Author Topic: If we don't make the 2016 playoffs, should we think about going even younger?  (Read 88028 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline GetLucky

  • Don Chaney
  • *
  • Posts: 1760
  • Tommy Points: 349

My point from the beginning wasn't to argue for keeping either, I just didn't get the reason for keeping him in a full youth movement when he is the older big of the 3. If the idea is to go younger, he will be 26 in Jan., he has to be the one on the outside looking in. Not only is he older but he and Sully are up for massive raises, you shouldn't keep either when everyone else will have 3-4 years on rookie scale contracts.

I'm not worried about Zeller's age.  He's only been in the league a few years (read: not much wear on his knees), and players of his type usually stay productive through age 33-34.


Pho, I get it, you love Zeller. That doesn't make that argument correct in this scenario.

Zeller is 26, so he has, in theory, at least 4-5 productive years left in him, if not more due to his lack of dependence on athleticism. Expecting any rebuild, let alone this one, to take 5+ years is a pretty morose outlook. Going young is not necessarily synonymous with stinking. Also, I'm not sure that it's possible to get much younger than the Celtics are right now. Weren't they something like the 4th-youngest team in the league last year?

Also, just so everyone knows, Zeller is 25 until January, Olynyk is 24 until April, and Sullinger is 23 until March.

Offline ImShakHeIsShaq

  • NCE
  • Tiny Archibald
  • *******
  • Posts: 7739
  • Tommy Points: 804

My point from the beginning wasn't to argue for keeping either, I just didn't get the reason for keeping him in a full youth movement when he is the older big of the 3. If the idea is to go younger, he will be 26 in Jan., he has to be the one on the outside looking in. Not only is he older but he and Sully are up for massive raises, you shouldn't keep either when everyone else will have 3-4 years on rookie scale contracts.

I'm not worried about Zeller's age.  He's only been in the league a few years (read: not much wear on his knees), and players of his type usually stay productive through age 33-34.


Pho, I get it, you love Zeller. That doesn't make that argument correct in this scenario.

Zeller is 26, so he has, in theory, at least 4-5 productive years left in him, if not more due to his lack of dependence on athleticism. Expecting any rebuild, let alone this one, to take 5+ years is a pretty morose outlook. Going young is not necessarily synonymous with stinking. Also, I'm not sure that it's possible to get much younger than the Celtics are right now. Weren't they something like the 4th-youngest team in the league last year?

Also, just so everyone knows, Zeller is 25 until January, Olynyk is 24 until April, and Sullinger is 23 until March.

I don't know why I have to keep repeating this, I don't care if one is kept over the other, it's only about the premise of this thread. If the object is to go younger (hard because we are already VERY young) then Zeller is the oldest of the 3, if you get rid of the other 2 then Zeller should go too. He is older than both, 1yr on KO and 2 on Sully. I'm not arguing about the durability of either. Like I said before, if this wasn't about age, I could make a good argument for keeping either one!

Based solely on age, Sully is the guy to keep. That's just out of the 3 young bigs, b/c Zeller is older than other guys who were added to the "trade and go even younger list."
It takes me 3hrs to get to Miami and 1hr to get to Orlando... but I *SPIT* on their NBA teams! "Bless God and bless the (Celts)"-Lady GaGa (she said gays but she really meant Celts)

Offline GetLucky

  • Don Chaney
  • *
  • Posts: 1760
  • Tommy Points: 349

My point from the beginning wasn't to argue for keeping either, I just didn't get the reason for keeping him in a full youth movement when he is the older big of the 3. If the idea is to go younger, he will be 26 in Jan., he has to be the one on the outside looking in. Not only is he older but he and Sully are up for massive raises, you shouldn't keep either when everyone else will have 3-4 years on rookie scale contracts.

I'm not worried about Zeller's age.  He's only been in the league a few years (read: not much wear on his knees), and players of his type usually stay productive through age 33-34.


Pho, I get it, you love Zeller. That doesn't make that argument correct in this scenario.

Zeller is 26, so he has, in theory, at least 4-5 productive years left in him, if not more due to his lack of dependence on athleticism. Expecting any rebuild, let alone this one, to take 5+ years is a pretty morose outlook. Going young is not necessarily synonymous with stinking. Also, I'm not sure that it's possible to get much younger than the Celtics are right now. Weren't they something like the 4th-youngest team in the league last year?

Also, just so everyone knows, Zeller is 25 until January, Olynyk is 24 until April, and Sullinger is 23 until March.

I don't know why I have to keep repeating this, I don't care if one is kept over the other, it's only about the premise of this thread. If the object is to go younger (hard because we are already VERY young) then Zeller is the oldest of the 3, if you get rid of the other 2 then Zeller should go too. He is older than both, 1yr on KO and 2 on Sully. I'm not arguing about the durability of either. Like I said before, if this wasn't about age, I could make a good argument for keeping either one!

Based solely on age, Sully is the guy to keep. That's just out of the 3 young bigs, b/c Zeller is older than other guys who were added to the "trade and go even younger list."

I think PhoSita and I are reading a little too much into your first response  ;D

What I was trying to say, and I think Pho was too, was that the age difference between Zeller, Sullinger, and Olynyk is so negligible that a "youth movement" that would supposedly lead to one or two of the three going would come down to basketball merit more than age.

Offline ImShakHeIsShaq

  • NCE
  • Tiny Archibald
  • *******
  • Posts: 7739
  • Tommy Points: 804

My point from the beginning wasn't to argue for keeping either, I just didn't get the reason for keeping him in a full youth movement when he is the older big of the 3. If the idea is to go younger, he will be 26 in Jan., he has to be the one on the outside looking in. Not only is he older but he and Sully are up for massive raises, you shouldn't keep either when everyone else will have 3-4 years on rookie scale contracts.

I'm not worried about Zeller's age.  He's only been in the league a few years (read: not much wear on his knees), and players of his type usually stay productive through age 33-34.


Pho, I get it, you love Zeller. That doesn't make that argument correct in this scenario.

Zeller is 26, so he has, in theory, at least 4-5 productive years left in him, if not more due to his lack of dependence on athleticism. Expecting any rebuild, let alone this one, to take 5+ years is a pretty morose outlook. Going young is not necessarily synonymous with stinking. Also, I'm not sure that it's possible to get much younger than the Celtics are right now. Weren't they something like the 4th-youngest team in the league last year?

Also, just so everyone knows, Zeller is 25 until January, Olynyk is 24 until April, and Sullinger is 23 until March.

I don't know why I have to keep repeating this, I don't care if one is kept over the other, it's only about the premise of this thread. If the object is to go younger (hard because we are already VERY young) then Zeller is the oldest of the 3, if you get rid of the other 2 then Zeller should go too. He is older than both, 1yr on KO and 2 on Sully. I'm not arguing about the durability of either. Like I said before, if this wasn't about age, I could make a good argument for keeping either one!

Based solely on age, Sully is the guy to keep. That's just out of the 3 young bigs, b/c Zeller is older than other guys who were added to the "trade and go even younger list."

I think PhoSita and I are reading a little too much into your first response  ;D

What I was trying to say, and I think Pho was too, was that the age difference between Zeller, Sullinger, and Olynyk is so negligible that a "youth movement" that would supposedly lead to one or two of the three going would come down to basketball merit more than age.

Now, if it's about more than age, it still should be Sully... he is better than both and has more potential. He and Zeller are about to get paid, people don't like Sully bc he hasn't taken his health serious, but I would keep him over Z b/c he is 2 full years younger and the better player.

Z vs. KO is tougher, I wouldn't mind if DA chose either because neither is really better than the other even though Z has had 3 seasons.  This decision would go to the coach on who he thinks works better. Z may be in line for 10m while KO has another season on his rookie contract, I still wouldn't be upset with keeping Zeller b/c KO will need to be paid after next season.

If all of them stay for the season, how they play will determine who we keep, 1-2 will need to step up their game. We may keep them all this season, but I don't think we will after.

This could get interesting, especially if Sully and Z are playing for their next check!

I wanna see a war. Also, if Lee gets 20m and Amir gets about 30... someone is on the outside looking in. Haha this is gonna be so much fun. Amir gets Bass' minutes and Lee doesn't look like a guy who won't work or have his body break down, I don't see him chilling on the bench. Who's waving the towel?
« Last Edit: August 31, 2015, 12:16:58 AM by ImShakHeIsShaq »
It takes me 3hrs to get to Miami and 1hr to get to Orlando... but I *SPIT* on their NBA teams! "Bless God and bless the (Celts)"-Lady GaGa (she said gays but she really meant Celts)

Re: If we don't make the 2016 playoffs, should we think about going even younger?
« Reply #94 on: September 02, 2015, 02:52:26 AM »

Offline greece66

  • Tiny Archibald
  • *******
  • Posts: 7395
  • Tommy Points: 1342
  • Head Paperboy at Greenville
31043 Views  :o


Re: If we don't make the 2016 playoffs, should we think about going even younger?
« Reply #95 on: September 03, 2015, 12:04:03 PM »

Offline vjcsmoke

  • Ray Allen
  • ***
  • Posts: 3173
  • Tommy Points: 182
It really depends on how our players grow.  Results in the standings aren't the bottom line because we don't have a contending core in place.  We're good enough to make the playoffs with the talent with have, albeit a late seed.  But if we have injuries to key players, then yes we could miss the playoffs.  But you have to remember just how BAD the other teams in the NBA and especially the East are.  It's going to be hard to miss the playoffs.

If we see growth improvement in young guys like Smart, KO, Sullinger, Rozier, etc.  that will speak more to the direction we are headed than our record.  Record is the second indicator compared to the eye test.  Are these guys making the step to the next level, will one or two stars emerge from our group of youngsters?

Re: If we don't make the 2016 playoffs, should we think about going even younger?
« Reply #96 on: September 03, 2015, 12:06:34 PM »

Offline PhoSita

  • NCE
  • Robert Parish
  • *********************
  • Posts: 21835
  • Tommy Points: 2182


Pho, I get it, you love Zeller. That doesn't make that argument correct in this scenario.

I'm sorry, I didn't realize we were literally arguing about which one of the three is the youngest.

OK, in that case, we could have just consulted Wikipedia.

Let me know in the future if we're just fact-checking encyclopedias.
You値l have to excuse my lengthiness葉he 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: If we don't make the 2016 playoffs, should we think about going even younger?
« Reply #97 on: September 03, 2015, 12:10:26 PM »

Offline Jon

  • Paul Silas
  • ******
  • Posts: 6499
  • Tommy Points: 385
I'm still going back to this: for a guy who apparently is worth 8-12 million a year, I'm not even sure Zeller will be able to crack the rotation next year. 

He played fewer minutes per game last year than Olynyk and Sullinger (when they played) and now we have Lee and Johnson here too.  And none of that is even factoring in minutes Jerbenko, Mickey, and Crowder might get in a "big" spot when the C's go small. 


Re: If we don't make the 2016 playoffs, should we think about going even younger?
« Reply #98 on: September 03, 2015, 12:39:34 PM »

Offline PhoSita

  • NCE
  • Robert Parish
  • *********************
  • Posts: 21835
  • Tommy Points: 2182
I'm still going back to this: for a guy who apparently is worth 8-12 million a year, I'm not even sure Zeller will be able to crack the rotation next year. 

I'll go back to what I've said -- if Zeller isn't in the rotation that will call into question, for me, the competency of our head coach.

There will probably be games where Zeller doesn't play a lot, just like last year.  But he was our most consistently solid and productive player last year, and he played all 82 games.  He's also still the only true center on the roster.  I think it would be very silly if he were out of the rotation.

Sullinger, Olynyk, and Lee are all offensively skilled players who bring valuable things to the table, but they're also fairly redundant.  I don't think you can play any of them together without getting killed defensively.  I expect one of those three to spend a lot of time on the bench, probably Kelly.


But look, this highlights the problem for this team right now -- we've got plenty of decent players, all of which, in theory, deserve playing time.  But they're also fairly redundant and none of them is so good that you can't imagine the team winning games without them in the rotation.  How do you develop continuity and long-term infrastructure with this carousel of players?  Will any of these players even be here in three years?

It's a mess.
« Last Edit: September 03, 2015, 12:50:16 PM by PhoSita »
You値l have to excuse my lengthiness葉he 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: If we don't make the 2016 playoffs, should we think about going even younger?
« Reply #99 on: September 03, 2015, 02:30:31 PM »

Offline ImShakHeIsShaq

  • NCE
  • Tiny Archibald
  • *******
  • Posts: 7739
  • Tommy Points: 804


Pho, I get it, you love Zeller. That doesn't make that argument correct in this scenario.

I'm sorry, I didn't realize we were literally arguing about which one of the three is the youngest.

OK, in that case, we could have just consulted Wikipedia.

Let me know in the future if we're just fact-checking encyclopedias.


Cute, still doesn't change the fact that you want DA to trade off many other players who are younger or as young as Zeller in a move to get younger than the team we have now. Doesn't make sense and that has nothing to do with play, pay nor durability. It isn't in line with this thread, it's more in line with who you like, instead of making the team younger than it is.


It takes me 3hrs to get to Miami and 1hr to get to Orlando... but I *SPIT* on their NBA teams! "Bless God and bless the (Celts)"-Lady GaGa (she said gays but she really meant Celts)

Re: If we don't make the 2016 playoffs, should we think about going even younger?
« Reply #100 on: September 03, 2015, 02:56:25 PM »

Offline PhoSita

  • NCE
  • Robert Parish
  • *********************
  • Posts: 21835
  • Tommy Points: 2182


Cute, still doesn't change the fact that you want DA to trade off many other players who are younger or as young as Zeller in a move to get younger than the team we have now.

Sigh.  Do you understand that there is a difference between the original post and the posts made in reply to the original post?  Or do you just see everybody posting in the thread as the same person, to whom you respond with the same level of attention to detail -- i.e. very little?

I think I've explained my position very clearly at this point.  GetLucky was even gracious enough to re-explain it for you.

Any distance between what I've said and what you think this discussion is about at this point is down to your inability to read and understand other people's posts.  Continuing the discussion is therefore a waste of time.

Take care.
You値l have to excuse my lengthiness葉he 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: If we don't make the 2016 playoffs, should we think about going even younger?
« Reply #101 on: September 04, 2015, 12:15:25 PM »

Offline Jon

  • Paul Silas
  • ******
  • Posts: 6499
  • Tommy Points: 385
I'm still going back to this: for a guy who apparently is worth 8-12 million a year, I'm not even sure Zeller will be able to crack the rotation next year. 

I'll go back to what I've said -- if Zeller isn't in the rotation that will call into question, for me, the competency of our head coach.


See, I feel this is hyperbole.  I'm willing to admit that Zeller may end up starting (though I doubt it).  But we're talking about a guy who is pretty much universally regarded as a good backup at best.  If for whatever reason Stevens decides to start two guys who have recently started on a playoff teams (Johnson and Lee) and back them up with two promising youngsters (Sully and Olynyk), that doesn't call into question his competency. 

And I'd add that Zeller is barely a center: he's 7 foot, but he has short arms, isn't a rim protector, and has little post game. 

Re: If we don't make the 2016 playoffs, should we think about going even younger?
« Reply #102 on: September 06, 2015, 12:21:15 PM »

Offline vjcsmoke

  • Ray Allen
  • ***
  • Posts: 3173
  • Tommy Points: 182
*yawn* i really don't see why there has been so much back on forth about... Tyler Zeller?  He's a backup 5 end of story.  When Amir Johnson gets tired, then somebody has to go in while he sits.  I don't think it's a hard issue.  And however Brad Stevens rotates his players is really his own business.  Would I question his competence because he doesn't give TZ a lot of minutes?  Heck, I wouldn't give TZ a lot of minutes either!