How can Danny possibly keep James Young in this roster?

[Evantime34]

I haven't liked what I saw of him so far, but he is younger than all of our rookies this year.

His defense isn't great but hopefully it is improved from where it was last year. On offense, I think it is a lack of confidence that is hurting him. Coaches in the d-league have commented that he is the best player they have ever seen there.

The reason you keep Young on the team is because he is an asset that is going to appreciate. James Young the asset has a chance to be worth much more in the future than any of the guys who we would keep instead of him.  In the end the C's are trying to build their asset base as much as possible in order to eventually trade from a star.

[saltlover]

I haven't liked what I saw of him so far, but he is younger than all of our rookies this year.

His defense isn't great but hopefully it is improved from where it was last year. On offense, I think it is a lack of confidence that is hurting him. Coaches in the d-league have commented that he is the best player they have ever seen there.

The reason you keep Young on the team is because he is an asset that is going to appreciate. James Young the asset has a chance to be worth much more in the future than any of the guys who we would keep instead of him.  In the end the C's are trying to build their asset base as much as possible in order to eventually trade from a star.

That is simply false.  Young as an asset may appreciate, or he may not.  It is far from a guarantee that he will.  If he does not show improved skill on the court, his value will decline.  It is entirely possible Ainge could get more for Young now than he could next February or next summer.  Given the lack of on-court opportunity that Young may be about to find, I'd even argue that it's probable.  It's even possible that Ainge could have gotten more for Young this summer than today.

In addition to  the loss of releasing a better player for this year's roster, not trading Young this month could result in a lower return in a future trade.

I know James Young is only 20.  I totally get that he has time to improve.  But if he's already been passed by Hunter, it might be a good time to take the best available offer for him.

[footey]

Agree with Saltlover.  I think the age thing is a cop out.  He looks like a player on paper but when you throw him into a game, he seems in over his head.  Lacks the handle to create on his own, and is not a guy who can work off screens to get create his shot.  He is probably going to get some PT down the road as a corner 3 point shooter but even that is a big IF. 

If Perry Jones can play (i.e., his knees are okay), I'd rather trade Young, even for a 2nd round pick if that's all we can get, and create the roster room for Jones. 

[aingeforthree]

It's easy to keep him on the roster.  That's why Maine is so important.

[Evantime34]

I haven't liked what I saw of him so far, but he is younger than all of our rookies this year.

His defense isn't great but hopefully it is improved from where it was last year. On offense, I think it is a lack of confidence that is hurting him. Coaches in the d-league have commented that he is the best player they have ever seen there.

The reason you keep Young on the team is because he is an asset that is going to appreciate. James Young the asset has a chance to be worth much more in the future than any of the guys who we would keep instead of him.  In the end the C's are trying to build their asset base as much as possible in order to eventually trade from a star.

That is simply false.  Young as an asset may appreciate, or he may not.  It is far from a guarantee that he will.  If he does not show improved skill on the court, his value will decline.  It is entirely possible Ainge could get more for Young now than he could next February or next summer.  Given the lack of on-court opportunity that Young may be about to find, I'd even argue that it's probable.  It's even possible that Ainge could have gotten more for Young this summer than today.

In addition to  the loss of releasing a better player for this year's roster, not trading Young this month could result in a lower return in a future trade.

I know James Young is only 20.  I totally get that he has time to improve.  But if he's already been passed by Hunter, it might be a good time to take the best available offer for him.

Ok he is an asset that on average is going to appreciate. The average improvement of players based on age/draft slot would indicate that it is more likely than not that he improves.

It isn't certain that he will improve, but if James Young was a stock, he would have the highest possible return of anyone that could fill the last spot on our roster due to his age.

[Moranis]

I haven't liked what I saw of him so far, but he is younger than all of our rookies this year.

His defense isn't great but hopefully it is improved from where it was last year. On offense, I think it is a lack of confidence that is hurting him. Coaches in the d-league have commented that he is the best player they have ever seen there.

The reason you keep Young on the team is because he is an asset that is going to appreciate. James Young the asset has a chance to be worth much more in the future than any of the guys who we would keep instead of him.  In the end the C's are trying to build their asset base as much as possible in order to eventually trade from a star.

That is simply false.  Young as an asset may appreciate, or he may not.  It is far from a guarantee that he will.  If he does not show improved skill on the court, his value will decline.  It is entirely possible Ainge could get more for Young now than he could next February or next summer.  Given the lack of on-court opportunity that Young may be about to find, I'd even argue that it's probable.  It's even possible that Ainge could have gotten more for Young this summer than today.

In addition to  the loss of releasing a better player for this year's roster, not trading Young this month could result in a lower return in a future trade.

I know James Young is only 20.  I totally get that he has time to improve.  But if he's already been passed by Hunter, it might be a good time to take the best available offer for him.

Ok he is an asset that on average is going to appreciate. The average improvement of players based on age/draft slot would indicate that it is more likely than not that he improves.

It isn't certain that he will improve, but if James Young was a stock, he would have the highest possible return of anyone that could fill the last spot on our roster due to his age.

that isn't necessarily true.  Even if he improves the value of his asset will go down as he ages and no longer has age as an excuse.  Unless he takes a pretty big jump, his value might very well be at its highest right now even if he gets better. 

[PhoSita]

FWIW: The obsession this board has over Young is bewildering.   

We had the same obsession over every project pick, from Bradley, JJ, Skywalker, Fab, Harangody, and so on as far back as I can remember. It's what we do. I love obsessing about potential future Celtics.

Oddly enough the one guy in that bunch who panned out was probably the most universally despised in his rookie year.  All the others had their share of irrational optimists but AB had almost 0 support until he actually started playing well.

I think the obsession with whether or not Young will get cut is silly, though, since it's such an unlikely proposition.

You're absolutely right. Bradley was short, couldn't pass, and was a bad shooter with one fluke year at Texas. We mostly though he was a total waste of a pick. Jordan Crawford was ours for the taking!

I know I'm definitely keeping my eye on Rodney Hood and Clint Capela, because those are two guys I wanted ahead of James Young.  Hopefully Young leaps ahead of both.

[Csfan1984]

RJ and Rozier have nothing to do with Young. Young is younger so get over the fact that older players who had more playing time may be more developed. This is like an on going thread series. Be paitent with our youngest player. And if Young continues to grow physically and game wise he can play SF with Hunter at SG and Smart at PG. That would be perfect! Now if only the Nets can stink enough to draft Lab.

[cltc5]

Enough with the excuses about age, time etc.  the guy is a waste.  Move him out and let him develop somewhere else into a poor mans Jeff green.

[Lucky17]

Enough with the excuses about age, time etc.  the good is a waste.  Move him out and let him develop somewhere else into a poor mans Jeff green.

The problem with this line of thinking is that a poor man's Jeff Green is actually a decent bench player. And for less than $2 mil a year, that kind of player is definitely worth keeping, especially when the cap will skyrocket.

If you don't think he'll develop at all, then by all means, trade him.

[Evantime34]

FWIW: The obsession this board has over Young is bewildering.   

We had the same obsession over every project pick, from Bradley, JJ, Skywalker, Fab, Harangody, and so on as far back as I can remember. It's what we do. I love obsessing about potential future Celtics.

Oddly enough the one guy in that bunch who panned out was probably the most universally despised in his rookie year.  All the others had their share of irrational optimists but AB had almost 0 support until he actually started playing well.

I think the obsession with whether or not Young will get cut is silly, though, since it's such an unlikely proposition.

You're absolutely right. Bradley was short, couldn't pass, and was a bad shooter with one fluke year at Texas. We mostly though he was a total waste of a pick. Jordan Crawford was ours for the taking!

I know I'm definitely keeping my eye on Rodney Hood and Clint Capela, because those are two guys I wanted ahead of James Young.  Hopefully Young leaps ahead of both.

I think Capela was who we should have gone with, he fits a need we still have and is a similar age to Young so the same upside arguments can be made for him.

[cltc5]

Enough with the excuses about age, time etc.  the good is a waste.  Move him out and let him develop somewhere else into a poor mans Jeff green.

The problem with this line of thinking is that a poor man's Jeff Green is actually a decent bench player. And for less than $2 mil a year, that kind of player is definitely worth keeping, especially when the cap will skyrocket.

If you don't think he'll develop at all, then by all means, trade him.

. His ceiling might be a poor mans Jeff green.  Maybe.  But he has yet to show any improvement in any are of his game.  He's always out of position and can't shoot to save his life

[moiso]

FWIW: The obsession this board has over Young is bewildering.   

We had the same obsession over every project pick, from Bradley, JJ, Skywalker, Fab, Harangody, and so on as far back as I can remember. It's what we do. I love obsessing about potential future Celtics.

Oddly enough the one guy in that bunch who panned out was probably the most universally despised in his rookie year.  All the others had their share of irrational optimists but AB had almost 0 support until he actually started playing well.

I think the obsession with whether or not Young will get cut is silly, though, since it's such an unlikely proposition.

You're absolutely right. Bradley was short, couldn't pass, and was a bad shooter with one fluke year at Texas. We mostly though he was a total waste of a pick. Jordan Crawford was ours for the taking!

I know I'm definitely keeping my eye on Rodney Hood and Clint Capela, because those are two guys I wanted ahead of James Young.  Hopefully Young leaps ahead of both.

One of the things that I always check in the box scores is how Hood did.  I really wanted him too.

[Birdman]

I said it before the draft that he would be a bust..i didn't want ainge to draft him..and im a UK fan who saw him play every game..he just didn't have the heart or desire to go full force

[Boris Badenov]

I haven't liked what I saw of him so far, but he is younger than all of our rookies this year.

His defense isn't great but hopefully it is improved from where it was last year. On offense, I think it is a lack of confidence that is hurting him. Coaches in the d-league have commented that he is the best player they have ever seen there.

The reason you keep Young on the team is because he is an asset that is going to appreciate. James Young the asset has a chance to be worth much more in the future than any of the guys who we would keep instead of him.  In the end the C's are trying to build their asset base as much as possible in order to eventually trade from a star.

That is simply false.  Young as an asset may appreciate, or he may not.  It is far from a guarantee that he will.  If he does not show improved skill on the court, his value will decline.  It is entirely possible Ainge could get more for Young now than he could next February or next summer.  Given the lack of on-court opportunity that Young may be about to find, I'd even argue that it's probable.  It's even possible that Ainge could have gotten more for Young this summer than today.

In addition to  the loss of releasing a better player for this year's roster, not trading Young this month could result in a lower return in a future trade.

I know James Young is only 20.  I totally get that he has time to improve.  But if he's already been passed by Hunter, it might be a good time to take the best available offer for him.

Ok he is an asset that on average is going to appreciate. The average improvement of players based on age/draft slot would indicate that it is more likely than not that he improves.

It isn't certain that he will improve, but if James Young was a stock, he would have the highest possible return of anyone that could fill the last spot on our roster due to his age.

His value as an asset and his value on the court are two different things.

If everyone thinks he will get better, that will be reflected in his value as an asset now, even if he's useless on the court for the foreseeable future.

Like saltlover says, his value could go up or down from here on out.