|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Apr 4, 2017 16:14:12 GMT -5
I wasn't thinking it would take a top 3 pick. More like if they get let's say a Jackson it could make it easier to trade Ingram. If you get a Ball you could move a Russell or Clarkson.
|
|
|
Post by texs31 on Apr 4, 2017 17:33:02 GMT -5
Agreed. And as you said, if they lose 17, they lose 19 as well. That would make it difficult to include any draft picks as part of a package.
|
|
|
Post by telluricrook on Apr 4, 2017 18:53:51 GMT -5
Looks like Lebron isnt going to get any rest tonight against the Magic!
|
|
|
Post by pedrofanforever45 on Apr 4, 2017 20:15:36 GMT -5
The Lakers future is all about if they get a top 3 pick, if they do they keep it and there 2019 pick. If not they lose picks in 2017 and 2019, karma I love it. It's going to be hard to trade for elite players without those picks. The Lakers can get free agents to go there, even without trading picks. Lakers fans would laugh at the Celtics when Westbrook and Paul George both signs there because of location.
|
|
|
Post by voiceofreason on Apr 4, 2017 20:47:49 GMT -5
Sad but true, most stars don't want to come to the Northeast.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Apr 4, 2017 21:16:57 GMT -5
The Lakers future is all about if they get a top 3 pick, if they do they keep it and there 2019 pick. If not they lose picks in 2017 and 2019, karma I love it. It's going to be hard to trade for elite players without those picks. The Lakers can get free agents to go there, even without trading picks. Lakers fans would laugh at the Celtics when Westbrook and Paul George both signs there because of location. If they can become good again, right now they can only get aging players like Deng by overpaying them. Ever since Howard left years ago they can't sign anyone. Unless they get a whole lot better they won't get George. The Lakers are so bad that players like Horford are signing in Boston and not even considering LA. They have a great history, but who was the last great free agent they got to sign there? Winning matters and the Lakers currently suck!
|
|
|
Post by telluricrook on Apr 4, 2017 22:48:26 GMT -5
The Lakers can get free agents to go there, even without trading picks. Lakers fans would laugh at the Celtics when Westbrook and Paul George both signs there because of location. If they can become good again, right now they can only get aging players like Deng by overpaying them. Ever since Howard left years ago they can't sign anyone. Unless they get a whole lot better they won't get George. The Lakers are so bad that players like Horford are signing in Boston and not even considering LA. They have a great history, but who was the last great free agent they got to sign there? Winning matters and the Lakers currently suck! Remember Demar Derozan didnt want to go there and its his hometown!
|
|
|
Post by pedrofanforever45 on Apr 4, 2017 23:44:03 GMT -5
The Lakers can get free agents to go there, even without trading picks. Lakers fans would laugh at the Celtics when Westbrook and Paul George both signs there because of location. If they can become good again, right now they can only get aging players like Deng by overpaying them. Ever since Howard left years ago they can't sign anyone. Unless they get a whole lot better they won't get George. The Lakers are so bad that players like Horford are signing in Boston and not even considering LA. They have a great history, but who was the last great free agent they got to sign there? Winning matters and the Lakers currently suck! Except Paul George and Westbrook are from LA. Not to mention all the promotional deals they'd get. It isn't always about winning with NBA players.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Apr 5, 2017 3:08:27 GMT -5
If they can become good again, right now they can only get aging players like Deng by overpaying them. Ever since Howard left years ago they can't sign anyone. Unless they get a whole lot better they won't get George. The Lakers are so bad that players like Horford are signing in Boston and not even considering LA. They have a great history, but who was the last great free agent they got to sign there? Winning matters and the Lakers currently suck! Except Paul George and Westbrook are from LA. Not to mention all the promotional deals they'd get. It isn't always about winning with NBA players. You can think those two players are going to go to Lakers all you want. I don't see it, not if there still a lottery team. Pacers and Thunder can offer those players more money. Again who was the last star player to go there? They have missed on those guys for years and years. Until they become a team on the rise they won't get any elite free agents. Crappy old Boston got Horford and had a chance at Durant! Why?? Because we are a good team that has a bright future and players certainly care about winning. LeBron didn't go back home to Cleveland because it was his hometown. He did it because they had Irving and the #1 pick, which they turned into Love.
|
|
|
Post by pedrofanforever45 on Apr 5, 2017 4:05:41 GMT -5
When Paul George and Westbrook sign in LA, I'm going to laugh and listen to you backtrack on how "it hasn't happened lately in the past so I had no reason to think they were signing there."
LA has Hollywood, promotional opportunities, good weather, and everything else that comes with LA. They'll have no problem getting a player that wants to go there without giving up anything.
|
|
rjp313jr
Veteran
Posts: 14,536
Member is Online
|
Post by rjp313jr on Apr 5, 2017 7:27:35 GMT -5
This is one of those no one can really win situations. LA has young talent so anyone can use the excuse they are an up and coming team. But I think anyone who pretends that LA isn't a free agent destination for players due to the weather and the LA nightlife/life style is fooling themselves. LA didn't get any real free agents last year and it had been a "while" by LA standards but they also didn't have cap space for a bunch of those years. Also, Kobe was a detractor not an attractor towards the end.
The narrative Boston cannot attract free agents had long been over blown and Horford and Durant put the argument to bed last year. The Celtics, literally have never had cap space to get a major free agent in the salary cap era until last season.
|
|
|
Post by texs31 on Apr 5, 2017 10:04:42 GMT -5
Back to Brooklyn, while it's true that they have no reason to tank, they have many reasons to try and turn their good players into future assets. We saw they were listening on Brook Lopez (how serious were they, given the reported demand of 2 1st rounders, remains to be seen) and their were even reports on RHJ.
Unless they are able to really improve their team this offseason (they DO have cap room but what will they spend it on?), they are a lottery team next year (not worst team in the league but still not a playoff team).
So then it's a question not of tanking but of turning their current assets (add Lin to the mix) into ones that might be a part of their future.
To count on that pick being one that can land you Porter, Doncic or Dayton is unwise but you're also not trading it JUST to get back into the lottery this year (in all likelihood).
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Apr 5, 2017 14:34:14 GMT -5
I would never say LA isn't a place players want to play, with all other things being equal. That's different than saying LA is such a draw that they can get elite players even if the team sucks. That's just not the case as we have seen for the past 10 years. They couldn't get DeMar to come home last year, he chose to stay in Toronto!
The reason Pedro has not answered my question twice now is that the last good free agent they signed was what Odom? The last truly elite guy was Shaq what 15 plus years ago.
They won't get truly elite free agents like George and Westbrook until that teams young talent becomes a lot better and starts to win. It could happen they could get a Ball or Jackson in this draft and there young players could really improve. Or they could lose there picks in 2017 and 2019 and there players don't ever become what anyone thought. Out of there young players Randle has the best PER at 16, just above league average. Russell is barely above league average. Clarkson is not even close to league average and Ingram might be the worst player in league to play major minutes.
Nevermind the fact that they don't have the cap space to sign both George and Westbrook without trading one or both of the two worst contracts given out last year. Oh yea and Westbrook signed an extension this year to stay with Thunder rather than become a free agent this year and sign with LA.
|
|
|
Post by texs31 on Apr 5, 2017 15:14:55 GMT -5
Those contracts are brutal. They are going to need to make trades to get top players (or draft them).
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Apr 5, 2017 15:19:20 GMT -5
Back to Brooklyn, while it's true that they have no reason to tank, they have many reasons to try and turn their good players into future assets. We saw they were listening on Brook Lopez (how serious were they, given the reported demand of 2 1st rounders, remains to be seen) and their were even reports on RHJ. Unless they are able to really improve their team this offseason (they DO have cap room but what will they spend it on?), they are a lottery team next year (not worst team in the league but still not a playoff team). So then it's a question not of tanking but of turning their current assets (add Lin to the mix) into ones that might be a part of their future. To count on that pick being one that can land you Porter, Doncic or Dayton is unwise but you're also not trading it JUST to get back into the lottery this year (in all likelihood). I don't trade that pick. For starters that type of trade almost never happens. I can't think of a trade like that ever, but I'm sure at some point it might have happened. While I don't see the Nets being the worst team again, I think it's a safe bet you get a top 10 pick and more likely a top 5-6 pick. Anything could happen injuries could again hurt that team and maybe they do have worst record. If a team was to make that trade it would be back of Lottery and even then I'm not sure what team would do it. The back of Lottery in this draft is stacked. I just don't see it. You also don't want to add another rookie next year in my opinion. Not with one high pick and Yabu and Zizic most likely coming over next year, nevermind if we keep one of our second round picks or bring up Nader. That's a ton of rookies on a team that's trying to win as it is. Though Zizic and Yabu won't be your typical rookies.
|
|
|
Post by texs31 on Apr 5, 2017 17:34:50 GMT -5
Agreed UMass. Unless a consolidation trade happens, it's going to be hard to get time for rookies. Even that top pick is going to be competing with either the guards or small forwards for time next year.
|
|
rjp313jr
Veteran
Posts: 14,536
Member is Online
|
Post by rjp313jr on Apr 5, 2017 20:57:38 GMT -5
At least the Celtics reminded everyone before the playoffs they are in a lower class.
|
|
wcp3
Veteran
Posts: 3,842
|
Post by wcp3 on Apr 5, 2017 21:53:26 GMT -5
Glad to see Stevens had his team ready to go in the biggest game of the season.
Also, for those of you who don't want the Celtics to extend Isaiah ... they were -18 in the first 6 minutes he sat out. During that time, they went from being up 1 to down 17 (and the game was effectively over).
And that stretch was no fluke. The plus/minus numbers have been borderline laughable for over a month now.
|
|
|
Post by Don Caballero on Apr 5, 2017 21:54:42 GMT -5
Hey at least the Lakers won, it's all about the Fultz.
|
|
|
Post by telluricrook on Apr 5, 2017 22:51:01 GMT -5
Isaiah showed up! He made all the right plays on offense he was getting to the basket and scoring and getting to the free throw line. And also kicking it out and finding open three point shooters but they couldnt hit them!
|
|
|
Post by pedrofanforever45 on Apr 6, 2017 5:29:27 GMT -5
I don't know how you beat LeBron James when he needs to win. The guy might be one of the three best players to ever play the game. Just nothing you can do but be in awe of the freak of nature. He's the ultimate mismatch versus anyone who guards him. Just got to keep building until he finally starts declining at some point. He hasn't started declining yet.
|
|
|
Post by texs31 on Apr 6, 2017 6:01:31 GMT -5
Glad to see Stevens had his team ready to go in the biggest game of the season. Also, for those of you who don't want the Celtics to extend Isaiah ... they were -18 in the first 6 minutes he sat out. During that time, they went from being up 1 to down 17 (and the game was effectively over). And that stretch was no fluke. The plus/minus numbers have been borderline laughable for over a month now. But are people just saying "remove Isaiah from this team and we'll be good"? Any ideas of not extending him should assume that he's been replaced by a top scorer in the lineup.
|
|
rjp313jr
Veteran
Posts: 14,536
Member is Online
|
Post by rjp313jr on Apr 6, 2017 8:01:53 GMT -5
The issue with extending Isaiah isn't about how he is today or even next season. It's how he is 2-6 seasons from now. How does he age? He's 5'9... Isaiah needs to be an an elite athlete with elite quickness to be effective. The good thing is we have another year to figure it out - if he's putting up 25+ a game next year and more importantly his three point shooting continues to improve then you extend him. That three point shot is the difference in my opinion. He won't lose that so you'll be protected against major decline. At some point you need to role the dice a bit and he's earned it, plus I think he feels the pride of wearing the Celtics uniform and he wants to be remembered as a great player. The only chance he has of being immortalized is here and he wants his number in the rafters.
|
|
wcp3
Veteran
Posts: 3,842
|
Post by wcp3 on Apr 6, 2017 8:13:51 GMT -5
Glad to see Stevens had his team ready to go in the biggest game of the season. Also, for those of you who don't want the Celtics to extend Isaiah ... they were -18 in the first 6 minutes he sat out. During that time, they went from being up 1 to down 17 (and the game was effectively over). And that stretch was no fluke. The plus/minus numbers have been borderline laughable for over a month now. But are people just saying "remove Isaiah from this team and we'll be good"? Any ideas of not extending him should assume that he's been replaced by a top scorer in the lineup. That's an awfully big assumption to make, and it goes back to my view that people on this board are weirdly underrating him. He obviously has some flaws, but he's one of 20 best players and 5 best scorers in the game. That's not easy to replace. There are also multiple people on here who want them to extend Bradley over Isaiah, which is just bizarre. And that's coming from a HUGE Bradley fan.
|
|
|
Post by texs31 on Apr 6, 2017 8:29:06 GMT -5
My hesitation to extend IT (and I'm not 100% in either direction currently) is NOT about his performance on this team. Anyone who thinks THIS Boston team is better without him is nuts.
But extending him is not about that? It's about:
1. Does IT get max? 2. Are you paying for the tail end given his style of play, age and wear and tear? 3. While a fun ride, is his prime REALLY coinciding with Boston being a true contender for the NBA timing? 4. Are you getting a star PG in the next draft? 5. Are you able to get a 20+PPG scorer either in trade or in free agency?
It's why I'm not at 100%. So many of those questions have yet to be answered (specifically #4 and #5, which would be REQUIRED to move on from IT - though not necessarily clinching his departure).
|
|