players we've traded but drafted have been All-Stars, like Joe Johnson.

A case can be made that Al Jefferson has been snubbed through various years of his career, being in teams with subpar rosters hasn't helped his case.

But the gist of it remains, it's extremely hard to make an all-star, in part because it's first a popularity vote more than anything and there's a self-fulfilling prophecy of bringing back players that have been there prior even if undeserved.

Being an all-star to me doesn't necessarily mean actually playing in the all-star game, but more an indication that you're playing on equal/similar levels to those that do arrive... in all, just playing at a high level.

Johnson and Billups both became all-stars and are examples of players we gave up too early on. Kind of like you're suggesting with Smart.


I said 1 drafted player in the past 16 years has developed into an all-star for the team.  Neither of those guys (or Big Al) developed into all-stars for the team.  It's not unreasonable to expect less than all-star development for Marcus SMart.  It's actually unreasonable to expect him to develop into an all-star.   It usually doesn't happen.   He's a defensive role player right now.  He might be a defensive role player long-term.  Smart money is on Smart ending up a quality defensive role player.

Again, to reiterate, Smart is the one player on the team that I'd be nervous to trade right now.  Again, to reiterate, I think it's possible that he could make a leap this summer.   Again, to reiterate, I'd rather wait to see what he does next season before trading him.   Again, to reiterate, if a player with a more apparent path towards superstardom (Noel, Wiggins, Jabari, Embiid) became available, you'd be foolish to hold off on including Smart in the deal.   Again, to reiterate, I think Smart + #16 + #26 + Brooklyns' 2016 1st (12-17?) might get you a phone call with Philly if they end up with 1 too many elite bigs.   Again, to reiterate, I don't think that would be the best offer they'd receive.   

None of that makes me a Smart hater.

Re: Will Boston trade up?
« Reply #39 on: April 21, 2015, 05:21:56 PM »

Offline Eddie20

  • Don Nelson
  • ********
  • Posts: 8497
  • Tommy Points: 975

losing AB + Sully + 16 makes us substantially worse next year and is effectively moving 3 mid firsts and several years of invested player development for the # 6 pick. In order to win that trade #6 pick needs to be an absolute stud.


You can probably substantially replace AB and Sullinger without too much trouble in free agency, honestly.  Would the team really be worse if you just re-signed Bass and Jerebko and then signed a guy like Jared Dudley, Arron Afflalo, or Wilson Chandler for somewhere in the 4-7 million per year range?

Anyway, the whole point of spending several years of player development on young role players like AB and Sully is the hope that you can then package them later for a chance at a real star. 

If a trade (or series of trades) is available that allows the Celts a chance at a guy Danny thinks could be a star, they've got to jump on it.


Hypothetical scenarios like this are why I believe there's a solid chance the Celts could actually take a step or two back this summer while going after assets that could prove to be more than just nice role players.  Trying to win games by virtue of having quality 10 man depth is not going to lead to contention.
One benefit of having a team riddled with mediocrity... Literally everyone is easily replaceable.  Only one I'd be nervous about trading is Marcus Smart on the off chance he develops beyond defensive role player. But hes totally on the table in trades if it lands a substantial cornerstone player.

He strikes again! lol  ::)
I'm going to get labelled a Marcus Smart hater in the same way I was labelled a Rajon Rondo hater.  When you don't get drunk off the irrational koolaid, people assume you are trolling.   I was proven right with Rondo eventually.

Smart is a fine prospect.  Probably the most valuable chip we have.   I'd argue that the #6 pick was more valuable before we used it.   Smart has proven to be maybe the 7-10th best rookie this year.  Not bad.  His defense is spectacular.  He can sporadically be troublesome for opposing guards.  But he's an undersized shooting guard with atrocious offensive ability right now.  Those expecting him to develop into a Russell Westbrook type player are taking a major leap of faith.  Sometimes bad offensive guards remain bad offensive guards.  Sure, Smart could suddenly raise his 36% shooting to a level of competence... we saw it happen with Ben McLemore this year.  Guards usually get more efficient in their 2nd year.   Or maybe Smart follows the Rondo/Rubio (without elite passing) path.   I wouldn't bet money on Smart becoming an all-star some day.

I just can't take you serious anymore. Your pessimism is just too much, and you constantly underrate our guys in favor of overrating your "bae" in Philly. You're the one being irrational in your Smart-hatred, and your claims that you were making last night about "Smart's ceiling is Noel's floor," "Smart's ceiling is at best Avery Bradley," and "at best, Smart will impact the game on the level Noel did as a rookie" are just astronomically biased and asinine. Tell me again, who is the one drinking the irrational red, white, and blue koolaid?  ::)

Actual quotes, by the way, before you say I'm misrepresenting what you said.
Yep.  That's the way it looks right now.  Wicked unfair, right?  Defensive big men impact basketball games more than defensive little men.   Noel's floor was his rookie season... where he averaged 10 points 8 boards, 2 blocks and 2 steals for the season and lead a top 12 defensive team.   As he made strides throughout the year, he proved to be even better after the all-star break... where his team had the best defensive rating in the league in minutes he was on the court.     I'd like to think that if Smart someday was able to develop into a player who could single-handedly make his squad the best defensive team in the league, it would be considered an unprecedented achievement for a 6'4 tweener guard.  While both Smart and Bradley are pests defensively, you'll never see either as the focalpoint of a team's defense.  Nobody is building a defense where they funnel everyone to Marcus Smart.  That's obviously not happening since basketball doesn't work that way.   Unfortunately, for a guard to impact the game in such a significant manner, it has to be on the offensive end...  So if SMart some day develops into a player who can carry his team's offense, it will be as impressive as Noel carrying his team's defense.  Thus, Smart's ceiling is Noel's floor.   

Sure, there's a little hyperbole there, but you didn't seem to be grasping the difference between an elite defensive guard (Tony Allen) and an elite defensive big (Ben Wallace).   The concept continues to baffle, frustrate and anger you.   In peak form, both were EXCEPTIONAL at what they did.  The cream of the crop.   But Tony Allen's defensive impact is enough to make him a solid role player (often off the bench).   Ben Wallace's defensive impact was enough to build a champion around.   Size matters. 

That doesn't mean I "h8r8" Tony Allen, because I accurately mention his trade value never approached the trade value of Ben Wallace.  It doesn't mean I h8r8 Marcus Smart when I point out his current limitations.  Maybe he makes an improbable leap and develops into the next Gary Payton.   He was a pretty weak offensive player in College (42%/29%/72% his sophomore season) and has proven to be a weak offensive player as a rookie.  Maybe it'll happen.  Maybe James Young will develop into a better player than Andrew Wiggins.  Maybe the guy we get #16 will be the next Michael Jordan.  It's not impossible.  I try not to base my evaluation of the team on wild fantasyland expectations.

Funny you mention Payton, as he didn't exactly take the league by storm his first 2 seasons and didn't show significant improvement until year. This despite being older then than Smart is now.

Payton's rookie season...
Age 22
FG% 45
FT% 71
3PT% 0.07
PPG 7.2
RPG 3.0
APG 6.4
SPG 2.0
MPG 27.4

Payton's second season...
Age 23
FG% 45.1
FT% 66.9
3PT% .13
PPG 9.4
RPG 3.6
APG 6.2
SPG 1.8
MPG 31.5

Re: Will Boston trade up?
« Reply #40 on: April 21, 2015, 05:24:34 PM »

Offline LarBrd33

  • Robert Parish
  • *********************
  • Posts: 21238
  • Tommy Points: 2016

losing AB + Sully + 16 makes us substantially worse next year and is effectively moving 3 mid firsts and several years of invested player development for the # 6 pick. In order to win that trade #6 pick needs to be an absolute stud.


You can probably substantially replace AB and Sullinger without too much trouble in free agency, honestly.  Would the team really be worse if you just re-signed Bass and Jerebko and then signed a guy like Jared Dudley, Arron Afflalo, or Wilson Chandler for somewhere in the 4-7 million per year range?

Anyway, the whole point of spending several years of player development on young role players like AB and Sully is the hope that you can then package them later for a chance at a real star. 

If a trade (or series of trades) is available that allows the Celts a chance at a guy Danny thinks could be a star, they've got to jump on it.


Hypothetical scenarios like this are why I believe there's a solid chance the Celts could actually take a step or two back this summer while going after assets that could prove to be more than just nice role players.  Trying to win games by virtue of having quality 10 man depth is not going to lead to contention.
One benefit of having a team riddled with mediocrity... Literally everyone is easily replaceable.  Only one I'd be nervous about trading is Marcus Smart on the off chance he develops beyond defensive role player. But hes totally on the table in trades if it lands a substantial cornerstone player.

He strikes again! lol  ::)
I'm going to get labelled a Marcus Smart hater in the same way I was labelled a Rajon Rondo hater.  When you don't get drunk off the irrational koolaid, people assume you are trolling.   I was proven right with Rondo eventually.

Smart is a fine prospect.  Probably the most valuable chip we have.   I'd argue that the #6 pick was more valuable before we used it.   Smart has proven to be maybe the 7-10th best rookie this year.  Not bad.  His defense is spectacular.  He can sporadically be troublesome for opposing guards.  But he's an undersized shooting guard with atrocious offensive ability right now.  Those expecting him to develop into a Russell Westbrook type player are taking a major leap of faith.  Sometimes bad offensive guards remain bad offensive guards.  Sure, Smart could suddenly raise his 36% shooting to a level of competence... we saw it happen with Ben McLemore this year.  Guards usually get more efficient in their 2nd year.   Or maybe Smart follows the Rondo/Rubio (without elite passing) path.   I wouldn't bet money on Smart becoming an all-star some day.

I just can't take you serious anymore. Your pessimism is just too much, and you constantly underrate our guys in favor of overrating your "bae" in Philly. You're the one being irrational in your Smart-hatred, and your claims that you were making last night about "Smart's ceiling is Noel's floor," "Smart's ceiling is at best Avery Bradley," and "at best, Smart will impact the game on the level Noel did as a rookie" are just astronomically biased and asinine. Tell me again, who is the one drinking the irrational red, white, and blue koolaid?  ::)

Actual quotes, by the way, before you say I'm misrepresenting what you said.
Yep.  That's the way it looks right now.  Wicked unfair, right?  Defensive big men impact basketball games more than defensive little men.   Noel's floor was his rookie season... where he averaged 10 points 8 boards, 2 blocks and 2 steals for the season and lead a top 12 defensive team.   As he made strides throughout the year, he proved to be even better after the all-star break... where his team had the best defensive rating in the league in minutes he was on the court.     I'd like to think that if Smart someday was able to develop into a player who could single-handedly make his squad the best defensive team in the league, it would be considered an unprecedented achievement for a 6'4 tweener guard.  While both Smart and Bradley are pests defensively, you'll never see either as the focalpoint of a team's defense.  Nobody is building a defense where they funnel everyone to Marcus Smart.  That's obviously not happening since basketball doesn't work that way.   Unfortunately, for a guard to impact the game in such a significant manner, it has to be on the offensive end...  So if SMart some day develops into a player who can carry his team's offense, it will be as impressive as Noel carrying his team's defense.  Thus, Smart's ceiling is Noel's floor.   

Sure, there's a little hyperbole there, but you didn't seem to be grasping the difference between an elite defensive guard (Tony Allen) and an elite defensive big (Ben Wallace).   The concept continues to baffle, frustrate and anger you.   In peak form, both were EXCEPTIONAL at what they did.  The cream of the crop.   But Tony Allen's defensive impact is enough to make him a solid role player (often off the bench).   Ben Wallace's defensive impact was enough to build a champion around.   Size matters. 

That doesn't mean I "h8r8" Tony Allen, because I accurately mention his trade value never approached the trade value of Ben Wallace.  It doesn't mean I h8r8 Marcus Smart when I point out his current limitations.  Maybe he makes an improbable leap and develops into the next Gary Payton.   He was a pretty weak offensive player in College (42%/29%/72% his sophomore season) and has proven to be a weak offensive player as a rookie.  Maybe it'll happen.  Maybe James Young will develop into a better player than Andrew Wiggins.  Maybe the guy we get #16 will be the next Michael Jordan.  It's not impossible.  I try not to base my evaluation of the team on wild fantasyland expectations.

Funny you mention Payton, as he didn't exactly take the league by storm his first 2 seasons and didn't show significant improvement until year. This despite being older then than Smart is now.

Payton's rookie season...
Age 22
FG% 45
FT% 71
3PT% 0.07
PPG 7.2
RPG 3.0
APG 6.4
SPG 2.0
MPG 27.4

Payton's second season...
Age 23
FG% 45.1
FT% 66.9
3PT% .13
PPG 9.4
RPG 3.6
APG 6.2
SPG 1.8
MPG 31.5
It's not so much "funny" as it is my hope for Smart.   Similar size.  Similar start to their careers.  Both elite defensive guards.  I think Smart should develop a post-up game like Payton did.   I'd love for Smart to develop into the next Payton.  I'm not counting on it, though.

Re: Will Boston trade up?
« Reply #41 on: April 21, 2015, 05:37:55 PM »

Offline JBcat

  • Ray Allen
  • ***
  • Posts: 3642
  • Tommy Points: 512
I would give all 4 of our draft picks and Sully for Winslow any day of the weak and we'd be over paying. He fits a need and is BPA. Kid can handle the ball, can rebound and already physically ready for the nba. Get HIM AT ALL COSTS DANNY.

If not, I want to see WCS In a trade up.

Aside from that I really don't want anyone else in this draft. ( being realistic btw we are not getting towns or okafor or Russell)

I would love to get Winslow.  I would say there there is a slim chance we keep all 4 picks with having 4 rookies on our team next year.  I think we need to consolidate whether it's trading up, trading out for a future higher pick, or for a proven player.

The Kings, Nuggets, Pistons, Bobcats, and Heat have the 6 through 10 picks.  I'm not sure what team we could work with where we could sell them on having more depth with more picks/players in exchange for their lottery pick.

Re: Will Boston trade up?
« Reply #42 on: April 21, 2015, 05:44:20 PM »

Offline celticmania

  • Jaylen Brown
  • Posts: 706
  • Tommy Points: 39
I see Winslow and Porzongis shooting up boards the most. Winslow is very much in the conversation for the 3rd overall pick and Porzingis could go 3rd as well
 One GM thinks he's the number one pick (could just be saying that) but his size athleticism and skills are pretty rare.

Re: Will Boston trade up?
« Reply #43 on: April 21, 2015, 05:47:37 PM »

Offline saltlover

  • Frank Ramsey
  • ************
  • Posts: 12490
  • Tommy Points: 2619
I saw an interesting idea last week: Bradley, Olynyk, 16 for Derrick Williams and 6... Maybe use another pick to move into the top four and take Dangelo Russell who I think has the ability and mentality of a superstar.

Because of how the salary cap works, that's more of an unallowable idea than an interesting one.

Re: Will Boston trade up?
« Reply #44 on: April 21, 2015, 05:48:29 PM »

Offline CFAN38

  • Antoine Walker
  • ****
  • Posts: 4878
  • Tommy Points: 420
Picking at 16 seems in this draft seems a bit problematic. The players ranked in that area are at positions that Boston does not really need, there are a bunch of PG's and PF's in the 14-18 range. Do you think they will trade one of their many assets to get up around 9-11 where they could get a player that is a better fit?

I think Danny will trade the 16 and 28 and hope he can get a 11-12 pick (if he really likes someone in this range). Maybe add sullinger and move into 9-10

But will want to keep the 33rd and 45 picks. No auto contracts required to give

It will take more then #16 + #28 to get to #11-12, last year the bulls traded #16, #19 and a future 2nd to get to #11. I do think the 2016 picks will be an option in this draft to move up. The Mavs and Nets both have a chance to be loto teams next year and this adds some value to the picks. I would think 16 + 28 + mavs pick gets the Cs 11-12.
Mavs
Wiz
Hornet