Poll

Trade Evan Turner or waive Perry Jones?

Trade Evan Turner... I'd like to see Perry Jones get a real shot in the NBA (like Crowder last year)
29 (69%)
Waive Perry Jones, I'd rather have Turner's proven game for a playoff run & re-sign him in 2016
13 (31%)

Total Members Voted: 42

Author Topic: So does Danny trade Evan Turner or give Perry Jones a legitimate shot in NBA?  (Read 10509 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline chambers

  • Tiny Archibald
  • *******
  • Posts: 7482
  • Tommy Points: 943
  • Boston Celtics= Championships, nothing less.
I don't think anyone's using PJII being a cast off as justification for keeping ET as much as they are saying PJIII being handed to us means people should temper their expectations about what Jones is capable of. I know I was, and it's actually the opposite from what I've seen. Some posters on here have used PJII's one game of scoring 33 points as justification for getting rid of ET and keeping him long term, which to me does not make sense because PJII has failed to establish any consistency ever.

To be fair to PJ, he has only started 21 games in his career (mostly due to him playing behind Durant).

In those 21 games he's averaged 8.1 points (43% FG, 25% 3PT, 74% FT), 3.4 rebounds, 0.7 assists, 0.3 steals, 0.3 blocks and 0.8 turnovers, in 25.8 minutes. 

Per-36 that becomes 11.3 points, 4.7 rebounds, 1 assist, 0.4 steals, 0.4 blocks and 1.2 turnovers.

Evan Turner in 57 games as a starter last year averaged 10.2 points (42% FG, 25% 3PT, 72% FT) to go with 5.7 rebounds, 6.4 assists, 1 steal, 0.2 blocks and 2.6 turnovers in 30 minutes.

Per-36 that becomes 12.3 points, 6.9 rebounds, 7.7 assists, 1.3 steals, 0.2 blocks and 3.1 turnovers.

Now obviously Turner's overall numbers are better, but it's not by as wide a margin as you might expect considering he's 26 years old, has started 229 games, and has played 11,119 minutes over 7 seasons.  By comparison PJ is 23 years old, has started 21 games, and has played a total of 1675 minutes in the NBA over three seasons. 

To put that in to perspective, Evan Turner played more minutes in his rookie year (1,797) than Perry Jones has in his entire three year career (1,675) so for all intents and purposes, you can basically consider PJII a rookie in terms of the amount of playing experience he's had.

Remember that PJII has spend his entire career on a team that starts Kevin Durant (a former MVP) and Serge Ibaka (a former DPOTY) - so his opportunities to get court time and develop his game were always going to be limited. There was only one time in his career that Turner was put in that type of situation (playing behind George in Indiana) and when that happened he fared no better.

So who knows.  Personally, I see PJ as most likely become Jeff Green minus the outside shot - however he's really never had an opportunity to 'spread his wings' this far...but he has amazing natural gifts (6'11" / 235 lbs frame and ridiculous athleticism) that you can't teach, and for that reason his potential is sky high.  He's on a cheap contact and he has All-Star potential (it's slim, but it's there) so I'm willing to take that chance on him.

I also like Turner because of what he offers the team right now.  I don't think there is really anybody else on this roster who can do everything (score, rebound, pass, handle the ball and defend multiple positions) the way Turner can, so he can fill a variety of roles.

This is why, in my perfect scenario, I keep both Turner and PJII and I ditch somebody who else.  In my case I would either waive/trade Young, or else I would trade one of our PF's (probably Sully) and try to get back a SF with an outside shot, or a big who can protect the paint.  Or at the very a quality pick or two.


Very good 'mediator' post. TP
Turner's actually grown on me over the past season, and part of my frustration with Turner is that I can't see a world in which he's part of any championship runs the Celtics might make in the next 5 years. We're trying to develop a team that can contend for a title and guys like Turner might be bargains at 3/4 million a year, but what else do they offer? Is that bargain contract for a mediocre player worth taking minutes from guys like Rozier and Smart? Now that we've got Rozier and PJIII on top of the guard rotation we had last year, it makes more sense to move on from Turner and try and cash in on his okay value.
Give him the Jordan Crawford treatment and move on.

I guess from my fan viewpoint I'd rather try and keep developing assets than let Turner take minutes from guys like Rozier, Smart, Hunter, Young etc and in the process free up a roster spot for a young guy who hasn't had enough time yet.
"We are lucky we have a very patient GM that isn't willing to settle for being good and coming close. He wants to win a championship and we have the potential to get there still with our roster and assets."

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

Offline crimson_stallion

  • Rajon Rondo
  • *****
  • Posts: 5964
  • Tommy Points: 875
No, PJ3 isn't the type to play those positions for a long stretch but he could have played any in spot minutes. He could have at least earned 20 minutes per, he hasn't. Ibaka has been out a good amount too. Still, PJ3 hasn't earned minutes anywhere.

A fair call, but you have to also need to understand that PJ3 is very raw because he hasn't seen enough minutes on the court, and OKC over the past few years have been in "contender" mode so they haven't been able to really afford to give substantial minutes to guys who are essentially raw prospects - they have needed to play proven guys who can contribute right away. 

That changed a little this year with Durant's injury (which opened up playing time and also affected the Thunder's hopes of contending) and PJ3 got some starts as a result - and he actually put together some pretty solid games during that stretch.  In his first 5 starts he averaged 15 points, 4 rebounds, 1 assist in 32 minutes, and he shot 46% / 33% / 74%. 

Then he got hurt, missed some games.  When he returned his minutes were much less consistent, as was his production.

Interesting fact though - in the 7 games last year where PJ3 played at least 26 minutes, he averaged:

15.3 PPG (49% FG, 38% 3PT, 63% FT)
3.6 RPG
0.9 APG
32.7 MPG

The games where he's played 25 MPG or less, he's consistently struggled.

Does this mean something?  Who knows.

Maybe not experienced enough yet to be able to produce in limited minutes - maybe he needs to be out on the court to get a feel for things and to start getting comfortable. 

Maybe these stats are just coincidental, and I'm just cherry picking.

Again, we don't know because he just hasn't had a consistent enough role/opportunity for us to really prove conclusively one way or the other.  Even guys like Marcus Smart, Kelly Olynyk and Jared Sullinger struggled in a lot of ways until they started to get 20-25 minutes a night on a consistent basis. They showed flashes of ability, but they really needed the minutes and on court repts to get comfortable and start producing.

To put it into perspective:

* Jared Sullinger had 20 games in his rookie year with with >20 Minutes played
* Kelly Olynyk had 33 games in his rookie year with with >20 Minutes played
* Marcus Smart had 56 games in his rookie year with with >20 Minutes played

Perry Jones has had 31 in his first three seasons with >20 Minutes played

Basically the point I'm trying to get across here is that Perry Jones may have been in the league for three seasons already, but if you look at the amount of playing time he's logged he may as well be a rookie.  He's really had very little opportunity to show what he can do, and when he has gotten anything close to starters minutes he's typically played pretty well.

As I said before, none of this suggests that he's certain (or even likely) to have a break out year and amaze us all. 

But what it does suggest is that:
a) He is capable of producing at NBA level when given the opportunity (potential is there)
b) He hasn't had enough opportunity to show exactly where his ceiling lies (potential is untapped)

As always, chasing this magical thing we call 'potential' is risky because (by definition) potential is something that isn't proven, and something that we hope could one day be. 

When investing in potential I always look at two things:
a) Cost - how much are you giving up for the player, relative to his proven NBA production
b) Risk - how much does the cost impact your team, if the worst case comes true
b) Upside - how much does the player benefit your team, if he reaches his ceiling

In terms of cost, we gave up $2m in cap space and a roster spot to acquire PJ3 and a 2nd round pick.   Cost is low.

in terms of risk, the $2m in cap space doesn't impact our team this year (there's nobody else we could have signed for that who would be useful to us) and it comes off the books next year.  Given the number of redundant/expendable players on our roster, the extra roster spot he takes up is not likely to impact our W/L record in the present, or in the near future.  Risk is low.

In terms of upside, PJ3's worst case is that he remains the player he is right now, and never develops beyond that.  His best case (IMO) is DeMarr Derozan, but taller. 

So to analyse the deal, you have to ask yourself two questions:

1) If the worst case comes true, and PJ3 doesn't develop past who he is today, then does this cripple the team in a significant way?  No, we can waive him later on if we really need the roster space, and he comes off the books next year.

2) If the best case comes true and PJ3 becomes a 6'11" Demar Derozan, then is that worth $2m and a roster spot?  Yes, easily.

Hence, I keep him on the roster.

Just the way I look at things from an 'lounge-chair GM' point of view :)


I don't know what a change of scenery will do for him. No one is good enough to take Durant's minutes but given what he has shown up until now, he isn't taking minutes from guys like Jae, Jerebko or any of our other 100 players either.

I'm not so sure about that. 

Right now the small forward spot is EASILY our weakest position.  It's really the only position on our team about which I can sit here and say (with a straight face) that we don't have a single guy who is starting caliber. 

I mean really, who is our best SF? 

Jae Crowder is a decent scorer, a decent rebounder, a decent passer, an above average defender and he doesn't turn the ball over.  He's a solid all rounder, but he has one glaring weakness - lack of three point range.  Boston was one of the worst three-point percentage teams in the NBA last year.  We really don't have one elite outside shooter who can single handedly draw the defenses attention (e.g. Ray Allen), so we need to go with the 'quantity over quality' approach and have a court full of guys who can hit the three, just to maintain decent court spacing.  The fact that Crowder can't make that shot consistently hurts a lot, yet he doesn't do anything else at an elite enough level to make up for that.

Evan Turner is basically Lamar Crawford - a merger between Lamar Odom and Jordan Crawford.  He's a point-forward who can can do a bunch of things (passing, ball handling, court vision, rebounding, scoring) pretty well, but isn't elite at any of those things.  But he's also questionable in his decision making, and is overly reckless with the ball - he creates a horrendous number of unforced turnovers, and that makes it difficult to trust him in a starters role.  Also, like Crowder his lack of a three point shot hurts court spacing.  Probably better suited to a bench role - when you desperately need something to happen you can unleash him at the position of need (be it at the 1, 2 or the 3) and he can create instant chaos. 

Jerebko probably has the lowest upside of the three, but he's also probably the best 'complementary' player since he doesn't really have any glaring weaknesses that hurt the team.  He can defend multiple positions so he helps you on defense.  He's a capable three point shooter so he can help stretch the floor.  He plays within himself and rarely turns the ball over, so he isn't a risk either.  He might actually be the the best fit as a starter, despite being the least talented of the three options.   

Ultimately though none of our SF candidates are really starting caliber, and I really feel that the starting SF spot is very much up for grabs right now.  If Jones could come in and show Brad Stevens that he has legit upside as a scorer, as a three point shooter, and as a multi-positional defender...then I don't see why he wouldn't have just as much chance of that starting spot as any of those other guys.

Nobody expected Crowder or Jerebko to get roles as big as they did last year - Brad has consistently proven that he gives minutes based on who earns them, not based on reputation or past history. 

 

I hope he reaches his full potential as a Celtics. I always want our guys to be their best as a Celtics but let's see it b4 making so many excuses.

Of course -  none of us are saying we should gift him minutes just because he's an athletic freak.  Like any other player he should have to earn those minutes.

All I'm saying is that he has as much potential as anybody on the team, and he deserves the right to try to earn those minutes, just like everybody else.

Also that we shouldn't judge his potential based purely on his production in OKC, since his situation out there (playing on a star filled team with championship aspirations) was about the worst situation possible for a rookie trying to make a name for himself. 

Edit: there is something to lose, a more productive player. I'm not saying I wouldn't take the chance, I'm just saying that he has had opportunities that many players never get.

I wouldn't necessarily agree.  I think the most rookies get far more opportunity for playing time than he had.  Even when Sully came to Boston, our center was an ageing KG (on minute restrictions) and our PF was a borderline starter (Brandon Bass) so there was a ton of opportunity for Sully to prove himself.

If Sully was playing behind Zach Randolph and Mark Gasol in Memphis, then you'd probably find he would have had a much harder time earning minutes.

Offline crimson_stallion

  • Rajon Rondo
  • *****
  • Posts: 5964
  • Tommy Points: 875
Very good 'mediator' post. TP
Turner's actually grown on me over the past season, and part of my frustration with Turner is that I can't see a world in which he's part of any championship runs the Celtics might make in the next 5 years. We're trying to develop a team that can contend for a title and guys like Turner might be bargains at 3/4 million a year, but what else do they offer? Is that bargain contract for a mediocre player worth taking minutes from guys like Rozier and Smart? Now that we've got Rozier and PJIII on top of the guard rotation we had last year, it makes more sense to move on from Turner and try and cash in on his okay value.
Give him the Jordan Crawford treatment and move on.

I guess from my fan viewpoint I'd rather try and keep developing assets than let Turner take minutes from guys like Rozier, Smart, Hunter, Young etc and in the process free up a roster spot for a young guy who hasn't had enough time yet.

I do totally get what you're saying here, and it does make sense.

The question of "what does Turner offer in the long term" is a very valid one.  My answer is, hopefully, wins.

I am a strong believer that our record this year is going to have a large impact on our ability to attract free agents in the next season or two.  If we put together another strong year, improve slightly in our standings (maybe 5th or 6th seed) then we come across as a young team on the rise.  Even if we finish the same (7th seed) in an improved East, it proves last year's playoff push was not just a fluke. 

We saw last season how tight those playoff spots can get.  We were battling with the Nets, Pacers, and Heat over the home stretch, and really all four teams could have easily fallen anywhere from 7-10 seeds.  Just so happens we were playing great basketball over that stretch, and we edged those teams out for #7, and it was only by a game or two. 

For all his shortfalls Evan Turner had a lot to do with that, and had a couple of big games down the stretch.  Without him, there's every chance we would have fallen to 10th instead of 7th.

So if Evan Turner has one or two big games down the stretch (as he's proven he can) and helps us pull out a couple of big wins at the end of this season, then who knows - maybe that's enough to boost us up a couple of seeds, and maybe that's enough to get us that key FA we need to move up a level - be it a star, or maybe just a rim protector / shooter who fills a need.  I very much doubt the Bucks would have had a shot at Greg Monroe if they finished 9th instead of 6th last year - there's no question that the combination of their strong finish and the 'upside' of their roster was what drew him in.   

Boston aren't that dissimilar to the Bucks - they don't have any stars, just like we don't.  They are mostly just a bunch of young guys who have shown they can win, and who have the upside to ensure they only get better.  We are the same.

It probably seems like strange logic but that's my rationale!  That's why i am not so quick to throw away guys like Turner who have proven that they can contribute, and who are costing the team very little.  You can always waive or bench a guy later if he's not giving you what you need, but you can't always bring a guy back that you've thrown away if you happen to one day need him.

Offline ImShakHeIsShaq

  • NCE
  • Tiny Archibald
  • *******
  • Posts: 7739
  • Tommy Points: 804
No, PJ3 isn't the type to play those positions for a long stretch but he could have played any in spot minutes. He could have at least earned 20 minutes per, he hasn't. Ibaka has been out a good amount too. Still, PJ3 hasn't earned minutes anywhere.

A fair call, but you have to also need to understand that PJ3 is very raw because he hasn't seen enough minutes on the court, and OKC over the past few years have been in "contender" mode so they haven't been able to really afford to give substantial minutes to guys who are essentially raw prospects - they have needed to play proven guys who can contribute right away. 

That changed a little this year with Durant's injury (which opened up playing time and also affected the Thunder's hopes of contending) and PJ3 got some starts as a result - and he actually put together some pretty solid games during that stretch.  In his first 5 starts he averaged 15 points, 4 rebounds, 1 assist in 32 minutes, and he shot 46% / 33% / 74%. 

Then he got hurt, missed some games.  When he returned his minutes were much less consistent, as was his production.

Interesting fact though - in the 7 games last year where PJ3 played at least 26 minutes, he averaged:

15.3 PPG (49% FG, 38% 3PT, 63% FT)
3.6 RPG
0.9 APG
32.7 MPG

The games where he's played 25 MPG or less, he's consistently struggled.

Does this mean something?  Who knows.

Maybe not experienced enough yet to be able to produce in limited minutes - maybe he needs to be out on the court to get a feel for things and to start getting comfortable. 

Maybe these stats are just coincidental, and I'm just cherry picking.

Again, we don't know because he just hasn't had a consistent enough role/opportunity for us to really prove conclusively one way or the other.  Even guys like Marcus Smart, Kelly Olynyk and Jared Sullinger struggled in a lot of ways until they started to get 20-25 minutes a night on a consistent basis. They showed flashes of ability, but they really needed the minutes and on court repts to get comfortable and start producing.

To put it into perspective:

* Jared Sullinger had 20 games in his rookie year with with >20 Minutes played
* Kelly Olynyk had 33 games in his rookie year with with >20 Minutes played
* Marcus Smart had 56 games in his rookie year with with >20 Minutes played

Perry Jones has had 31 in his first three seasons with >20 Minutes played

Basically the point I'm trying to get across here is that Perry Jones may have been in the league for three seasons already, but if you look at the amount of playing time he's logged he may as well be a rookie.  He's really had very little opportunity to show what he can do, and when he has gotten anything close to starters minutes he's typically played pretty well.

As I said before, none of this suggests that he's certain (or even likely) to have a break out year and amaze us all. 

But what it does suggest is that:
a) He is capable of producing at NBA level when given the opportunity (potential is there)
b) He hasn't had enough opportunity to show exactly where his ceiling lies (potential is untapped)

As always, chasing this magical thing we call 'potential' is risky because (by definition) potential is something that isn't proven, and something that we hope could one day be. 

When investing in potential I always look at two things:
a) Cost - how much are you giving up for the player, relative to his proven NBA production
b) Risk - how much does the cost impact your team, if the worst case comes true
b) Upside - how much does the player benefit your team, if he reaches his ceiling

In terms of cost, we gave up $2m in cap space and a roster spot to acquire PJ3 and a 2nd round pick.   Cost is low.

in terms of risk, the $2m in cap space doesn't impact our team this year (there's nobody else we could have signed for that who would be useful to us) and it comes off the books next year.  Given the number of redundant/expendable players on our roster, the extra roster spot he takes up is not likely to impact our W/L record in the present, or in the near future.  Risk is low.

In terms of upside, PJ3's worst case is that he remains the player he is right now, and never develops beyond that.  His best case (IMO) is DeMarr Derozan, but taller. 

So to analyse the deal, you have to ask yourself two questions:

1) If the worst case comes true, and PJ3 doesn't develop past who he is today, then does this cripple the team in a significant way?  No, we can waive him later on if we really need the roster space, and he comes off the books next year.

2) If the best case comes true and PJ3 becomes a 6'11" Demar Derozan, then is that worth $2m and a roster spot?  Yes, easily.

Hence, I keep him on the roster.

Just the way I look at things from an 'lounge-chair GM' point of view :)


I don't know what a change of scenery will do for him. No one is good enough to take Durant's minutes but given what he has shown up until now, he isn't taking minutes from guys like Jae, Jerebko or any of our other 100 players either.

I'm not so sure about that. 

Right now the small forward spot is EASILY our weakest position.  It's really the only position on our team about which I can sit here and say (with a straight face) that we don't have a single guy who is starting caliber. 

I mean really, who is our best SF? 

Jae Crowder is a decent scorer, a decent rebounder, a decent passer, an above average defender and he doesn't turn the ball over.  He's a solid all rounder, but he has one glaring weakness - lack of three point range.  Boston was one of the worst three-point percentage teams in the NBA last year.  We really don't have one elite outside shooter who can single handedly draw the defenses attention (e.g. Ray Allen), so we need to go with the 'quantity over quality' approach and have a court full of guys who can hit the three, just to maintain decent court spacing.  The fact that Crowder can't make that shot consistently hurts a lot, yet he doesn't do anything else at an elite enough level to make up for that.

Evan Turner is basically Lamar Crawford - a merger between Lamar Odom and Jordan Crawford.  He's a point-forward who can can do a bunch of things (passing, ball handling, court vision, rebounding, scoring) pretty well, but isn't elite at any of those things.  But he's also questionable in his decision making, and is overly reckless with the ball - he creates a horrendous number of unforced turnovers, and that makes it difficult to trust him in a starters role.  Also, like Crowder his lack of a three point shot hurts court spacing.  Probably better suited to a bench role - when you desperately need something to happen you can unleash him at the position of need (be it at the 1, 2 or the 3) and he can create instant chaos. 

Jerebko probably has the lowest upside of the three, but he's also probably the best 'complementary' player since he doesn't really have any glaring weaknesses that hurt the team.  He can defend multiple positions so he helps you on defense.  He's a capable three point shooter so he can help stretch the floor.  He plays within himself and rarely turns the ball over, so he isn't a risk either.  He might actually be the the best fit as a starter, despite being the least talented of the three options.   

Ultimately though none of our SF candidates are really starting caliber, and I really feel that the starting SF spot is very much up for grabs right now.  If Jones could come in and show Brad Stevens that he has legit upside as a scorer, as a three point shooter, and as a multi-positional defender...then I don't see why he wouldn't have just as much chance of that starting spot as any of those other guys.

Nobody expected Crowder or Jerebko to get roles as big as they did last year - Brad has consistently proven that he gives minutes based on who earns them, not based on reputation or past history. 

 

I hope he reaches his full potential as a Celtics. I always want our guys to be their best as a Celtics but let's see it b4 making so many excuses.

Of course -  none of us are saying we should gift him minutes just because he's an athletic freak.  Like any other player he should have to earn those minutes.

All I'm saying is that he has as much potential as anybody on the team, and he deserves the right to try to earn those minutes, just like everybody else.

Also that we shouldn't judge his potential based purely on his production in OKC, since his situation out there (playing on a star filled team with championship aspirations) was about the worst situation possible for a rookie trying to make a name for himself. 

Edit: there is something to lose, a more productive player. I'm not saying I wouldn't take the chance, I'm just saying that he has had opportunities that many players never get.

I wouldn't necessarily agree.  I think the most rookies get far more opportunity for playing time than he had.  Even when Sully came to Boston, our center was an ageing KG (on minute restrictions) and our PF was a borderline starter (Brandon Bass) so there was a ton of opportunity for Sully to prove himself.

If Sully was playing behind Zach Randolph and Mark Gasol in Memphis, then you'd probably find he would have had a much harder time earning minutes.

My original point was/is, people see his lack of minutes and say it's b/c of KD being in front of him, I think there is more to it than that. Not saying KD isn't part of it, but there have been times where he hasn't shown well even when he got minutes. If you aren't performing well in less than 25m per then what makes you think someone would give you more? Zeller played less that 25 last season as has KO in both of his seasons (or around that), no excuses are made for them.

I expect PJ to show well, not all because of him, I think it will be CBS' influence... it seems like he gets a lot out of the forgotten guys on other teams. It's crazy, I am trying to think of one guy DA has brought in these last 2 seasons who didn't perform well here.

I also don't understand why people keep making it ET vs. PJ3.

DA will figure it out, he almost always goes in a different direction than CB posters, whoever is out, it will probably be unexpected.
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 greece66

  • Tiny Archibald
  • *******
  • Posts: 7395
  • Tommy Points: 1342
  • Head Paperboy at Greenville
what would you do and why?

from what I know on the team so far, I would be really surprised if we don't waive/trade PJ3 independently of what happens with ET.

I understand that OKC is arguably the worst place for a rookie SF to land. And maybe his numbers don't make him justice- but he was three years there and failed to make an impact.

Consider also that last season, due to the injuries, all players in the roster got a chance and still PJ3 failed to impress.

What is more, his college career was OK, but if you are going to resort to that argument, I will remind you that ET's was even better  8)

We are talking of an average and untested player here: if he failed to find a place in last season's depleted OKC, I cannot see how he can crack the rotation with the C's this season.

Consider moreover how he would fit the roster: he can't really play the 3 in a CBS team bcs he cannot shoot, but then at the 4, we are arguably the deepest team of the league  ;D


Offline Celtics4ever

  • NCE
  • Johnny Most
  • ********************
  • Posts: 20000
  • Tommy Points: 1323
Making the NBA is a legitimate shot, if you can play you will play.

Offline tarheelsxxiii

  • Don Nelson
  • ********
  • Posts: 8593
  • Tommy Points: 1389
what would you do and why?

from what I know on the team so far, I would be really surprised if we don't waive/trade PJ3 independently of what happens with ET.

I understand that OKC is arguably the worst place for a rookie SF to land. And maybe his numbers don't make him justice- but he was three years there and failed to make an impact.

Consider also that last season, due to the injuries, all players in the roster got a chance and still PJ3 failed to impress.

What is more, his college career was OK, but if you are going to resort to that argument, I will remind you that ET's was even better  8)

We are talking of an average and untested player here: if he failed to find a place in last season's depleted OKC, I cannot see how he can crack the rotation with the C's this season.

Consider moreover how he would fit the roster: he can't really play the 3 in a CBS team bcs he cannot shoot, but then at the 4, we are arguably the deepest team of the league  ;D

Could argue that it was among the best possible places for him to land though, too. If you're considered a project from the get-go, you'd ideally want to find yourself in a place where you could be groomed and perhaps find rotation minutes on a good team, right? I'd much rather that than go to a poor team with little opportunities to improve my game.

He had the opportunity to play against the best of the best, day in and day out, including arguably the best in the world at his position. Not a bad way to get reps and learn the NBA game. Had he done well, perhaps he would've found rotation minutes on a high quality team and really learned how to play the game. On top of that, getting an opportunity to pick up extended minutes when KD went down -- after 2+ years of grooming -- is even better.

Developing in a well-established and highly effective system seems to work out well for a lot of rookies that were either considered projects or groomed college players thought to have limited upside (e.g., the Greens - Draymond and Danny).
« Last Edit: August 31, 2015, 10:39:13 PM by tarheelsxxiii »
The Tarstradamus Group, LLC

Offline chambers

  • Tiny Archibald
  • *******
  • Posts: 7482
  • Tommy Points: 943
  • Boston Celtics= Championships, nothing less.
what would you do and why?

from what I know on the team so far, I would be really surprised if we don't waive/trade PJ3 independently of what happens with ET.

I understand that OKC is arguably the worst place for a rookie SF to land. And maybe his numbers don't make him justice- but he was three years there and failed to make an impact.

Consider also that last season, due to the injuries, all players in the roster got a chance and still PJ3 failed to impress.

What is more, his college career was OK, but if you are going to resort to that argument, I will remind you that ET's was even better  8)

We are talking of an average and untested player here: if he failed to find a place in last season's depleted OKC, I cannot see how he can crack the rotation with the C's this season.

Consider moreover how he would fit the roster: he can't really play the 3 in a CBS team bcs he cannot shoot, but then at the 4, we are arguably the deepest team of the league  ;D

You always bring up good points Greece.
I think the roster situation in OKC is being simplified (slightly) by Celtics fans and it makes Jones look like he didn't perform when given opportunity.
If we look at their season
*Durant played the first 25ish games before injury. During that time, his main back up was Lance Thomas (who took the starting role for about 15 games until he was traded to New York in January/deadline).
*Lance Thomas was traded to New York, and the Thunder acquired Kyle Singler in the Detroit trade- who became the primary starting SF (good shooter).
*Andre Roberson (SG/SF wing at 6'7") was primarily starting at SG. With Singler joining the team, Roberson still started at SG, but slid over to SF when Singler sat, while Reggie Jackson ran the point and Morrow/Westbrook played SG. Jones got some of these minutes, but the majority of them were in garbage time and scraps. He did get a few 25 minute games when Roberson+ Durant were both out, before Singler came on board, and played pretty well overall. I guess Brooks just didn't trust him down the stretch when they were fighting to get the 8th seed.

Their offense also revolved completely around Westbrook/Jackson/Ibaka and  once Kanter was brought in and Jackson was traded, Kanter became the new 2nd offensive focal point with Ibaka (behind Westbrook).

So with a wing/guard rotation of:
Durant
Westbrook
Roberson
Jackson
Morrow
Singler (half the season)
Jones
Thomas(half the season)

and a forward/big rotation of

Ibaka
Adams
Kanter (half season)
Collison
McGary
Perkins (half)

...he was arguably never going to get extended time both
a) on the court
b) playing his natural SF/PF position

In 2014 he was actually starting to get some minutes, and shooting pretty well. His 2 point FG% was 46% and his 3 point% was 36%.
These numbers, like his college shooting numbers 2pfg 52% and 3pfg 30% were respectable and improvements considering the level of competition.

Basically once they drafted Roberson, Scott Brooks decided that Roberson was going to take the majority of minutes at SG and back up SF when Durant was off (which was rarely at 35 minutes a game). So the only minutes he got had to be fought for against Roberson/Morrow/Collison/McGary/Thomas/Singler and the entire squad of wings/forwards listed above.
What's weird is that he seemed to be turning into an NBA player in 2013-14, and then Brooks gave up on him after drafting Roberson-an also explosive/athletic wing player that could defend multiple positions- but couldn't shoot his way out of a lazer skirmish.

Anyway, when you look at that Thunder lineup, at least to me, it makes it easier to see how he fell behind in the rotation sweepstakes, particularly with a fickle/selective coach like Scott Brooks.

I guess it's just personal opinion, but I'd much rather give him a chance with 20 minutes+ with a new system/coach and the mental comfort of knowing that he's going to get at least 15 minutes a game if he does the right thing and does what Brad tells him to do.

This is the guy that Kevin Durant called the best athlete in the NBA!
He needs at least one more chance. Let's give him a shot like Crowder got last year. Unfortunately Evan Turner is most likely to go if he is given a chance, but that also has the positive effect of giving more ball handling minutes to Smart and Rozier.
"We are lucky we have a very patient GM that isn't willing to settle for being good and coming close. He wants to win a championship and we have the potential to get there still with our roster and assets."

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

Offline slamtheking

  • NCE
  • Red Auerbach
  • *******************************
  • Posts: 31869
  • Tommy Points: 10047
need a third option - waive Jones because he's yet to prove he's worth a roster spot on any team and keep Turner unless a better option comes along

Re: So does Danny trade Evan Turner or give Perry Jones a legitimate shot in NBA?
« Reply #54 on: September 01, 2015, 12:39:53 AM »

Offline greece66

  • Tiny Archibald
  • *******
  • Posts: 7395
  • Tommy Points: 1342
  • Head Paperboy at Greenville
what would you do and why?

from what I know on the team so far, I would be really surprised if we don't waive/trade PJ3 independently of what happens with ET.

I understand that OKC is arguably the worst place for a rookie SF to land. And maybe his numbers don't make him justice- but he was three years there and failed to make an impact.

Consider also that last season, due to the injuries, all players in the roster got a chance and still PJ3 failed to impress.

What is more, his college career was OK, but if you are going to resort to that argument, I will remind you that ET's was even better  8)

We are talking of an average and untested player here: if he failed to find a place in last season's depleted OKC, I cannot see how he can crack the rotation with the C's this season.

Consider moreover how he would fit the roster: he can't really play the 3 in a CBS team bcs he cannot shoot, but then at the 4, we are arguably the deepest team of the league  ;D

You always bring up good points Greece.
I think the roster situation in OKC is being simplified (slightly) by Celtics fans and it makes Jones look like he didn't perform when given opportunity.
If we look at their season
*Durant played the first 25ish games before injury. During that time, his main back up was Lance Thomas (who took the starting role for about 15 games until he was traded to New York in January/deadline).
*Lance Thomas was traded to New York, and the Thunder acquired Kyle Singler in the Detroit trade- who became the primary starting SF (good shooter).
*Andre Roberson (SG/SF wing at 6'7") was primarily starting at SG. With Singler joining the team, Roberson still started at SG, but slid over to SF when Singler sat, while Reggie Jackson ran the point and Morrow/Westbrook played SG. Jones got some of these minutes, but the majority of them were in garbage time and scraps. He did get a few 25 minute games when Roberson+ Durant were both out, before Singler came on board, and played pretty well overall. I guess Brooks just didn't trust him down the stretch when they were fighting to get the 8th seed.

Their offense also revolved completely around Westbrook/Jackson/Ibaka and  once Kanter was brought in and Jackson was traded, Kanter became the new 2nd offensive focal point with Ibaka (behind Westbrook).

So with a wing/guard rotation of:
Durant
Westbrook
Roberson
Jackson
Morrow
Singler (half the season)
Jones
Thomas(half the season)

and a forward/big rotation of

Ibaka
Adams
Kanter (half season)
Collison
McGary
Perkins (half)

...he was arguably never going to get extended time both
a) on the court
b) playing his natural SF/PF position

In 2014 he was actually starting to get some minutes, and shooting pretty well. His 2 point FG% was 46% and his 3 point% was 36%.
These numbers, like his college shooting numbers 2pfg 52% and 3pfg 30% were respectable and improvements considering the level of competition.

Basically once they drafted Roberson, Scott Brooks decided that Roberson was going to take the majority of minutes at SG and back up SF when Durant was off (which was rarely at 35 minutes a game). So the only minutes he got had to be fought for against Roberson/Morrow/Collison/McGary/Thomas/Singler and the entire squad of wings/forwards listed above.
What's weird is that he seemed to be turning into an NBA player in 2013-14, and then Brooks gave up on him after drafting Roberson-an also explosive/athletic wing player that could defend multiple positions- but couldn't shoot his way out of a lazer skirmish.

Anyway, when you look at that Thunder lineup, at least to me, it makes it easier to see how he fell behind in the rotation sweepstakes, particularly with a fickle/selective coach like Scott Brooks.

I guess it's just personal opinion, but I'd much rather give him a chance with 20 minutes+ with a new system/coach and the mental comfort of knowing that he's going to get at least 15 minutes a game if he does the right thing and does what Brad tells him to do.

This is the guy that Kevin Durant called the best athlete in the NBA!
He needs at least one more chance. Let's give him a shot like Crowder got last year. Unfortunately Evan Turner is most likely to go if he is given a chance, but that also has the positive effect of giving more ball handling minutes to Smart and Rozier.

Thank you.

That is a really detailed breakdown - I am certainly not so knowledgeable when it comes to OKC.

I can see now that I was too harsh on him- the claim that he was never really given a chance in OKC is at least defensible.

It's quite funny bcs I did watch several OKC games last year, but I had not realized my sample was bad at least as far as PJ3 was concerned: the games were either with Durant healthy or during their failed playoff run after they got Kanter.

If he is indeed one of the rare cases of solid talents never really given a chance, it then all boils down to whether CBS and DA think he is worth a chance.

Two quick thoughts:

Durant is only half the reason I think a rookie SF was unlucky to end up in OKC; the other is Brooks. Talking of unimaginative coaching...

Second, I'm not sure this is an either/or situation.

If the right offer appears DA would trade them both (as well as most of our roster) in a split second. But if say ET gets traded, it is at least possible we get a rookie contract or two in exchange, in which case, we are back to the What should we do with PJ3 question.

Ideally, ofc, if DA decided PJ3 is worth a chance then he would trade ET for a couple of second rounders or a first, but a team does not always get exactly the deal it wants, esp. at trades before the start of the season.

Again, my feeling is that unless a really tempting deal for ET (or another player) appears making space in the roster, the front office will go with the player they know best and has more playing experience. And even if we keep him, I am not sure he will be getting 20 MPG given CBS rotations;  last year Jerebko was given 18, Thornton 16 and Zeller was at 21.

Re: So does Danny trade Evan Turner or give Perry Jones a legitimate shot in NBA?
« Reply #55 on: September 01, 2015, 01:02:39 AM »

Offline Hemingway

  • Bill Walton
  • *
  • Posts: 1181
  • Tommy Points: 123
We are not going trade ET just to get rid of him. He had games last year where he was our best player and his ball handling let Smart get minutes. We still need him and he is signed on the cheap. 

Re: So does Danny trade Evan Turner or give Perry Jones a legitimate shot in NBA?
« Reply #56 on: September 01, 2015, 01:20:30 AM »

Offline LooseCannon

  • NCE
  • Ed Macauley
  • ***********
  • Posts: 11833
  • Tommy Points: 950
Is there any reason to believe that the Celtics need longer than training camp and preseason to evaluate whether or not Jones is trash or if he has a shot of fitting into Brad Stevens' system?
"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

Re: So does Danny trade Evan Turner or give Perry Jones a legitimate shot in NBA?
« Reply #57 on: September 01, 2015, 02:32:55 AM »

Offline greece66

  • Tiny Archibald
  • *******
  • Posts: 7395
  • Tommy Points: 1342
  • Head Paperboy at Greenville
Is there any reason to believe that the Celtics need longer than training camp and preseason to evaluate whether or not Jones is trash or if he has a shot of fitting into Brad Stevens' system?


Re: So does Danny trade Evan Turner or give Perry Jones a legitimate shot in NBA?
« Reply #58 on: September 01, 2015, 02:59:20 AM »

Offline crimson_stallion

  • Rajon Rondo
  • *****
  • Posts: 5964
  • Tommy Points: 875
Is there any reason to believe that the Celtics need longer than training camp and preseason to evaluate whether or not Jones is trash or if he has a shot of fitting into Brad Stevens' system?

We gave the epic fail that is James Young a full year to prove he is hot garbage (which he has done, quite adequately) and he's still on the roster.

If James Young can still maintain a roster spot after what he's shown so far, then Jones (who at least has shown he has NBA caliber talent and skill) certainly deserves a shot.

It really doesn't matter how you look at it, there is really nothing (not skill, nor talent, nor attitude) about Young that is in any way superior to what we've seen from Jones. 

The only argument you can possibly make is age, and that alone doesn't fly with me - being youthful alone is not enough to justify a roster spot on the most storied franchise in NBA history. 

Being young and having freakish physical gifts on the other hand...that's enough to at least earn you a one year trial.

Hence I, personally, wouldn't be contemplating waiving Perry Jones where there is another prospect on the roster who is both:

a) Far less likely to contribute right now

and

b) Far less promising in terms of future development potential

Even if Perry Jones were to reach a ceiling as Jeff Green 2.0, that is still a BIG jump up from anything Young is likely to become anytime soon.
« Last Edit: September 01, 2015, 03:08:55 AM by crimson_stallion »

Re: So does Danny trade Evan Turner or give Perry Jones a legitimate shot in NBA?
« Reply #59 on: September 01, 2015, 03:47:51 AM »

Offline greece66

  • Tiny Archibald
  • *******
  • Posts: 7395
  • Tommy Points: 1342
  • Head Paperboy at Greenville
Is there any reason to believe that the Celtics need longer than training camp and preseason to evaluate whether or not Jones is trash or if he has a shot of fitting into Brad Stevens' system?

We gave the epic fail that is James Young a full year to prove he is hot garbage (which he has done, quite adequately) and he's still on the roster.

Come on crimson, you are better than that. this is uncalled for.