SoxProspects News
|
|
|
|
Legal
Forum Ground Rules
The views expressed by the members of this Forum do not necessarily reflect the views of SoxProspects, LLC.
© 2003-2024 SoxProspects, LLC
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Home | Search | My Profile | Messages | Members | Help |
Welcome Guest. Please Login or Register.
Recent Posts
|
Post by ctfisher on Jul 3, 2017 9:22:00 GMT -5
I'd say our chances are low we get Hayward. I feel like he's Miami bound. It was eerily quiet about their meeting yesterday. It sounds like we may know as early as tonight. I really don't see Miami. He doesn't seem like the guy to go for the south beach lifestyle, doesn't seem like he'd care too much about the lack of state income tax. I think if he leaves Utah he comes here. Not sure he'll do that, but I think we have easily a way more compelling argument that if he wants to compete, this is where he should be
|
|
|
Post by ctfisher on Jun 26, 2017 13:11:12 GMT -5
SSS and history says otherwise, but Hanley is really struggling vs LHP thus far in 2017. Also for what it's worth, Travis has shown pretty wide platoon splits so I'm not sure what good it would do only starting him vs righties - kinda doubt he'd outproduce hanley in that context myself
|
|
|
Post by ctfisher on Jun 25, 2017 8:46:24 GMT -5
I wonder if you could make a trade with the spurs and get Aldridge? Rumor's have the spurs looking at moving him. He would seem to fit with Brad's system. What to trade though? Spurs were looking to trade into the top-10 of the draft I heard. I'm also 95% sure I saw Greg poppovich at a pizza place in Boston last Tuesday night, so maybe they talked about it? If it happens though, it won't be the first domino to fall. I do like Aldridge though and his contract wouldn't be tough to swallow - I think he's only got 2 years left. I could see the Spurs loving crowder and maybe one of our younger guards, but I don't know if you can make the salaries add up cause we really don't have any bad contracts that we need to get rid of at this stage and Aldridge is making a combined $43m over the next two years assuming he picks up his player option
|
|
|
Post by ctfisher on Jun 20, 2017 8:37:50 GMT -5
Jackson and Tatum are both really good players. I would be happy with either. While Jackson has a higher ceiling, Tatum has the higher floor. Outside of Fultz, Tatum has the second highest floor in top 5. The only thing is that most reports say the Suns want Fox, not Jackson. It's why Kings want to jump to 3 to get Fox. Danny always airs on the side of upside imo. The Jeff Greene pick and the Brown picks are great examples of this. I do think the Celtics would take Tatum at number three though if Jackson is off the table. It all depends on what the Lakers do actually. The Lakers have a great chance to pee in the Celtics pool with the Jackson scenario. If the Suns truly want Jackson, they could trade up with the Lakers and take the 2 pick and take Jackson. The Lakers might do this because they could feel they might still get Ball at number 4 with the Suns pick. I'm not totally sure the Lakers would want to strengthen the Suns in the western conference however. I do think this is the reason why the Celtics are working out Tatum though. Jeff green isn't exactly a great example there given we made that pick for Seattle at the time. I'd also say that smart is an example of a high floor pick rather than a high ceiling, and on top of that we took Kelly olynyk the pick or maybe 2 picks before Giannis antetokounpo (however you spell that). Danny has been a very good draft gm, but I don't buy the narrative that he always goes upside over everything else - there's plenty of examples of him passing on big upside guys for players he thought had a clear fit on the roster
|
|
|
Post by ctfisher on Jun 15, 2017 9:08:30 GMT -5
Not that I'm deeply opposed to the idea of making a deal for Franco, he's been noticeably sub-replacement level this year and hasn't been very good previously in the majors either. I'm pretty sure he'd come a lot cheaper than moustakas, even if you add a premium to account for the team control. Moustakas is playing at an all star level and Franco is playing like he should be in AAA. He's had some tough batted ball luck clearly, but even so I'd be shocked if the phils could get a better return for him than Kc could get for moustakas, and I'd be inclined to believe they wouldn't want to trade him this year at all unless he goes on a tear to boost his trade value again
|
|
|
Post by ctfisher on Jun 13, 2017 23:00:26 GMT -5
I don't think they duplicate each other at all or at least not in a way that they cannot play with one another. This isn't about Jackson vs Brown for me it's just Fultz is easily the best player in this draft and that's who we should take. Trading down for two lessor players is not the formula to win in the NBA. The Celtics don't have one player right now who can be a top 3 on a title team any time soon. The best hope they have is Brown, Fultz and next years pick. I should have put this better: in terms of the role he'd play for us next year, it would likely be similar to what Brown did this year, but Jackson isn't, in my view, a good fit for that role. Crowder is going to be the guy that defends multiple positions and plays small ball 4- it's perfectly possible that Jackson would be better in that role in a couple of years, but that's not really a spot where we need an upgrade. Another guy who can shoot/create for himself off the dribble is much more of a need than a versatile defender who would likely be a below average nba offensive player at least for next year. Behind improved rebounding and legit rim protection, more guys who can create offense without being defensive liabilities would be my aim, and to give Isaiah space to work that means shooting. I'd agree that Fultz is the best prospect in the draft, but basically I think on principle that, if you don't have a guy you consider a generational prospect like James or Durant or someone similar and you're as good of a team as the Celtics are right now, you should always see what's out there, particularly in a draft with as much depth as this one. I don't think Fultz is that kind of prospect, and while I think his skill set is a good fit, he doesn't address the biggest needs we have. If you can find a package that keeps you young, gives you upside and plugs those gaps, you have to consider it - I don't know if it's out there, but I think Danny will be looking or at least listening
|
|
|
Post by ctfisher on Jun 13, 2017 10:03:46 GMT -5
Jackson cancelled his workout with the Celtics and Fultz is meeting with the Lakers this week. Not sure what any of it means but it's odd that Jackson would cancel with the Celtics. Some think the Cs would draft him over Fultz. I started to talk myself into him but I want the scorer in Fultz. We've drafted defensive guys with broken shots twice recently (Smart and Brown) and we made out with Brown's shot not being bad but didn't with Marcus. I'd rather the mature kid who has had to work for his standing that can score to the immature kid who has always been the man who struggles to score. If you consider fit I really don't think Jackson makes any sense- admittedly length and athleticism make him versatile, but in the short run he basically exactly duplicates jaylens skill set except he's a little longer and a worse shooter. I do think if malik monk were a little higher on draft boards he's a guy we'd think about moving down for- I think he's kindof a perfect fit, a guy who should be able to be lethal moving without the ball right off the bat, elite athlete with at least something of an off-the-bounce game already. I wouldn't hate the idea of moving down with the Kings and maybe seeing if you could get 5 and 10 from them and grab monk and Collins- I'm not sure either team does that deal but I'd definitely think about it. I'd also be poking around willie Cauley stein in case there's a deal to be made there, I still think he'd be a perfect fit for this team
|
|
|
Post by ctfisher on Jun 6, 2017 8:59:29 GMT -5
Yea that makes sense, i've just never seen a picked protected for lottery, then being protected in back of first round as to make sure you get a mid first round pick. To make sure you get a pick in the 14-20 range or the pick rolls over. Usually it's just lottery protected and that protection decreases over time or the new thing of turning into two second round picks after a set time. Yea I believe the Lowry trade was the one I was thinking about- just remembered reading a Zach Lowe piece about a deal like that a while ago. I know that specifically trying to lock in a pick between 10-20 or something like that hasn't been done, but it is possible to structure protections that way, and it might make sense in a scenario like this. Alternately we could just have it say top 15 protected next year, then top 12, top 10 and then just get 2 second rounders if it hasn't conveyed by then. This is all spitballing though- I like the idea of getting back into the mid-late lottery for either Markannen or Collins if they're available and Bradley or crowder seem to be the only viable way to do so. Frankly after this years playoffs I'd be much more inclined to keep Bradley all things being equal, but I think crowder is better suited to slide into a lesser offensive role and adds more positional flexibility, so my guess is he's sticking around, although I bet we could move into the 6-10 range if we were willing to include him in a deal- bet thibs would love to have him, for one
|
|
|
Post by ctfisher on Jun 5, 2017 11:35:03 GMT -5
We have the Jeff Teague trade from last year to go by. The Hawks got the #12 pick for him. He had one year remaining on deal, just like Bradley. Considering this years draft is stronger at the top than last year, the #12 pick seems like fair value. Now I would for sure jump on a trade if they included another 1st. Only thing I don't think I've ever seen protection on a pick like what your thinking 14-20 is only way it conveys. It would be more like lottery protected or top 20 protected. I wouldn't mind getting Henry Ellenson either. He hardly played last year, but he could replace KO as a stretch big. Though the #12 pick and Ellenson is cutting the money really tight. Can't remember which team it was that did this, but I saw a deal in the last 2 years where a team added protections to prevent a pick from conveying if it were in the top or bottom 10 of the first round. I think Dallas was involved in the deal but I don't remember on which end
|
|
|
Post by ctfisher on Jun 2, 2017 13:15:54 GMT -5
CT you think you can get the #12 pick in a loaded draft and another first or a pick swap? That just sounds like a too good to be true type return. Like I said I love the idea of getting a pick this year for Bradley. It just seems like a long-shot. It requires them to move Bradley before they know anything else. That seems anti Ainge with the way he has done business recently. It's more like keep all options available as long as he can. No max free agent and you could trade Bradley for more salary or package him in a bigger deal. I just love the draft idea. A guy like Bam is a great fit in my opinion. He's raw, but his size and athletic ability is like the Clips Jordan. He is just a force in the paint. The type of player that would make Irving and LeBron think twice about getting easy bucketts at the rim. I don't know if that would be on the table, but if it were I would do it. I think the way Bradley showed up in the playoffs really helped his stock and I'm sure Detroit would love to add a guy like him. I also think that they likely would make a real run at the playoffs with Avery on board so either we'd be looking at a mid-late 1st with the 2nd pick or we could structure protections on it so it only conveys if it falls between, say 14-20, and otherwise it rolls over. It's really tough to know what bradleys value on the trade market would be though- I suspect that if he leaves Boston after next year he'd probably get 4 years for $100m, and I don't know what another team would give up for a year of that player at $8m and the inside track on retaining him after. That's a deal I would do if it were out there though, and I don't think it's beyond the realm of sanity I agree that dealing bradley before the big chip(s) fall in free agency would not be Ainge-like, but given that we have a viable group of guards to basically replace his production, and that if he has to deal Avery to clear cap for a Hayward he might get squeezed on the return, I think he might pull the trigger early. At least if he got the right offer I think he'd jump on it- I don't know what that deal would look like for him though
|
|
|
Post by ctfisher on Jun 1, 2017 17:04:45 GMT -5
Per Chad Ford, Collins is now projected to go top-10, otherwise I'd say if we could move Bradley for Detroit's pick this year and either a pick swap next year or maybe a protected pick that will roll over for a couple of years before becoming unprotected then I'd do it in a second. I think Collins is a very good player and a perfect fit here. Maybe that'll pan out on draft night. Guys like Leaf and Markkanen would be nice ways to replace kelly on the cheap with maybe some upside as well in Markkanen's case (he doesn't have t-rex arms like Kelly and I could see him developing into a better defender if he can add some muscle), but I'd be hoping for more than a late lottery pick for avery the way he played this postseason.
In terms of dealing bradley or smart, I've thought Bradley was the logical choice there for some time. He's going to be more expensive, is more expensive now, and is also a more valuable player in the short run. I also think that if you're assuming we also pick up Hayward and Fultz in this scenario, we actually might be looking at our best/closeout lineup outside of the 2 being thomas-hayward-crowder-horford. If you add smart to that, his lack of shooting doesn't present as much of an issue because everyone else on the floor ranges from competent to deadly if left open. Maybe if you add a more conventional center, say Dedmon for the sake of argument, your starting lineup becomes thomas-fultz-hayward-horford-Dedmon- I don't mind that at all personally, especially because it gives us the flexibility to play 4 out around dedmon or 5 out with horford and still keep something of a traditional big on the floor, while also hopefully giving us the ability to match up with bigger frontcourts/teams like Chicago/Washington or even Cleveland.
I can see the appeal of using Fultz as a backup point to get him more reps on the ball initially, but in this scenario I think you'd see him playing a bunch of minutes with combo type guys like rozier and smart, where he could take stints as the primary ball handler and you still get to keep his length and shooting on the floor. If we can find a way to turn bradley into Collins, so much the better- he actually has something of a jump shot as well, and I've been forgetting about Zizic. Basically, I don't think you lose a ton if you flip bradley and are able to plug another roster hole- we're pretty well equipped to handle losing a guard, but we still have a dearth of quality bigs
|
|
|
Post by ctfisher on May 31, 2017 11:49:51 GMT -5
Umass, didn't want to quote the last post cause the length was getting excessive, but yea, i don't think you throw money at griffin cause I basically think that we'd be entirely stagnant. You're going to have to make a bunch of decisions on guys in the next two years anyway- projecting exactly what the cap situation will look like is a fools errand, and it's even more dicey trying to project what they could do in order to create cap space down the road. I don't think we'd even really get worse this year- I think if we could add dedmon, for example, I'd be much more interested in small ball lineups with crowder at the 4 and brown at the 3 than a similar lineup with olynyk on the floor. Besides which, there really is no guarantee that we keep Thomas beyond next season, even if I favor doing so.
To make my point in the simplest possible terms, don't sacrifice flexibility, both in terms or actual lineups you can put on the court and in terms of roster construction/cap space unless you're going to get a guy who clearly addresses major needs. Suggesting that we should sign griffin this offseason still means losing olynyk, and likely dealing one of our young guards (who may become much more important depending on what happens to Bradley and Thomas). You lose depth for a guy who I personally don't believe even gets you to game 6 with Cleveland, so what's the point?
Last piece of this: even if you keep one eye on next summer/george, you can re-sign olynyk if the price is right. In fact, you can be aggressive across the board in free agency as long as you're confident you're not overpaying and the contracts you sign are tradeable, which probably means on the lower end of the scale salary wise. If you sign griffin, you've basically made your move, and there's no context in which I can see Blake griffin elevating this team to a title contender and I kindof doubt I'm alone in that
|
|
|
Post by ctfisher on May 30, 2017 21:53:35 GMT -5
I guess i just don't understand loving Horford, but worrying about Griffin. As of right now there is no signs of decline, I sure don't see him becoming a pumkin in 4 years. Horford on the other hand was already in decline and that continued last year. Griffin is a more dynamic scorer that gets to the line at an elite level. Something this team really needs. He also plays team ball as he's a great passer, seems like a great fit. Sure you would want a rim protector, but not at the cost of getting a talent like Griffin. Our cap space is gone after this year, so it's not like we can wait till next year to target a better player. If no Hayward, your options are Griffin, then players like Green, Dedmon or trading for a Chandler. I'm only moving onto a player like Chandler if you can't get an elite free agent. Getting a Favors isn't a slam dunk if you can't trade Chrowder and the Jazz don't have the need. Two reasons: we're already locked into Hereford, and even if you think the cap space is gone after this year, adding another guy at a ~$30m a year clip that's a clunky roster fit with the team we have in place doesn't make sense to me because it's not impossible that we could stand pat this offseason and try to clear space to sign George or someone else as a free agent next year before using bird rights to retain Thomas/Bradley/whoever. Flexibility is always useful- Griffin takes away from that and I'm not sure he'd do anything close to putting us over the top in the East. I think if you strike out on Hayward this offseason and you don't swing a deal for a different star, the goal should be maintaining as much flexibility as possible going forward, filling out the bench with solid vets, and maybe doing some bargain hunting for big guys who can block shots and rebound. It's not in the end that I think Griffin would be bad or wouldn't help the team, and if we hadn't already signed Horford I would be very much in favor of going after Blake. As is, I don't think it would make sense to deal Horford, and because I don't think Griffin fits next to him well at all I don't think we should go after him, particularly because we'd have to give up solid players in order to get him. I think our best case if we signed Griffin would be 57-60 wins, maybe the one seed again, but I don't think we'd give Cleveland many problems when it comes down to it, particularly given that we'd be playing with a somewhat stripped down bench
|
|
|
Post by ctfisher on May 30, 2017 16:18:21 GMT -5
Injuries are certainly a big concern with Griffin, and he's older than you'd think (28 already). But I think he's still a really, really good player when healthy. He's not just a lob-finisher-- he's also a really good post player and a great passer, and he has untapped three-point potential (he's been solid on long twos (in the low 40s) and shot decently (33.6%) from three last season on a career-high number of attempts (2.0 per 36; more than doubled his previous high)). He'd also fit in well with this roster as a dynamic pick-and-roll player with Thomas and a sweet high-low combo with Horford. If they can get comfortable with his medicals, I'd be comfortable extending him a max contract. That's a big if, though. I think in the NBA of 5 years ago I'd be pumped about the idea of pairing griffin wth horford but the league has changed and I think essentially aside from athleticism and rebounding, which in griffins case are closely linked and things I wouldn't want to rely on long term, horford is better at all of the other aspects of griffins game that you mentioned. Perhaps they're equal as passers, and griffin might be a better post player at least for now, but I think horford is savvier in the post and a much better shooter with a much longer track record. He came into the league as a guy with a knockdown 15-18 footer and has become a legit threat on solid volume from 3. If we're adding a big next to horford in my view it should be someone who covers for his deficiencies, not replicates his skill set, and to me, a legit rim protector might be more important than a high level rebounder who doesn't also play quality defense, which is how I see Blake
|
|
|
Post by ctfisher on May 29, 2017 15:27:57 GMT -5
There are a ton of teams that need a 3B. I bet they wait at least 2 more months until trading him to let the bidding go til the end. The only team I can think of is maybe the Yankees and they have their best prospect developing at AAA at third base this season. So they're essentially in exactly the same situation as us- maybe Torres is a little further along, but it's not like we couldn't have justified moving devers to AAA at exactly the same time they promoted Torres. If we should be thinking about making this move, then they should too, or vice versa. Also, there's always going to be a market for talented guys like moustakas- if we were able to make the kind of deal you're suggesting (say chavis, buttrey and maybe a lottery ticket plus maybe some salary for them to eat) why would another team not try to top that if the move were being made now? Teams that are way further out than us can still get back in the race, and other teams that might not have an obvious need would probably be interested. Sano is something of a butcher at 3b, why wouldn't minnesota take a flyer on moustakas and move sano to 1b or Dh? The Giants are only 8 below .500 with a good pitching staff and a 3b hitting below the mendoza line with no power. You already pointed to the Yankees. I don't know what's happened with beltre, but I could see Texas making a run and moving Gallo. Either way, the royals are going to wait it out for exactly this reason- the nearer the trade deadline, the clearer the market is, but to get him now we'd have to pay a premium for that exact reason. In theory I'd like it if we got moustakas, but I don't think that he's going to be nearly as cheap as you seem to
|
|
|
Post by ctfisher on May 29, 2017 14:44:17 GMT -5
Don't really get the love for signing griffin- he's consistently injured (or has been for several years now) and his game is very dependent on athleticism to be an elite player. If you think about what Blake would be if he couldn't/when he can't jump out of the gym, it will probably look a lot like horford- excellent passer for a big, smart player who's roughly average size for his position, isn't a defensive liability but isn't a difference maker either on that end. By the end of a max deal for him I think we'd have serious buyers remorse even if he stays largely healthy. I can't think of a lot of guys his size with his kind of skill set that aged well. He's not a good enough shooter or defensive player to move his game further out or cover a drop in scoring/efficiency by doing more defensively.
Beyond this, and I don't think it's a huge issue but it's not nothing, there are legit concerns about his effect on team chemistry. Breaking his hand on a staffers face was an idiotic thing to do, and there have been reports for years that he couldn't get along with chris paul. I wouldn't honesty care about the latter point if it didn't seem like it had actually leaked on to the court at times- those clipper teams from like 2011-2014 felt like underachievers to me in the playoffs and I can't help but think that those issues played a role. There are way too many questions for me beyond the questionable fit to throw a ton of money at him- I'd much rather stand pat in free agency that go after griffin just cause we strike out on Hayward
|
|
|
Post by ctfisher on May 27, 2017 11:46:31 GMT -5
Ctfisher you don't trade the #1 pick in this draft for one year of anyone! I don't trade it for one year of LeBron! I most likely don't trade it for George at all, but if I did he has to sign extension for me to make trade. In NBA you take best player and work it out later. What I said was, look into that if you can get him to tack on an additional year off the bat. It would be a calculated risk that getting him in the fold on a winning team that has a much better chance of making noise than Indy would sell him on staying, and also that the lakers likely wouldn't be willing to wait long enough to keep waiting to sign him. In that scenario he'd also be leaving a ton of money on the table if he left, and he'd likely be leaving to go to a worse team. There has been no buzz about him going elsewhere, so that's a risk I'd be willing to take. You say you take the best player and work it out later- it's pretty clear that Paul George is the best player in that conversation. It's not about shying away from making the pick because of a roster crunch- it's about making the most efficient use of those resources. I'd rather use that pick to add Paul george under the right circumstances than fultz, because with george added to the core we already have next year we might actually be one meaningful Cleveland injury away from going to the finals. With all that said, I'm not at all opposed to staying put and taking fultz- I just think that Danny needs to look at all the options out there and keeping the pick is definitely not a no brainer
|
|
|
Post by ctfisher on May 26, 2017 12:28:10 GMT -5
I still think taking a longer look at a deal for george which features smart or rozier and this years first of george opts in to next year or signs an extension to cover that year at a higher salary would be a good idea. george is a better fit and a better overall player in my view, although I do think losing this years pick is not ideal. Still, if one of them has to go I'd say it should be this one- it's more valuable (being #1 in a deep draft) and there's no optimal fit for the roster. In fact, the guy we all view as the best option for that pick would be adding another player at the position at which we're deepest.
Aside from that, I think the scenario which has already been outlined would be a great outcome, although I think a guy like Nader needs to be emergency depth at best at this stage. I'd be fine with bringing back green, maybe even Johnson (although I'd prefer that 3rd/4th big to have a little more size). I like everything I've heard about zizic and yabusele looks like a beast with a lot more skill/athleticism than you'd expect, but I wouldn't want to go into the year counting on them to be significant contributors, although I wouldn't be shocked if they were
|
|
|
Post by ctfisher on May 24, 2017 9:00:44 GMT -5
What it comes down to for me is keeping Bradley and Smart. Sure these guys aren't superstars but they are sure bets to be there defensively every night, even if their offense is not there. Also, their ages are still in a good range in order to want to extend these players. Realistically though one of those guys is going- smarts an RFA after next season, bradleys unrestricted and is probably in line for at least $20m, and that's not even considering whether or not you want the option to keep Isaiah, wherever you come down on that. I'd also be shocked if some team didn't throw a pretty big offer sheet at Marcus to mess with us if nothing more
|
|
|
Post by ctfisher on May 23, 2017 7:40:33 GMT -5
Every time a player gets promoted it's an adjustment for him both on the field, in the Club House and personal life (like where do I live? What do I do? Who do I hang out with? Etc.)... I think we overlook that aspect of it sometimes and don't realize how stressful and mentally draining all those things are. That's why, I am torn on if promoting Devers to AAA first even makes sense... you make him go through on those adjustments, finally find a groove then move him to the majors to do it all again? Idk make its irrelevant, maybe it's not. Either way, I hope he keeps producing and is in Boston by end of June. If they feel he needs AAA at bats, which in the past they haven't required of guys, then he should be promoted to AAA within a week or so. No matter what happens with Devers, Chavis should be on a separate time frame. I understand the calls for promoting him but this is a guy who is finally having success and only has 172 high A plate appearances. The jump he's about to make is huge. I always say try not to judge a guy's success in the minors until he shows it in AA. I would like his track record of success to be longer than it currently is to help build a foundation for him to use at the higher levels if/when he struggles to adjust. That's all fair on Chavis, but the guy is torching Carolina league pitching. He's cut his k rate, bumped his walk rate and he's got a .360 ISO right now- he can't really prove anything more unless he is promoted, although I can see an argument for waiting for a milestone to move him. Still I do think he and devers should both be promoted as soon as chavis can actually play the field on a relatively every day basis- it can't hurt devers to get AAA at bats before being called up and he also doesn't seem to have a ton left to prove right now
|
|
|
Post by ctfisher on May 19, 2017 8:16:13 GMT -5
Let's play a scenario where Danny cannot sign Hayward or another max guy... what should he do? I think you guys know where I stand as far as trading the picks go... I wouldn't trade either Nets pick at this point... I am not giving up the opportunity to potentially draft my own big 3 for a guy like Jimmy Butler (I watched him not compete in that Bulls series - thank you no thank you). Think about it: Fultz is compared to Westbrook and Harden Brown is like a young Butler Then next years draft is a deep one again but with 4/5 players instead of guards... how perfect is that? Seriously, we can't draw it up any more perfectly. Don't pass on that chance. As far as free agency goes at that point... If they cut Zeller and Mickey, and renounce the rights to all FA but KO, I think they should have about 20m in cap space and 3 open roster spots. They might bring back a guy like Amir on a 2 year deal with a team option on the second year... maybe they can get McGee away from Memphis with a big contract offer... maybe Greg Monroe's value will be lower and the Celtics will find value in his defense (pretty good last year) and rebounding combined with his good low post scoring... he can't shoot tho so that lack of range isn't what the Celtics do... second unit guy might be different... or maybe they can trade for Paul George on a one year rental without giving up a Nets pick. Kelly, Smart, our 2018 first and the Clippers or Memphis first. Pacers new regime may want young players and a fresh start. I don't think they're going to sign Hayward and then limiti him to 30 minutes a night, but beyond that, while I can see not wanting to give up this years pick for George, you're not getting him without at least throwing next years nets pick. There's no way they're taking a couple of solid young role players and a likely mid 1st for him- they're not the kings. If you don't want to deal either pick, you can't expect to make a deal for a star realistically Also, while you're entirely within your rights to not want butler on this team, i don't know what player you've been watching to say that he doesn't compete. The guy has been playing with one of the highest workloads in the league for the last couple years and has improved every single year, and he carried them in the 2nd halves of both of the first 2 games the way I remember things
|
|
|
Post by ctfisher on Apr 4, 2017 14:47:37 GMT -5
As for Bradley it's the same things as always. Playing with Thomas is going to hurt your numbers. His RPM went down the minute Thomas showed up. Second while he probably is the best on ball defender among guards, I don't think Bradley is one of the best overall defenders at guard like some people think. His lack of size hurts him. He's at his best guarding ball dominant PGs, like Curry. Thing is he's a SG, not a PG. Play him with Smart for 30 mins a night and his defensive stats would look a lot better, I just don't think they would ever be truly elite. I'm no expert but I've also seen things that suggest his help and off ball defense isn't all that good. So like you mention he's a great on ball one v one defender but not a great team defender. I think this is all absolutely true, but there's still a ton of value in having an on ball stopper like that- probably don't beat Cleveland last game without Bradley hitting a big 3 and smothering kyrie late
|
|
|
Post by ctfisher on Mar 13, 2017 10:59:03 GMT -5
Just looking at the bigger names: Price and Sale/Porcello will cost upwards of $60m annually. Rodriguez will add probably $10-15m depending on if he's an early or late extension (optimistically). That's $70 minimum for the first 3/5 of the rotation. Wright would also need to be extended, and fifth starters (if he's not substantially better) are $15m a year by then. Betts and Bogaerts would be likely nearly $50m annually combined in five years if they're both extended. Pedroia adds another $13m or so (although I doubt he's still remotely the player he is today in five years). And JBJ would be a $20m a year player. That's over $150m (not including Wright) and you still need to account for late-arb Benintendi, extensions for Swihart/Vazquez, another starter, Devers or another 3b, and the ENTIRE bullpen, plus a 1b and your bench. It's not feasible. Unless they get some fantastic deals on extensions, some big names are gonna go, and that's going to significantly negatively impact their chances of winning in 2019-2021, when they are forced to make those tough choices. I personally suspect that Bradley is going to end up dealt or signing somewhere else- he's a Boras client who will probably be able to make a convincing argument that he should be paid like a middle of the order kind of bat who's also a gold glover, but offensively he's streaky enough to make me worry, and I think he's benefited from being something like the 5-6th best bat in our lineup over the past couple of years. On top of that, I think it's unlikely that we extend both Vazquez and Swihart- one will emerge eventually, and it's usually not overly difficult to find a solid backup comparatively cheap. Whatever you think about the farm system, it will likely produce at least a couple of cheap bullpen arms as well. I think its clear that not all of the impact players on this years team will still be around 3-5 years from now, but to suggest that they will be a bad team by 2020 is pushing a worst case scenario on us. At some point, we'll have to pick one of Porcello and Sale or dealing Price if theres a market for him, Swihart vs. Vazquez, and which 2 (hopefully) between Bogaerts, Betts and Bradley to keep. You're also assuming that we need to sign a 5th starter- given the time frame we're looking at, there's a decent chance that Groome is plugged in there assuming he doesn't bust, and a not insignificant chance that we produce another fungible starter from the system over that time frame as well, to say nothing of producing a number of solid bullpen arms, which I think is a solid bet. Forecasting what the roster will look like that far out is a fools errand, but I think we can say with confidence that 3 of Benintendi, Bradley, Bogaerts and Betts will still be on the roster, 2 of Sale Price and Porcello, Rodriguez should be in his last year of team control without an extension, and there are at least a few spots that are likely filled by young players on rookie contracts. You have to be relatively pessimistic about player development and how the Sox will operate to get to that $150m number, and even if you do get there, you're still looking at about $70m to get to the tax to spend on the rest of the team- that doesn't sound unreasonable with that core in place
|
|
|
Post by ctfisher on Feb 13, 2017 14:00:53 GMT -5
Here is a thought that would take some guts from Danny and I can't totally disagree with considering IT has the lowest defensive rating in the league. Do the C's want to build a tough defensive team for the future? If so IT might not be the best fit. There is a link to another article outlining many trade options at the bottom of this one. Food for thought at the least. hoopshabit.com/2017/02/12/boston-celtics-time-trade-isaiah-thomas/I think that's ridiculous. They were a top-5 defense in the league last year and this year he's playing 2 more minutes per game and suddenly you can't have good defense and Isaiah on the floor? On top of that, he's the most efficient high volume scorer in the league this year, and he actually makes an effort on defense if you watch him closely- obviously his size puts a pretty serious ceiling on what he can do on that end, although I think if he could work on timing he ought to have the quickness and hands to push his steal numbers a little higher if nothing else. As it relates to that article, it would make sense if we needed to bottom out and add picks, but we're stacked with promising young players and have the worst team in the league's 1st rounders this year and next. It makes no sense to double down there, and Thomas would be a key element of drawing free agents or convincing a disgruntled star to waive a no trade clause or sign as part of a trade-and-extend deal. The ideal scenario for us in my view is this: include Bradley in a trade for a big man- ideally a Chandler type, but I wouldn't go after Chandler himself because he's old and signed for 3 more years still. I've heard the magic are exploring an Ibaka deal, which intrigues me because he would allow us to stay athletic and stretch the floor while immediately being the best rim protector on the roster and hopefully helping with rebounding. We might even be able to get something else out of them as well, because I think bradley is an excellent fit with their current roster, and Ibaka is aging a little bit and is a free agent after the season. Longer term, I don't know who would be an ideal target- Nerlens, Willie Cauley-Stein, guys who rebound, block shots, dunk and ideally with the capability to switch pick and rolls on the perimeter and not get exposed. Then, assuming everything breaks right, you use the #1 pick and take fultz, who has the size and skill set to play the 2 next to isaiah, or initially come off the bench behind Smart. When isaiah is set to go to free agency, you re-evaluate where you stand- if Smart hasn't been dealt and both he and whoever else we draft this year look like a they're capable of providing you better all around play than smart and thomas, then you flip thomas to the highest bidder and move forward with an excellent young core, but ideally I'd much rather keep isaiah around- you can't teach a guy to push himself to that next level when it really matters, and I can't believe that that wouldn't be a key element for a playoff team.
|
|
|
Post by ctfisher on Jan 28, 2017 11:19:55 GMT -5
No denying he is arrogant but he might actually have something here. Supposedly for the banned substance he was only doing over the counter GNC supplements. Yes, he should have looked into it more but, if that's the case, it's not like as if he was intentionally doing PEDS. Also, supposedly, on the broken hand, a bad move yes but he was said to be keeping his roommate from doing something stupid. He was not disciplined by the Sox. Fact is, only insiders are likely to know the real case and it may not actually be "makeup issues", only bad choices. There's a difference. ADD: Keith also at one point commented that Groome's draft issue was not a big deal and was overblown. As he put it, it's not like he hit his girlfriend or anything remotely similar. My guess, pure guess, an inconsequential misdemeanor as a minor which means it can't be reported. Minor in possession of alcohol, for example. Lol, I got one of those when I was 18 and I rarely drink now. I spent my last night at home before shipping off to Viet Nam in Hampton Beach jail for 1 beer. If Keith Law actually knows the "real story" (about kopech) as a member of the media he can report it. If he is not confident enough in his sources, he can stop pretending to have solid information. If he has solid information and makes the choice that it should not be reported, he probably should not refer to it at all. Well that's kindof ridiculous- regarding the PED's, it's public knowledge that what he tested positive for was a weight loss drug, so the concerns around that are probably pretty minimal. Regarding the fight, Law probably can't reveal details without compromising a source, but does that mean he shouldn't be able to say, I've talked to people with knowledge of the incident and they don't see it as an issue? Cause to me, that makes no sense- he's paid to evaluate prospects, and use his contacts within baseball to find out scouts' consensus and dig deeper on things like this, but these things never become common knowledge beyond injuries or suspensions, when we get the bare minimum of facts
|
|
|