Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Baseball Newsstand > Baseball Primer Newsblog > Discussion
Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Wednesday, June 28, 2017

OT-NBA off season thread


I estimate only 10-12 Primates care about the NBA, none that bothered to submit a monthly thread for nearly 4 months as to avoid detracting from what this site is really about: ... white privilege

RollingWave Posted: June 28, 2017 at 07:45 AM | 2408 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: basketball, nba, off topic

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

Page 20 of 25 pages ‹ First  < 18 19 20 21 22 >  Last ›
   1901. Lance Reddick! Lance him! Posted: August 23, 2017 at 02:03 PM (#5519507)
No trust is needed. You get LeBron to handshake agree to extend if the trade is made. Then you negotiate the trade. Then the extension is executed by him simultaneously with calling in the trade to the league office. Everyone gets bound at the same time.

Exclusive footage.
   1902. smileyy Posted: August 23, 2017 at 03:20 PM (#5519571)
If LeBron joins Carmelo and Wade somewhere he'll cement himself as a terrible GM. He wants to get younger, not old + broken-down-er (Wade) and old + ball-stopper-er (Carmelo)
   1903. jmurph Posted: August 23, 2017 at 04:44 PM (#5519655)
If LeBron joins Carmelo and Wade somewhere he'll cement himself as a terrible GM. He wants to get younger, not old + broken-down-er (Wade) and old + ball-stopper-er (Carmelo)

From Hoops Rumors, just a few minutes ago:
According to Joe Vardon of Cleveland.com, people close to James are indeed “fairly confident” that Wade will land in Cleveland.
   1904. jmurph Posted: August 23, 2017 at 04:56 PM (#5519672)
Ooh I was just reminded that Crowder now gets to play with the deliverer of one of the cheapest shots in recent memory, JR Smith. Crowder definitely doesn't hold grudges so this should be fine.
   1905. PASTE, Now with Extra Pitch and Extra Stamina Posted: August 23, 2017 at 05:02 PM (#5519678)
Right now they really wouldn't have had enough minutes to go around for Crowder, Tatum, Hayward, and Brown. That wasn't really going to be fixed over the next couple of years, and was going to become more of a problem over time.


Too many forwards and not enough minutes... if only the ping-pong balls hadn't stuck them with the third pick in a draft whose clear top two prospects were both guards. :)
   1906. Fourth True Outcome Posted: August 23, 2017 at 05:12 PM (#5519693)
Oh yeah, the easy and not all all wrong criticism of Ainge here is that he solved a problem he created on draft night. The only justification for this involves Tatum being a stud, Fultz and Ball not really hitting their ceilings, and Kyrie being worth the bet. All of which is possible, but as a Celtics fan I don't love the odds.
   1907. Russlan thinks deGrom is da bomb Posted: August 23, 2017 at 05:19 PM (#5519701)
If LeBron joins Carmelo and Wade somewhere he'll cement himself as a terrible GM. He wants to get younger, not old + broken-down-er (Wade) and old + ball-stopper-er (Carmelo)

It would not surprise me at all if Anthony were much more efficient an offensive player if he played with LeBron. Anthony might not be good enough to be a number one option on a great team, but he would thrive as a number 2 IMO. He has shot 37% from 3 point range the last 4 years. H
   1908. PASTE, Now with Extra Pitch and Extra Stamina Posted: August 23, 2017 at 05:20 PM (#5519702)
The evidence seems pretty strong that Ainge is just hopelessly in love with long, ultra-athletic small forwards. Based on all I've heard and read, I'm convinced he traded down because he legitimately thinks Tatum was the best prospect in the draft, and had trading down proven impossible probably would have taken Tatum #1. This despite the fact he already has a palpably Tatum-like player on the roster (who he still didn't want to part with in the Kyrie negotiations!) in Jaylen Brown.

Like, Thomas, Brown and a lesser pick--or at least a protected Brooklyn pick--is probably enough--the Cavs weren't likely going to get a better offer than that for Kyrie, right? That clears out some of the small forward logjam and keeps Crowder and the Brooklyn pick. But reports are that Ainge adamantly refused to part with either Tatum or Brown, and the Cavs did ask.
   1909. JC in DC Posted: August 23, 2017 at 05:24 PM (#5519706)
Anthony's problem isn't on the O side of the floor. He did well on the dReam Team, as we all recall, being more of distributor and less of a ball-pounder. But he's so awful on defense that he'd make Cleveland's frontline porous.
   1910. Fourth True Outcome Posted: August 23, 2017 at 05:25 PM (#5519708)
I was chewing on the idea of that as Ainge's moneyball last night. Load up your team with young, mega-athletic wings and a coach who believes in positionless ball, and if a few hit it'll look pretty good. I'm not sure it's the best approach, but it probably isn't the worst. He has certainly made it very clear he has a type, and values the Cs internal grades much more highly than consensus.
   1911. Moses Taylor, aka Hambone Fakenameington Posted: August 23, 2017 at 05:25 PM (#5519709)
Here's a 538 piece defending the C's, talking mostly about contract value...that doesn't mention Crowder or Zizic. Here's a much better 538 piece, more from the Cavs POV, that also talks about how each team used their old PGs.

   1912. PASTE, Now with Extra Pitch and Extra Stamina Posted: August 23, 2017 at 05:30 PM (#5519714)
If I were the Cavs, no way in hell would I trade Love for a veteran or veterans to take one more run at it at LeBron's behest. I'd trade him (and Crowder) in the offseason for futures, let Isaiah walk, and tank it.

I'm not usually an advocate of strategic tanking, but I think in post-LeBron Cleveland's case it's warranted. With Brooklyn's 2018 pick and the various goodies Love and Crowder would bring back, plus high picks of their own, if they hit on those high picks and hire the right coach, they can rebuild a good team pretty quickly.

Plus, Atlanta gets their 2019 first rounder if it falls outside the top ten--all the more reason to make sure it falls inside the top ten.

The alternative is to max out Isaiah, keep Crowder until he gets expensive (or overpay him yourself), keep Love another couple years, and win about 45 games a year until Love leaves and Isaiah breaks down. That's pretty much the upside, and I don't think it will take long for Isaiah to break down. (And this is assuming Love doesn't demand a trade once LeBron goes.)
   1913. jmurph Posted: August 23, 2017 at 05:31 PM (#5519715)
I'm convinced he traded down because he legitimately thinks Tatum was the best prospect in the draft, and had trading down proven impossible probably would have taken Tatum #1.

It takes no logical leaps to believe this, in fact it's probably the only thing we can infer from his actions. He did the same thing last year when Dunn was the hot property- rather than taking him and flipping him to Chicago or Minnesota or whomever, he took Brown, seemingly because he was afraid to lose him. I have no doubt he would have done the same with Tatum this year.
   1914. aberg Posted: August 23, 2017 at 05:41 PM (#5519723)
Too many forwards and not enough minutes... if only the ping-pong balls hadn't stuck them with the third pick in a draft whose clear top two prospects were both guards. :)


It will be very interesting over the next ~5 years to compare the aggregate performance of Irving and Tatum to Thomas, Fultz, and whoever ends up as that pick.

Based on all I've heard and read, I'm convinced he traded down because he legitimately thinks Tatum was the best prospect in the draft, and had trading down proven impossible probably would have taken Tatum #1. This despite the fact he already has a palpably Tatum-like player on the roster (who he still didn't want to part with in the Kyrie negotiations!) in Jaylen Brown.


It even goes a layer deeper than that. Getting Jaylen Brown was surprising at the time. He took Brown 3rd even though almost every mock draft that's still searchable had them taking Kris Dunn. Most of those didn't have Brown going until as late as 8.

edit: Pamplemousse Lacroix to jmurph
   1915. SPICEY WITH A SIDE OF BEER ON A BABYYYYYYY Posted: August 23, 2017 at 06:20 PM (#5519743)
A couple things:

I think Tatum is a *way* better prospect than Brown, he has tons more offensive potential. I don't think it's fair to complain about taking him, even if it did create this logjam. The Brown decision is looking like a reach, but if the conventional wisdom was to take Dunn, well then I'm willing to just acknowledge drafting is hard.
   1916. 2 dudes are better than STIGGLES; i'm both of em Posted: August 23, 2017 at 08:39 PM (#5519816)
rank the following assets:
jaylen brown
kris dunn
markelle fultz
lonzo ball
jason tatum
josh jackson
terry rozier
mirza teletovic
2018 BRK #1 (unprotected)
2018 LAL #1 (if 2-5; if not conveyed, becomes 2019 SAC #1 (top 1 protected; if not conveyed becomes 2019 PHI #1)

It even goes a layer deeper than that. Getting Jaylen Brown was surprising at the time. He took Brown 3rd even though almost every mock draft that's still searchable had them taking Kris Dunn. Most of those didn't have Brown going until as late as 8.
for what it's worth, jaylen brown was the #4 player on my board last year (i actually forget if i had him or bender #4, but i think it was brown).
   1917. tshipman Posted: August 23, 2017 at 08:57 PM (#5519828)
rank the following assets:


1. Lonzo Ball
2. Markelle Fultz
3. 2018 BRK #1 (unprotected)
4. Jaylen Brown (tie)
4. Josh Jackson (tie)
4. Jason Tatum (tie)
7. 2018 LAL #1 (if 2-5; if not conveyed, becomes 2019 SAC #1 (top 1 protected; if not conveyed becomes 2019 PHI #1)
8. Terry Rozier
9. Mirza Teletovic
10: Kris Dunn
   1918. PJ Martinez Posted: August 23, 2017 at 08:59 PM (#5519831)
The Brown decision is looking like a reach, but if the conventional wisdom was to take Dunn, well then I'm willing to just acknowledge drafting is hard.

The Brown pick actually looked more like a reach at the time than it does now, I think; he's clearly outplayed Dunn and Bender, who were discussed at that spot, and arguably Hield, who went after those two and is significantly older. (Obviously Brogdon was better last season but he is also much older and was not viewed as a top guy.) The one guy discussed at three that I suspect has more value than Brown right now is Jamal Murray, and I don't think it's a given that he'll be better than Brown -- though I imagine some people are confident he will be. It's really just not looking like a very good draft (though part of that of course is no Simmons last year, and Ingram looked ready to take a leap in Summer League).
   1919. jmurph Posted: August 23, 2017 at 09:08 PM (#5519842)
Yeah I think Brown will be fine, perhaps better than fine. It's just that sometimes things that are called "unprotected 1st round Nets picks" turn into players called Jaylen Brown, and that's not quite as exciting as it sounds on lottery night.
   1920. cmd600 Posted: August 23, 2017 at 09:25 PM (#5519863)
once LeBron goes


I'll keep saying it as long as the consensus here seems to think he's leaving - it is nowhere near as likely as you guys seem to think. The Cavs are still a better chance for him to win than all the destinations that can max him out.
   1921. PASTE, Now with Extra Pitch and Extra Stamina Posted: August 23, 2017 at 10:22 PM (#5519962)
I'm smelling a friendly bet here, cmd!
   1922. 2 dudes are better than STIGGLES; i'm both of em Posted: August 23, 2017 at 10:26 PM (#5519968)
I'll keep saying it as long as the consensus here seems to think he's leaving - it is nowhere near as likely as you guys seem to think. The Cavs are still a better chance for him to win than all the destinations that can max him out.
clap your hands, everybody.
   1923. Slivers of Maranville descends into chaos (SdeB) Posted: August 24, 2017 at 12:15 AM (#5520012)
I don't know, LeBron likes to be the leading player. Would he be willing to be second-fiddle behind Embiid?
   1924. Athletic Supporter wants to move your money around Posted: August 24, 2017 at 12:49 AM (#5520018)
I don't know, LeBron likes to be the leading player. Would he be willing to be second-fiddle behind Embiid?


Don't you mean third fiddle behind Embiid and Simmons?
   1925. cmd600 Posted: August 24, 2017 at 01:39 AM (#5520028)
I'm smelling a friendly bet here, cmd!


Sure, always done for a friendly bet. And I wouldn't be completely shocked if the Cavs took a step back this year while someone like the Lakers have their young guns look good, or Gilbert does something so completely dysfunctional that Lebron decides he's had enough. And we'll see what teams can clear cap space to add not just Lebron but any free agent buddies he wants to play with, but I'm not really seeing many places where he can progress his legacy any better than Cleveland at the moment.
   1926. 2 dudes are better than STIGGLES; i'm both of em Posted: August 24, 2017 at 04:10 AM (#5520033)
Don't you mean third fiddle behind Embiid and Simmons?
exactly. he'll need that kind of support to beat GSW as he continues to slow down in his old age.

side note: do we all just agree that fultz is in a lower tier than embiid/simmons?

1. Lonzo Ball
2. Markelle Fultz
is this a widely supported opinion? personally, i'd rather have ball than fultz, but when i started saying that it wasn't the consensus. has that changed since the draft?


rank the following players:
isaiah thomas
jae crowder
kyrie irving
jimmy butler
paul george
domantas sabonis
victor oladipo
mirza teletovic
zach lavine
lauri markannen
kris dunn
gordon haywurst
   1927. 2 dudes are better than STIGGLES; i'm both of em Posted: August 24, 2017 at 05:22 AM (#5520038)
here's dario saric with a bunch of deer.
   1928. Crosseyed and Painless Posted: August 24, 2017 at 07:30 AM (#5520042)
Are we sure Embiid and Simmons would even want LeBron around?
   1929. Famous Original Joe C Posted: August 24, 2017 at 08:49 AM (#5520062)
The Ainge Defender has logged on to tell some of you how badly you are analyzing this Kyrie trade. Kudos to JC and Hombre for very reasonable takes.

First, let's talk about some of the hot takes some of you had in the moments after this trade was consummated:

Unfathomably terrible trade by Ainge. To finally part with the 2018 Nets pick, in a trade where you're giving up Isaiah Thomas, is just impossible to fathom. And it's just completely out of whack with the market established in the other recent "kind-of-superstar-but-kinda-notreally" trades.


Kyrie is much younger and is better offensively than any of those guys. And, everyone agreed the Butler trade was awful for the Bulls - not fair to make that the "established price" for this kind of trade anyway. Also, feel free to go after Ainge's draft record (OK but mixed) and FA signings (again, okay but mixed), but if you are dismissing out of hand a trade that guy makes in the moments after it is consummated, history says you are going to end up looking foolish.

Well, it's early, but I'll set the over/under for NBA finals appearances for the Irving Celtics.......0.5 look right?


If Lebron leaves Cleveland after this year, there is no team better set up than the Celtics to dominate 2018-21 in the East. I will gladly take the over if I can win with "1".

Also, how the hell were they not willing to give up this package for Jimmy Butler--a better player and a better fit?


Not a better fit at all. The Celtics had to make a decision on Isaiah. If they trade for Butler and keep Isaiah, congrats on being locked in to that team as Isaiah declines, and adding Butler just exacerbates the logjam the Celtics has on the wing. Also - Kyrie is 25 next year, not 28. This is vitally important to this deal for the Celtics, we'll come back to this.

What a steal for the Cavs. How the hell did they pull this off? Not sure I would even trade Crowder straight up for Kyrie. Crowder has one of the best deals in the league.


This is the hottest take of them all. Jae Crowder is a nice rotation guy who can play a little D and make some open jumpers. I mean, come on.

it seems like there would be a high price to pay to kick the contract issue for the scoring PG down the road for one year.


If you only see the trade through this narrow lens, fine. I am much happier to sign 27 year old Kyrie Irving to a max deal than I am to sign 30 year old 5-8 guy to a similar contract.

I don't buy RPM, but Crowder is a great fit on any team and his contract is a steal. I think including him and the Brooklyn pick means that the Celtics are significantly worse both in the short and long-term with this deal.


They might be a little worse in the short run (I think it's close to a wash as I don't believe we will see last year's Isaiah ever again). In the long run, they added a 25 year old 4-time all star, a guy who has played Curry to a draw in the Finals, a guy who can help them win now, and a guy who is going to still be in his prime as Brown, Tatum, and others hit theirs. They are set up about as well for next year and actually much better for the future. Would you rather have a team built around 25 year old Kyrie or 29 year old Isaiah? Which one is a better bet for the future?

So many hot takes!

Look, it was decision time on Isaiah. Three choices - sign him long term, trade him, let him go. Third option is a nonstarter. Sign him long term, again, you're paying a 5-8 guy with bone spurs in his hip 35-40m per year at age 34, you've locked in your team for 3-4 years, and you've limited your upside over that period to a 55 win team that might sneak into the Finals once assuming Lebron leaves Cleveland.

So they traded him. The Nets pick does feel like a lot, but it's probably more likely to be 5-7 than 1-3, which makes it nice but not as nice as it might seem at first glance. That's part of the calculus for this, I'm sure. If that pick ends up #1 or 2, obviously this trade looks worse. Crowder, look, he's a good player on a great contract. His D has slipped, he can't really guard Lebron anyway (unfair standard but), and his shooting last year was anomalous. he's a nice player that you gladly trade when you can get a 25 year old all-star entering his prime.

So, you have Isaiah who is a bad bet in the long term - you've replaced him with a guy who is better now and is likely to be much better over the next few years. You had to give up Jae Crowder - which might make you slightly worse this year but who you probably didn't have a long term spot for between Hayward, Brown, Tatum, and Semi Ojeleye (who is going to play 10 years as a 3 and D guy). And you gave up a draft pick, almost certainly a lottery pick, because again, you got the best player in the deal, and by far the best bet in the deal going forward.

I think the Cavs did well too - flexibility with the pick depending on what Lebron does, another nice rotation guy in Crowder, and short term Kyrie replacement. I like the Love/Thomas AAU connection. I have heard a few people say that in Crowder the Cavs got a Durant defender, which, LOL. I think it was a good trade for both teams given the circumstances.

4 years ago the Celtics had a 40-41 team featuring Pierce, Garnett, Jason Terry, ACL-less Rondo, Brandon Bass, and Jared Sullinger. Four years later, they have a team built around a 25 yo Finals tested all-star PG, a 27 yo all-star wing, Al Horford, two top three picks from the last two drafts, and five more 1st round picks over the next two years, including a likely top 5 pick. Given all that, I'm willing to give the benefit of the doubt on this deal. This deal might not be a slam dunk, but if you dig into it a little bit and look at all of the angles, it makes sooooo much sense.

The Ainge Defender has logged off.


   1930. . . . . . . . . . . Posted: August 24, 2017 at 09:51 AM (#5520079)
The funny part about the last post is that in the middle of calling everyone else's reasoned analysis a "hot take", he ironically writes the only actual hot take in this thread. And the logical fallacies and intellectual dishonesty that he has to employ just to get the trade back to "even" is astounding.

Here's an actual 'hot take' for the last poster to engage with: A couple of years again ange started believing his own bullshit, and he's on the Billy Beane trajectory, which means that in a place like Boston he'll be fired within two seasons.
   1931. There are a lot of good people in alt-Shooty Posted: August 24, 2017 at 09:56 AM (#5520081)
What you think of the trade depends on how good you think Kyrie is. People who hate the trade for the Celtics obviously don't think he's very good. (I don't know how I feel about Kyrie, myself. His + - without LeBron is terrible but he's also been in weird situations his entire career and has been asked play odd roles for a PG.)Also, I'm convinced that the Celtics don't like the information they have on IT's hip, either. It's going to be fun to see how all this works out. October 17th--Celtics-Cavs, Rockets-Warriors. I will be watching!
   1932. jmurph Posted: August 24, 2017 at 10:01 AM (#5520084)
To play the good cop to Joe C's bad cop, I do think this is the key point for Boston that not all of the trade reviews I've read have fully considered (though Pelton did mention it on a podcast yesterday, and I think it was Zach Lowe mentioned it on twitter):
Look, it was decision time on Isaiah. Three choices - sign him long term, trade him, let him go.

So it's not just "eh, Isaiah to Kyrie is mostly a wash for this year and you gave up a lot of value in the exchange," it was getting something in return for Isaiah while simultaneously finding another building block to go with Hayward. Several people here and in the media have suggested all year that Ainge would not want to give a 29 year old Isaiah the full 5 year max.

I don't really think the trade package is a huge problem- I think the main risk Ainge is sitting on is being so committed to Brown and Tatum, those guys might come back to haunt him.*

EDIT: *Meaning he might have a. drafted the wrong guys and b. made the wrong deals with those two in mind.
   1933. jmurph Posted: August 24, 2017 at 10:04 AM (#5520087)
A couple of years again ange started believing his own bullshit, and he's on the Billy Beane trajectory, which means that in a place like Boston he'll be fired within two seasons.

The Celtics conversation here exists in bizarro world sometimes. In real life, Boston signed the best available free agent this offseason and the 2nd best (or at worst, 3rd) available free agent last offseason. Also they had the best record in the east and played in the conference finals this year. They're fine.
   1934. SPICEY WITH A SIDE OF BEER ON A BABYYYYYYY Posted: August 24, 2017 at 10:10 AM (#5520093)
What you think of the trade depends on how good you think Kyrie is. People who hate the trade for the Celtics obviously don't think he's very good.

Yes. Also, I think it's a real good litmus test for how you trust some of the more analytics focused stats. Kyrie is good but not great there, and in some of his earlier years rated below average. Crowder rates very well there, too.
   1935. There are a lot of good people in alt-Shooty Posted: August 24, 2017 at 10:27 AM (#5520106)
Also, I think it's a real good litmus test for how you trust some of the more analytics focused stats.

This is a good point, too. I'm a analytics skeptic when it comes to individual player value though I'm sold on the more macro analytics stuff. Visually, I know Kyrie can do things very few players have ever been able to do on offense, but his defense is half-assed and he's nowhere near as good a passer as I'd like to see from my PG. I don't think the defense will improve but I think Stevens can unlock whatever potential he has as a playmaker. With the Cavs he spent the first years of his career as a first-option scorer and then the rest of it playing off LeBron so we never really got to see him play as a facilitator. (Then again, maybe the Celtics plan to use him much the same way, using guys like Hayward and Smart to run the offense and moving Kyrie off actions to create space for him. Like I said, it will be interesting to see how it all works.)
   1936. jmurph Posted: August 24, 2017 at 10:36 AM (#5520119)
(Then again, maybe the Celtics plan to use him much the same way, using guys like Hayward and Smart to run the offense and moving Kyrie off actions to create space for him. Like I said, it will be interesting to see how it all works.)

Yeah I'm excited to see Hayward as the facilitator, and they also did a lot of point-forward kind of stuff with Horford in the playoffs that was really interesting. But Boston also let Isaiah run wild at times in the 4th quarter last year, and I imagine Kyrie will get the same freedom to do that.

I've long been a Kyrie skeptic, but I think this is an interesting mix of players and I'm hopeful they'll be able to maximize his abilities.
   1937. JC in DC Posted: August 24, 2017 at 10:40 AM (#5520126)
I really don't think there will be a problem on offense. Irving is a great, not good, but great, offensive player. All of Boston's other players are secondary offensive pieces. Brad won't have any issues coordinating an offense out of them. The issue will be defense. We all saw times when Cleveland had to take Irving off the floor because of his defense (and the lack of length to compensate). Boston might be better able to handle his poor defense than Cleveland because of its younger, longer, frontline, but that will be the challenge. Put another way, instead of asking how Boston now shapes up against Cleveland, perhaps we should be asking how they shape up against Washington.
   1938. TFTIO, for one, is sick and tired of winning Posted: August 24, 2017 at 10:44 AM (#5520131)
Is Irving notably worse at defense than Thomas was? Because if not, it seems a pretty clear upgrade to me.
   1939. There are a lot of good people in alt-Shooty Posted: August 24, 2017 at 10:53 AM (#5520143)
I think Irving, in general, is a better defender but Irving is a worse team defender. IT will fight through screens while Irving will just die on a screen and force his teammates to scramble. IT just gets killed in isolation, though.
   1940. jmurph Posted: August 24, 2017 at 10:56 AM (#5520145)
Is Irving notably worse at defense than Thomas was? Because if not, it seems a pretty clear upgrade to me.

Pretty equal- Isaiah shows up worse in the metrics but they're both terrible. The difference in theory is the height issue, which can't really be managed very well.

perhaps we should be asking how they shape up against Washington.

This is a fair point, as Wall was terrible in the playoffs this year against the Celtics, with Bradley doing a lot of the work. They still have Smart for that, but yeah, it's one less defender for good guards.
   1941. . . . . . . . . . . Posted: August 24, 2017 at 11:27 AM (#5520172)
The Celtics conversation here exists in bizarro world sometimes. In real life, Boston signed the best available free agent this offseason and the 2nd best (or at worst, 3rd) available free agent last offseason. Also they had the best record in the east and played in the conference finals this year. They're fine.


Sure. Is fine enough?
- signing the 'best' free agent isn't that interesting or important. None of their FA acquisitions provide enough value over max to really move the needle without hitting on the draft picks
- the drafting has been dodgy
- the fundamental issue for the Celtics was that they had a lot of assets that, if they hit the median EV for all those assets, wouldn't create a championship team. They had to figure out a way to package a set of those assets for a single high value player. It looks like they've decided to do that for ... Kyrie Irving? OK then.
- it remains true that if they hit on Tatum or Brown then they'll be in a position to contend, but the whole point of a trade should've been to eliminate the need to win that bet. Given where they were two years ago, having to hit on a non-top pick is a major step back in terms of odds
- anyone analytically-minded knows that the results last year were a bit flukey, and they've turned over lots of the team. It's not THAT informative on the Celtics go-forward path.

The argument is something like: the Celtics made a lot of awesome decisions a few years ago that put them in a great spot, but since then, they've either tread water or even taken a step back. Ainge is showing funny biases that seem to be getting in the way of making the team better. Being a consistently great GM is really hard b/c the league is constantly catching up to you so it requires constant innovation and new ideas to stay ahead of the pack. I think there's evidence mounting that the league has caught up to Ainge/Zarren.
   1942. cmd600 Posted: August 24, 2017 at 11:35 AM (#5520179)
I think Stevens can unlock whatever potential he has as a playmaker


The Cavs have been saying this since he first came up under Byron Scott, who back in 2011, still had the reputation of being a PG whisperer. He was supposed to become a facilitator. The Cavs have all kinds of warts in their organization, but they tried pretty darn hard to make Irving a more complete PG. Maybe Stevens is that good, but the world saw in the most recent Finals what a lot of Cavs fans have known for a long time - even with Lebron on the court, Irving is so sure of his shot that he's going to call his own number over and over.

Part of the frustration among Cavs fans with Irving isn't simply the lower than expected advanced metrics. It's that there's some very obvious fixes to his game that made very little progress over six years. And his reaction to Lebron brow-beating him about it was to ask for a trade. That he got it, and we now learn, to a team he supposedly actually wanted to go to, would lead me to believe he probably thinks his game is fine, not that it needs fixing.
   1943. Athletic Supporter wants to move your money around Posted: August 24, 2017 at 11:44 AM (#5520182)
I'm coming around on this trade. It's not clear what the Celtics' path to a better team than they have now is. I stick to my framing -- this isn't a championship team unless someone (possibly Stevens) takes a big step forward, but at the same time it's not clear what the immediate path to that was and for most teams that's the best place you can get to. With Irving, Brown, and Tatum they have three people who theoretically might have a better chance than most players of taking that big step forward. I think the argument I'm most sympathetic to is that the Celtics really had to clear playing time for Brown and/or Tatum so they don't wither Darko-style (it seems to be a tough row to hoe to develop young players without actual NBA playing time).

It still feels like an overpay but the end result is a Celtics' roster that is probably close to as good as they can do to set themselves up for a real contention window.
   1944. Moses Taylor, aka Hambone Fakenameington Posted: August 24, 2017 at 11:46 AM (#5520183)
Look, it was decision time on Isaiah. Three choices - sign him long term, trade him, let him go. Third option is a nonstarter. Sign him long term, again, you're paying a 5-8 guy with bone spurs in his hip 35-40m per year at age 34, you've locked in your team for 3-4 years, and you've limited your upside over that period to a 55 win team that might sneak into the Finals once assuming Lebron leaves Cleveland.

I agree with the overall point, and it's something a number of people on this thread were talking about before the playoffs even started. I think there's still some nuance missing here though with option - I really don't think anyone is going to offer him a max deal, so I don't think the C's (and now the Cavs) would have had to necessarily offer that 5th year. Maybe they even approached him to see what he'd want, but I'm also totally fine with them deciding it was the best time to move him and also could see how they would rather have Kryie.

As I'm in the Kyrie isn't that good camp, I come down harder on the trade because I don't think Kryie is Crowder/pick better than IT.

Jae Crowder is a nice rotation guy who can play a little D and make some open jumpers. I mean, come on.

This is not a comment about you specifically (or anyone either exactly), but it is worth noting how the general C's fan consensus on Crowder's worth has changed from the time of the trade deadline/Butler discussions to now.
   1945. cmd600 Posted: August 24, 2017 at 11:46 AM (#5520184)
It's not clear what the Celtics' path to a better team than they have now is


Giving up less than they did for Irving to get a better player in Butler?

clear playing time for Brown and/or Tatum


I keep seeing this, and I keep scratching my head. This wasn't a problem. If either, or both, of those two earned playing time, the Celtics could find someone to take Crowder, on that contract, in a heartbeat. You had time to see if the potential turned into ability before handing them the minutes. The Warriors, a much better roster, found a decent amount of development time for guys like McCaw, McAdoo, and Clark, who are all lesser players than what Brown or Tatum should be.
   1946. jmurph Posted: August 24, 2017 at 11:56 AM (#5520191)
The argument is something like: the Celtics made a lot of awesome decisions a few years ago that put them in a great spot, but since then, they've either tread water or even taken a step back.

I understand the argument, I just don't see any case for it. Boston has gotten younger and better over the last few years, while adding additional picks and flexibility. They're competing now while maintaining potential for improvement in the future, which is a hard thing to do. They have yet to surpass Golden State or even Cleveland, which can also be said of the 27 other teams. But they're as well positioned as anyone else in the league.
   1947. . . . . . . . . . . Posted: August 24, 2017 at 12:08 PM (#5520199)
I understand the argument, I just don't see any case for it. Boston has gotten younger and better over the last few years, while adding additional picks and flexibility. They're competing now while maintaining potential for improvement in the future, which is a hard thing to do. They have yet to surpass Golden State or even Cleveland, which can also be said of the 27 other teams. But they're as well positioned as anyone else in the league.


I just don't agree with this at all. How have the Celtics increased their chances over the last 2 years of getting a player that provides a ton of value over max-contract? And if you don't have at lease one of those, what are the odds of having a great team?
   1948. aberg Posted: August 24, 2017 at 12:10 PM (#5520202)
I agree with what cmd has been saying about Lebron- if Cleveland provides him with the best path to another ring or two, I think he's most likely to stay there. It would be very strange to me if he left for a team that isn't already set up as a conference finalist or better.
   1949. jmurph Posted: August 24, 2017 at 12:17 PM (#5520209)
How have the Celtics increased their chances over the last 2 years of getting a player that provides a ton of value over max-contract? And if you don't have at lease one of those, what are the odds of having a great team?

I guess I don't see why that's the metric? I agree you need surplus value- as a team- to be successful in a league with a cap, but they have literally 7 guys expected to contribute this year who are on their rookie contracts. But anyway to answer your question, Irving, whatever you think of the guy, delivers tons of surplus value on 18.5 per year for the next two years- 538 has him at 136.5 million in value over the next 5 years. Hayward delivers surplus value in the next year, at least, based on current baseline, using 538.

   1950. Athletic Supporter wants to move your money around Posted: August 24, 2017 at 12:18 PM (#5520212)
The other thing I don't get though is, why do people think Irving has much defensive potential? The things that make him great as an offensive player are his handle and shooting, neither of which translates to the defensive end. He's not particularly long (his draft wingspan was 6'4", compare Wall at 6'9"), he doesn't jump out of the gym, he's not super-fast so much as crafty with the ball. Maybe his attitude can improve but I don't see the raw materials of an above-average defender in either the individual or team sense.
   1951. jmurph Posted: August 24, 2017 at 12:18 PM (#5520213)
I agree with what cmd has been saying about Lebron- if Cleveland provides him with the best path to another ring or two, I think he's most likely to stay there. It would be very strange to me if he left for a team that isn't already set up as a conference finalist or better.

If it's a team in the East, I'm still of the mind that employing LeBron immediately makes you a conference finalist or better. The LA talk is different, of course.
   1952. Athletic Supporter wants to move your money around Posted: August 24, 2017 at 12:22 PM (#5520220)
It's not clear what the Celtics' path to a better team than they have now is

Giving up less than they did for Irving to get a better player in Butler?


Yes -- I definitely think that would have been better. I just meant in present day, after that ship sailed. [and who knows what the Bulls were valuing how, honestly]


I just don't agree with this at all. How have the Celtics increased their chances over the last 2 years of getting a player that provides a ton of value over max-contract? And if you don't have at lease one of those, what are the odds of having a great team?


The answer is: if Irving, Brown, Tatum, or Hayward takes a big step forward. There are like 3-5 players in the league that provide a ton of value over max contract. I'm sure Boston tried to get Durant and (hmm, hadn't thought of this before) LeBron, but with actually acquiring a current one of those likely impossible, they may well have the best collection of lottery tickets outside of future perennial finalists Minnesota and Philadelphia. Even Irving doubters must concede he has a much better chance of becoming one of those players than Crowder and Thomas combined (when you add the Brooklyn pick, admittedly, the calculation becomes murkier).
   1953. . . . . . . . . . . Posted: August 24, 2017 at 12:23 PM (#5520221)

I guess I don't see why that's the metric? I agree you need surplus value- as a team- to be successful in a league with a cap, but they have literally 7 guys expected to contribute this year who are on their rookie contracts. But anyway to answer your question, Irving, whatever you think of the guy, delivers tons of surplus value on 18.5 per year for the next two years- 538 has him at 136.5 million in value over the next 5 years. Hayward delivers surplus value in the next year, at least, based on current baseline, using 538
.

Because you cant get enough aggregate value to be a championship-caliber team without it. Rookies and scrap-heap players just aren't good enough even if you scout well and get surplus value. Even if you're getting surplus value up and down the roster, getting $15M of value from $9M players only gets you to . . . where the Celtics were in 2016.
   1954. jmurph Posted: August 24, 2017 at 12:24 PM (#5520224)
Giving up less than they did for Irving to get a better player in Butler?

I think it would have been nearly impossible, if not actually impossible, to sign Hayward if they had made any kind of reasonable Butler deal. And the argument was that Isaiah/Smart/Butler/Horford/something wasn't a finals contender. And also that they didn't want to sign Isaiah long term, or Bradley long term. And while I think you'd be able to make a pretty good case that the current team isn't finals worthy, either, they are younger, and at least as good, while retaining room to grow/improve.
   1955. covelli chris p Posted: August 24, 2017 at 12:24 PM (#5520225)
The other thing I don't get though is, why do people think Irving has much defensive potential?
better than the 5'8" guy is a low bar. i think he can become an improvement on IT.

fwiw, i'm also in the kyrie isn't that good camp. the only way this thing makes sense is healthy doses of: 1, they're more worried about IT's hip and really don't want to back up the proverbial brinks truck and 2, they project brooklyn to be not-that-bad this year. who knows ...
   1956. jmurph Posted: August 24, 2017 at 12:27 PM (#5520232)
Because you cant get enough aggregate value to be a championship-caliber team without it. Rookies and scrap-heap players just aren't good enough even if you scout well and get surplus value. Even if you're getting surplus value up and down the roster, getting $15M of value from $9M players only gets you to . . . where the Celtics were in 2016.

But I answered your question, and the answer is Kyrie and to a lesser extent Hayward, using your metric of exceeding max value.

My point about the rookie contract guys is that getting production from guys on cheap deals helps you spend elsewhere. So even if Horford is only properly paid or even slightly overpaid, it's a wash if (and this is what Ainge is banking on, whether I think it will happen or not) Brown or Tatum is giving you legit production cheaply.
   1957. Booey Posted: August 24, 2017 at 12:30 PM (#5520235)
One thing about the possibility of LeBron leaving Cleveland; If he does, why do people assume it's going to be to a western conference team? He's smart enough to know that if he wants to continue making the Finals every year, he needs to either A) sign with the Warriors for the veteran minimum, or B) keep playing in the East.

Option A doesn't seem too likely.
   1958. PASTE, Now with Extra Pitch and Extra Stamina Posted: August 24, 2017 at 12:31 PM (#5520239)
It's not hard to believe at all. LeBron believes that his mere presence on a team makes it a contender (and it's true, though not for much longer) and also no doubt has plans to bring other players in (it remains to be seen whether this means actual good players or players LeBron delusionally thinks are still good, e.g. Wade and Melo).

Booey: people don't assume he's going to "a western conference team." People assume he's going to the Lakers. Which is because that's been a hot rumor since before the Finals were even over, a rumor which LeBron's people have never refuted.

I mean maybe the Lakers started the rumor and there's nothing to it. I think it's much more likely that particular rumor is flying around because it's true.

Also, the assertion that the most important thing to LeBron at this stage in his life is making the Finals every year assumes facts not in evidence.
   1959. aberg Posted: August 24, 2017 at 12:38 PM (#5520254)
I mean maybe the Lakers started the rumor and there's nothing to it. I think it's much more likely that particular rumor is flying around because it's true.


My best guess is that Lebron would really like it if the Lakers got themselves in a position to be a really good team and then he was able to come in as the last piece. If Ball and Ingram play well and gel, plus they're able to get George, then maybe Lebron starts to take them seriously. I realize that there are cap difficulties, but there are also ways to get creative.
   1960. 2 dudes are better than STIGGLES; i'm both of em Posted: August 24, 2017 at 12:38 PM (#5520258)
BOS's biggest weaknesses last year were rim protection and rebounding. despite all of their movements, they haven't attempted to address either of those shortcomings.


i know i'm biased, but i think nerlens noel would double the chances of beating CLE for every single eastern conference contender. all of these east contenders are mediocre (at best) on defense and none of them seem to be very interested in fixing that. it's weird.

it makes me think CHA (and PHI) are going to surprise a lot of people this year. dwight howard isn't great anymore, but in the land of the skunk, the man with half a nose is king.
   1961. Booey Posted: August 24, 2017 at 12:39 PM (#5520260)
Booey: people don't assume he's going to "a western conference team." People assume he's going to the Lakers. Which is because that's been a hot rumor since before the Finals were even over, a rumor which LeBron's people have never refuted.

I mean maybe the Lakers started the rumor and there's nothing to it. I think it's much more likely that particular rumor is flying around because it's true.


Fine, but I still don't see how the Lakers + LeBron + whoever else he can convince to tag along give him a better shot at a title than what he has in Cleveland.

Also, the assertion that the most important thing to LeBron at this stage in his life is making the Finals every year assumes facts not in evidence.


Based on everything we've seen and heard from LeBron over his entire career, winning as many championships as possible does indeed seem to be very important to him.
   1962. jmurph Posted: August 24, 2017 at 12:43 PM (#5520270)
i know i'm biased, but i think nerlens noel would double the chances of beating CLE for every single eastern conference contender.

Who has the space to give him an offer sheet he'd actually sign? Plus no one thinks Dallas would let him walk. RFA is a waste of time for most teams.
   1963. 2 dudes are better than STIGGLES; i'm both of em Posted: August 24, 2017 at 12:45 PM (#5520273)
One thing about the possibility of LeBron leaving Cleveland; If he does, why do people assume it's going to be to a western conference team? He's smart enough to know that if he wants to continue making the Finals every year, he needs to either A) sign with the Warriors for the veteran minimum, or B) keep playing in the East.


i think it's also possible that lebron wants to play against a bunch of fun western conference teams, instead of continuing to muck around with the lowrys/walls/teagues of the world. even if he's much less likely to win a title in the west, the lure of a new challenge (and not living in cleveland) could be enough incentive for him to make the move.
   1964. aberg Posted: August 24, 2017 at 12:50 PM (#5520281)
in the land of the skunk, the man with half a nose is king.


You bit my new nose off!
   1965. There are a lot of good people in alt-Shooty Posted: August 24, 2017 at 12:59 PM (#5520306)
I wasn't expecting Tyco Brahe references today.
   1966. cmd600 Posted: August 24, 2017 at 01:00 PM (#5520310)
if not actually impossible, to sign Hayward if they had made any kind of reasonable Butler deal.


Right, they would likely have had to wait on Hayward, but I find it hard to believe that Chicago would have turned down a better offer if it meant waiting just two weeks. Or the Celtics could have traded off Crowder, like they did Bradley, beforehand to create the room they needed. Butler isn't there because Ainge wouldn't give up enough to get him.


Also, the assertion that the most important thing to LeBron at this stage in his life is making the Finals every year assumes facts not in evidence.


Legitimate laugh out loud. Seriously guffawing.
   1967. Famous Original Joe C Posted: August 24, 2017 at 01:03 PM (#5520315)
Obviously I was being a bit overboard in my post above, but I was honestly shocked to see some people who thought the trade was that bad for the Celtics. I can see liking it more for the Cavs, especially if you think the Nets are really going to stink and you see the glass half empty on Kyrie. But - I think this trade significantly helps the Celtics over the next few years, and I stand by that.

I am going to circle back on one thing:

The funny part about the last post is that in the middle of calling everyone else's reasoned analysis a "hot take", he ironically writes the only actual hot take in this thread. And the logical fallacies and intellectual dishonesty that he has to employ just to get the trade back to "even" is astounding.


My analysis was plenty reasoned and logical. I follow the NBA closely; I know the advanced metrics, and I've given this trade both a lot of thought and discussion since it happened. Jokes about being "The Ainge Defender" aside, I'm here to actually discuss this. If you disagree with it, that's cool; it's a trade, there's a ton of uncertainty, and my analysis could end up dead wrong.

So, tell me, what were the logical fallacies? The intellectual dishonesty? Or did you just want to throw that stuff out there because you didn't like what I wrote and/or don't like the Celtics and want to convince yourself this won't work out for them?

Ainge is showing funny biases that seem to be getting in the way of making the team better. Being a consistently great GM is really hard b/c the league is constantly catching up to you so it requires constant innovation and new ideas to stay ahead of the pack. I think there's evidence mounting that the league has caught up to Ainge/Zarren.


What funny biases is he showing, exactly?

I just don't agree with this at all. How have the Celtics increased their chances over the last 2 years of getting a player that provides a ton of value over max-contract? And if you don't have at lease one of those, what are the odds of having a great team?


Well, Kyrie is a better bet to be that than Isaiah today, and at his age may still have a new level of performance to each, so that answers your question at a basic level. Also, everything jmurph said.

The other thing I don't get though is, why do people think Irving has much defensive potential?


For my part, I don't think he has any real potential, but I do think he has more defensive upside than IT because he's not shorter than me and trying to play NBA defense. I'm saying he has the potential to be mediocre, a level I think he has reached in the playoffs before.

Last - Moses - hope you are well. I think you might be right about Isaiah not getting a max deal/5 years - it was actually the hope I was clinging to to some degree when it looked like he was going to be in Boston for the next few years. Makes a better argument if you assume he will though, right? :-)

   1968. cmd600 Posted: August 24, 2017 at 01:07 PM (#5520320)
My analysis was plenty reasoned and logical.


My favorite part is the analysis of Crowder. "I mean, come on."

Can I edit my top 50 list after this argument?
   1969. Booey Posted: August 24, 2017 at 01:09 PM (#5520328)
Obviously I was being a bit overboard in my post above, but I was honestly shocked to see some people who thought the trade was that bad for the Celtics. I can see liking it more for the Cavs


That's my take. I don't think it was really bad for the Celts, per se, but I think it was clearly better for the Cavs, and it seemed odd to me that Boston would agree to anything that makes their top conference rival even tougher. In the short term at least, I think that reason alone lowered the Celtics chances at making the Finals.
   1970. Famous Original Joe C Posted: August 24, 2017 at 01:10 PM (#5520330)
My favorite part is the analysis of Crowder. "I mean, come on."


The idea that you can't possibly part with Jae Crowder to get a 25 year old four time all-star should be dismissed out of hand. He's good; he's not that good, and they have a bunch of guys who play his position.
   1971. There are a lot of good people in alt-Shooty Posted: August 24, 2017 at 01:10 PM (#5520332)
Guessing what LeBron is thinking is probably a fool's errand and will lead you down the dark path of analyzing snippets of terrible songs he posts on social media. Don't do it people! My least favorite segment of NBA podcasts is the "Let's analyze LeBron's social media posts!" segments. Blargh. I'd rather listen to more Blue Apron ads.
   1972. PASTE, Now with Extra Pitch and Extra Stamina Posted: August 24, 2017 at 01:11 PM (#5520333)
Fine, but I still don't see how the Lakers + LeBron + whoever else he can convince to tag along give him a better shot at a title than what he has in Cleveland.


Sure, you don't. I don't either. But LeBron has already demonstrated that he isn't very sharp on talent evaluation.
   1973. Famous Original Joe C Posted: August 24, 2017 at 01:13 PM (#5520336)
In the short term at least, I think that reason alone lowered the Celtics chances at making the Finals.


You are probably right - it increased them significantly for 2019-22, though, assuming of course Kyrie stays in Boston.
   1974. Famous Original Joe C Posted: August 24, 2017 at 01:13 PM (#5520337)
double post
   1975. Booey Posted: August 24, 2017 at 01:19 PM (#5520341)
Sure, you don't. I don't either. But LeBron has already demonstrated that he isn't very sharp on talent evaluation.

Eh, we can criticize some individual acquisitions he's coveted (or rumored to covet), but in the end the Heat and Cavs teams he's orchestrated have now made the Finals in each of the last 7 seasons. There's not THAT much room to improve upon that.*

*I guess you could nitpick about the 3-4 record in those Finals, but still...
   1976. cmd600 Posted: August 24, 2017 at 01:22 PM (#5520347)
[Kyrie] is better offensively than any of those guys.


There seems to be a certain blindspot to parts of the game here. Accidental slip, I'm sure.

not fair to make that the "established price" for this kind of trade anyway


Maybe, but it was a trade the Celtics could have made instead. This wasn't like saying that baseball teams today trading a veteran for prospects should expect a Colon for Sizemore, Phillips, Lee deal. The offer was on the table for the Celtics.

If Lebron leaves Cleveland after this year


This is where the "assuming facts not in evidence" card should be played.

The Celtics had to make a decision on Isaiah. ... adding Butler just exacerbates the logjam the Celtics has on the wing.


I'm willing to give some benefit of the doubt here, but these were only "problems" for the Celtics in good ways. They had too many good players on the wing? Oh no. And they had a full year to decide what to do with Thomas - see if maybe he is worth a big contract, or possibly move him in a sign and trade next summer.

a guy who has played Curry to a draw in the Finals


Yikes. Good luck on this one.

Would you rather have a team built around 25 year old Kyrie or 29 year old Isaiah?


If the trade was just Irving for Thomas, this line works. That it misses the other parts of the deal is surely just another accidental slip.


As someone said above, the opinion of Crowder sure has changed quickly after he got traded, but also it seems the same for Thomas and the Nets' prospects this year.

I can see where the Celtics are coming from, and so much of the debate comes from the wide differences in how people see Irving. If a Butler trade really wasn't feasible, then I can squint and give the Celtics a B for this. But they gave up a lot more than Butler or George returned for a player that is clearly not as good as those two.
   1977. jmurph Posted: August 24, 2017 at 01:24 PM (#5520351)
Butler isn't there because Ainge wouldn't give up enough to get him.

Possibly. On the other hand, the Bulls made a terrible deal and we don't have any idea what the negotiations were like. We want Crowder and Brown and two high lottery picks JK we'll take a broken Zach LaVine, a draft bust, and a poor man's Channing Frye.
   1978. cmd600 Posted: August 24, 2017 at 01:25 PM (#5520353)
The idea that you can't possibly part with Jae Crowder to get a 25 year old four time all-star should be dismissed out of hand.


The argument against isn't that you couldn't possibly part with Crowder. It's that a top 50 player on a fantastic deal shouldn't be dismissed as a throw-in type. How many, even Celtics homers, are expecting Brown or Tatum to make the BBTF top 50 next summer?
   1979. cmd600 Posted: August 24, 2017 at 01:30 PM (#5520356)
the Bulls made a terrible deal and we don't have any idea what the negotiations were like.


Absolutely. I don't mean to absolve the Bulls in any way. I think they screwed up far more than the Celtics in not getting a deal done. But I think there should be pushback against the idea that the Celtics had to pick one of Butler or Hayward.
   1980. jmurph Posted: August 24, 2017 at 01:32 PM (#5520360)
cmd600 these arguments are beneath you man. No one thinks Crowder is a throw-in. In Joe C's argument, he's the cost for recentering the team around a younger point guard they're actually willing to build around/max out. I think it's a fair argument to think that cost (plus the Nets pick) is too much for that exchange, but that's the deal.
   1981. jmurph Posted: August 24, 2017 at 01:34 PM (#5520364)
But I think there should be pushback against the idea that the Celtics had to pick one of Butler or Hayward.

I mean it literally wouldn't have worked, is my understanding of the financial aspect of the deals. Am I getting that wrong? This was part of the discussion around the time George was getting traded.
   1982. PJ Martinez Posted: August 24, 2017 at 01:38 PM (#5520369)
In the original post, "I mean, come on" was a response to someone saying they weren't sure they would trade Crowder for Irving straight-up.

P.S. I continue to dislike the trade, as a Boston fan. The Brooklyn pick was too much.
   1983. cmd600 Posted: August 24, 2017 at 01:40 PM (#5520371)
I mean it literally wouldn't have worked, is my understanding of the financial aspect of the deals.


It's not wrong that, at the time of the draft, they couldn't have traded for Butler, done nothing else, then signed Hayward. They weren't prevented from clearing out the necessary room between the draft and signing Hayward or from telling the Bulls that they would be glad to give up what GarPax wanted in a couple weeks.
   1984. LA Podcasting Hombre of Anaheim Posted: August 24, 2017 at 01:43 PM (#5520373)
This is not a comment about you specifically (or anyone either exactly), but it is worth noting how the general C's fan consensus on Crowder's worth has changed from the time of the trade deadline/Butler discussions to now.
It's my favorite part of this whole thread! It's just the start, though. After two decades of killing Kobe Bryant for his ball-hogging, Boston fans will soon be singing the praises of someone who managed to be a top-5 iso guy with Lebron James and Kevin Love on his team.
   1985. There are a lot of good people in alt-Shooty Posted: August 24, 2017 at 01:45 PM (#5520374)
It's my favorite part of this whole thread! It's just the start, though. After two decades of killing Kobe Bryant for his ball-hogging, Boston fans will soon be singing the praises of someone who managed to be a top-5 iso guy with Lebron James and Kevin Love on his team.

As a Warriors fan, let me just say that Nick Young is a solid pro and defender and not a complete clown as an NBA player. Just wanted to clear that up.
   1986. jmurph Posted: August 24, 2017 at 01:45 PM (#5520376)
or from telling the Bulls that they would be glad to give up what GarPax wanted in a couple weeks.

That approach apparently did not work on the Pacers!

They weren't prevented from clearing out the necessary room between the draft and signing Hayward

I am probably not smart enough to figure this out, but they would have had to renounce all of the same guys, and make some trades to shed salary without bringing any back. I will cede that it is possible because these things are always possible, but I think it would have been a risky approach (as was their current path, to be fair).
   1987. jmurph Posted: August 24, 2017 at 01:47 PM (#5520378)
This is not a comment about you specifically (or anyone either exactly), but it is worth noting how the general C's fan consensus on Crowder's worth has changed from the time of the trade deadline/Butler discussions to now.

I really don't think this is a thing that's happening. It's the same sort of caricaturing of the argument that happened at the trade deadline.
   1988. jmurph Posted: August 24, 2017 at 01:48 PM (#5520379)
Boston fans will soon be singing the praises of someone who managed to be a top-5 iso guy with Lebron James and Kevin Love on his team.

We all loved Isaiah, who had a higher USG than Kyrie. I know you really want this to be a thing but it's not a thing.
   1989. covelli chris p Posted: August 24, 2017 at 01:50 PM (#5520380)
BOS's biggest weaknesses last year were rim protection and rebounding. despite all of their movements, they haven't attempted to address either of those shortcomings.
yes they did. they got MUCH bigger at the wing and they added baynes. they played long stretches last year with avery bradley (6'2"), marcus smart (6'4"), and crowder (6'6") at the 2-4. hayward, morris, brown, tatum, and ojeleye are the wings this year, and that should really help with rebounding. and if they need more muscle, they can go with baynes at hte 5.
   1990. cmd600 Posted: August 24, 2017 at 01:53 PM (#5520382)
We all loved Isaiah, who had a higher USG than Kyrie. I know you really want this to be a thing but it's not a thing.


Irving was fourth in number of iso's last year, Thomas around 25th, sixth by frequency for Irving while Thomas was about 90th there. 44% of Thomas' baskets last year came off an assist, 30% for Irving. Thomas may be a higher-iso guy than the vast majority of the league, but he isn't really that close to what Irving does.
   1991. jmurph Posted: August 24, 2017 at 01:59 PM (#5520389)
We all loved Isaiah, who had a higher USG than Kyrie. I know you really want this to be a thing but it's not a thing.

It was my fault for responding with a different metric, but I cited USG not ISO.

Also my anti-Kyrie bona fides are well established.
   1992. LA Podcasting Hombre of Anaheim Posted: August 24, 2017 at 02:06 PM (#5520393)
.
   1993. LA Podcasting Hombre of Anaheim Posted: August 24, 2017 at 02:07 PM (#5520394)
We all loved Isaiah, who had a higher USG than Kyrie. I know you really want this to be a thing but it's not a thing.
Of course it's not a problem. He's wearing the right laundry! And c'mon, I cited ISO, and I'm not wrong.
   1994. LA Podcasting Hombre of Anaheim Posted: August 24, 2017 at 02:15 PM (#5520401)
P.S. I continue to dislike the trade, as a Boston fan. The Brooklyn pick was too much.
That, to me, is the real kicker. There are a small number of exceptions, of course, but basically every NBA champion has at least one transcendent player, often more than one, at or near the height of their powers. Ainge's willingness to trade the Brooklyn pick says that he thinks Kyrie Irving is a transcendent player. That move also says that, for the foreseeable future, this is Kyrie Irving's team. (Suck it, Hayward!) It's Irving, Hayward, Horford, and a bunch of super-young wings. To think that's enough to win a ring, you have to assume that one of Brown or Tatum is going to be really, really good, Horford is going to age well, and that interior defense and rebounding isn't THAT big a deal.

Maybe that works — hell, they were conference champs last year — but Kyrie and Hayward would not be two of the players I'd be willing to plant my flag and make my stand with. Hayward's a meh defender, Irving's a bad one, and, as STIGGLES points out, last year's interior weaknesses haven't been addressed. I'm also curious to see how Irving does moving from the iso-heavy Cavs to a Boston system that was second only to GSW in assisted basket percentage. (Over 40% of Cleveland's possessions was either a Kyrie or Lebron iso.) I believe players can dramatically improve their game in their prime, but I don't think they dramatically change them, not when they're All-Stars.

That said, it could work. Assuming Lebron moves West next season, who else is there in the EC that's worth a damn? Pretty good is more than good enough to win the EC during this period. Irving + Hayward + Horford + any five tall guys who can run fast and jump high is a really good team.
   1995. jmurph Posted: August 24, 2017 at 02:27 PM (#5520406)
Pretty good is more than good enough to win the EC during this period. Irving + Hayward + Horford + any five tall guys who can run fast and jump high is a really good team.

Forgive my defensiveness Hombre, but aside from Joe C's post above, this from you is about as strong an argument as any Boston fan has offered in this thread, yet we're being mocked for being hypocrites or something. It's mildly annoying. I shall now unbunch my drawers.
   1996. Fourth True Outcome Posted: August 24, 2017 at 02:29 PM (#5520408)
To clarify the Butler/PG13/Hayward math, the deal was that the Celtics could get two of the three only if they first signed Hayward, and then traded for the second player. So yes they could have traded a package like this for one of those two players, but only if the Bulls or Pacers were a) willing to trade that player to the Celtics b) liked that package more than they liked Kris Dunn, say, and c) had been willing to wait longer than they did. I don't know if the Celtics tried to convince either team to wait for them, but by trading when they did both teams took Boston out of the running given that Boston was committed to getting Hayward.

On the Crowder front, with the exception of post 1929 I don't see anyone dismissing him. He is a good player on a great contract, but he is also expendable if the Celtics young wing depth is going to develop. Two things I think are true are: 1) the Cs needed to consolidate assets at some point in the next year or two and 2) this is a steep price to pay to do so. If you like Kyrie as much as they seem to, it's a decent gamble. I don't like him that much, but the more I chew on it the less I think it's insane. I agree that the Brooklyn pick is too much, but here we are.

Much like the trade deadline, I would love to not have the conversation here painted with the broad brush that is ####### Cs fans the internet over, as jmurph points out. It's a risky move that reasonable people can disagree about reasonably.

Edit: or what jmurph just said.
   1997. Moses Taylor, aka Hambone Fakenameington Posted: August 24, 2017 at 02:30 PM (#5520409)
I really don't think this is a thing that's happening. It's the same sort of caricaturing of the argument that happened at the trade deadline.

I don't mean for that to be the case - and I know a lot of the hedging about going for Butler during the season was in the context of not "gutting" the team midyear - but there was a lot (I did look a little, but don't really want to re-read all that and am not trying to play gotcha) - including you* - that was equating last year's pick and Crowder in terms of value (ie the Bulls could have one, but not the other), as well as that Butler wasn't enough of an upgrade on Crowder to be worth a big package.

Hell, just based on your rankings in this thread (IT 27, Kryie 28, Crowder 35), I don't know how you can get comfortable with this deal, and that doesn't include the pick. You can't value the one year of Kyrie** that much to make up for that much of your perceived value.

*Here's you on a really quick google: "Also this last day+ of Butler to Boston talk here has convinced me they should go all in for him, if he does actually become available. I'd try to keep either Crowder or this year's Nets pick, and feel like they should be able to put together a suitable deal that doesn't include both. But all that said, presumably Chicago isn't dumb enough to actually trade him." Ouch, that last line hurts me...
**FWIW, both Kyrie and Butler are signed for 2 more years (Butler would have been 2.5 at the deadline), and while Kyrie is younger both are still in their prime while under contact, you can't assume either would have/will resign, especially since Bos couldn't/can't offer either the supermax. So if this package wasn't worth Butler then, it shouldn't be worth Kyrie, an inferior player, now. Yes, last year's pick was almost assuredly going to have a higher shot at the top pick, there weren't any guarantees and FWIW it's sounding now like the 2018 draft is more top heavy than 2017 anyway.

So yeah, in your defense, there's a lot of shading in the lines here baked into this criticism, but I don't think it caricature. It's also fair for us to call out the bias as real.

(I'm rushing to get this done, so please be clear there's attempt to be overly confrontational here)
   1998. 2 dudes are better than STIGGLES; i'm both of em Posted: August 24, 2017 at 02:38 PM (#5520412)
Derek Bodner @DerekBodnerNBA
Joel Embiid made the #sixers all-time team in 2k as a reserve. Iggy and Jrue did as well, along with McKie.
   1999. jmurph Posted: August 24, 2017 at 02:46 PM (#5520419)
flippy
   2000. jmurph Posted: August 24, 2017 at 02:46 PM (#5520420)
floppy
Page 20 of 25 pages ‹ First  < 18 19 20 21 22 >  Last ›

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

News

All News | Prime News

Old-School Newsstand


BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Forsch 10 From Navarone (Dayn)
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogPat Neshek rips Zack Greinke for not signing autograph | SI.com
(17 - 2:15am, Sep 21)
Last: Baldrick

NewsblogThis is baseball’s home run breaking point | New York Post
(25 - 2:12am, Sep 21)
Last: Baldrick

NewsblogJosh Donaldson Wants You To Know: This Wasn’t A Catch
(48 - 1:49am, Sep 21)
Last: villageidiom

NewsblogOMNICHATTER'S not the man they think he is at home, oh, no, no, no, for September 20, 2017
(88 - 1:35am, Sep 21)
Last: LA Podcasting Hombre of Anaheim

Newsblog‘Friends,’ the Sitcom That’s Still a Hit in Major League Baseball
(325 - 1:26am, Sep 21)
Last: Baldrick

NewsblogOTP 18 September 2017: Ex-Baseball Star Darryl Strawberry Criticizes Jemele Hill, Praises POTUS: Trump is ‘A Great Man’
(674 - 1:23am, Sep 21)
Last: Ray (RDP)

NewsblogDayton Moore on why Royals did not sell | MLB.com
(13 - 12:59am, Sep 21)
Last: QLE

NewsblogYoenis Cespedes reveals his new offseason training plan | New York Post
(6 - 11:03pm, Sep 20)
Last: What did Billy Ripken have against ElRoy Face?

Gonfalon Cubs15 To Go
(67 - 11:01pm, Sep 20)
Last: Moses Taylor, aka Hambone Fakenameington

NewsblogMets' Jose Reyes: Continues late-season offensive bender
(17 - 10:38pm, Sep 20)
Last: Russlan thinks deGrom is da bomb

NewsblogA’s preferred stadium site criticized for causing gentrification, killing waterfowl | Field of Schemes
(59 - 9:39pm, Sep 20)
Last: Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant

NewsblogHow Tracking Technology Helped Baseball’s Best Fielding Outfielder - WSJ
(3 - 7:24pm, Sep 20)
Last: Sunday silence

NewsblogIf you’re the Red Sox, do you want to play the Indians or Astros in the divisional round of the playoffs?
(63 - 6:54pm, Sep 20)
Last: jacksone (AKA It's OK...)

NewsblogMust C: Five straight for Olson | MLB.com (video)
(12 - 5:08pm, Sep 20)
Last: Walt Davis

NewsblogOT-NBA off season thread
(2408 - 5:07pm, Sep 20)
Last: PASTE, Now with Extra Pitch and Extra Stamina

Page rendered in 0.6740 seconds
47 querie(s) executed