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.
Boston Celtics 2016-17 Season Discussion
|
|
Post by pedrofanforever45 on May 19, 2017 20:25:14 GMT -5
I mean this is humiliating and humbling.
|
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on May 19, 2017 20:27:19 GMT -5
I mean this is humiliating and humbling. Hopefully it shows Danny the right thing is to try and get Hayward and take the longer road with the picks. I think it's possible this core can win a championship in 3 years with the young studs they can draft and develop and be entertaining and exciting during that time. |
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on May 19, 2017 20:29:15 GMT -5
LeBron is 32... his steroids are probably due for a torn ACL within the next couple years
|
|
|
|
Post by pedrofanforever45 on May 19, 2017 20:30:58 GMT -5
LeBron is 32... his steroids are probably due for a torn ACL within the next couple years Lol he's a machine. A force of nature put on this planet to have his way in basketball games. I really don't know how you beat this man at basketball right now. |
|
|
|
Post by telluricrook on May 19, 2017 20:31:03 GMT -5
If Lebron turns arounfd like that someone should shove him in the back at least.
|
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on May 19, 2017 20:33:55 GMT -5
It might be less embarrassing if they don't come out for the second half
|
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on May 19, 2017 20:51:35 GMT -5
You can't play both ends and say your 100% committed to winning over development. They have had success and I'm not saying long-term it isn't the right play. The thing is they clearly were giving young guys like Rozier and Brown minutes to develop them, when Vets could have most likely helped you more. I'm surprised you're actually trying to argue against that. They won 53 games and were the one seed. What vets could they have given more minutes to and won more games? How many more? 2-3? I mean cmon you can't argue this 53 win team sacrificed wins because they didn't give more minutes to.... Gerald Green? I'm sorry but just months ago you said we were rebuilding, now this. They could have added a few more Vets and yes I would have played GG a little more if you were 100% about winning. The amount of wins we had has nothing to do about it. |
|
|
|
Post by texs31 on May 19, 2017 20:53:19 GMT -5
Don't get me wrong, there is a very real lure to staying in Utah. Good team. Comfortable situation. Technically more money (and maybe significant if he just wants the security of the longest contact in his next deal). But the idea that Utah is committed to winning over development and Boston isn't? I don't buy it. Just bc Danny has the ability to play both ends and other teams dont, will not be held against him, imo. You can't play both ends and say your 100% committed to winning over development. They have had success and I'm not saying long-term it isn't the right play. The thing is they clearly were giving young guys like Rozier and Brown minutes to develop them, when Vets could have most likely helped you more. I'm surprised you're actually trying to argue against that. I'm suprised you believe that what Utah did was more committed to winning than Boston. Btw, don't be fooled by that trade as 100% committed to winning. Doesn't take a genius to know they had 1 play bc THIS was their team. Won't get better unless organically. As you said, stars don't long to play with rookies. Trading late lotto in a bad draft for a vet pg was a no brainer. That was about being 100% committed to keeping Hayward not 100% committed to winning. |
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on May 19, 2017 20:54:15 GMT -5
They are just killing themselves. Sure LeBron is great, but they are missing easy shots, so many turnovers and they gave up a ton of layups. Where is the fight? Get physical, do something.
|
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on May 19, 2017 21:06:18 GMT -5
They won 53 games and were the one seed. What vets could they have given more minutes to and won more games? How many more? 2-3? I mean cmon you can't argue this 53 win team sacrificed wins because they didn't give more minutes to.... Gerald Green? I'm sorry but just months ago you said we were rebuilding, now this. They could have added a few more Vets and yes I would have played GG a little more if you were 100% about winning. The amount of wins we had has nothing to do about it. I'm not getting into the rebuilding semantical debate... I'll drop the re part of it... yea they are still building their franchise to be a championship contender. Gerald Green playing more minutes earlier in the year isn't putting them closer to that. Jaylen Brown getting better is. The minute they missed out on Durant they weren't going to win a title this year no matter what they did. Even adding Hayward next year or PG won't win then a title, but adding Hayward and making the right picks the next two drafts and resigning the right players might get them a title in 2-3 years. Right now I'm the NBA only 2 teams have a chance. It's the league we choose to follow. |
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on May 19, 2017 21:06:30 GMT -5
You can't play both ends and say your 100% committed to winning over development. They have had success and I'm not saying long-term it isn't the right play. The thing is they clearly were giving young guys like Rozier and Brown minutes to develop them, when Vets could have most likely helped you more. I'm surprised you're actually trying to argue against that. I'm suprised you believe that what Utah did was more committed to winning than Boston. Btw, don't be fooled by that trade as 100% committed to winning. Doesn't take a genius to know they had 1 play bc THIS was their team. Won't get better unless organically. As you said, stars don't long to play with rookies. Trading late lotto in a bad draft for a vet pg was a no brainer. That was about being 100% committed to keeping Hayward not 100% committed to winning. Boston refused to part with assets to improve this year, the Jazz traded away a lottery pick. The reason they did it means nothing, they did it. The Celtics could have sent a late first for a Vet, put didn't. They have so many assets they could have done anything they wanted. They are competing while developing young players instead. It worked out well, but they could have easily been better. |
|
|
|
Post by texs31 on May 19, 2017 21:12:57 GMT -5
Utah had 1 shot and they took it. Last chance and they dud all they could. Kudos.
Difference is, it wasn't Danny's last shot.
But hey, if you don't believe that, I doubt I'm going to convince you.
|
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on May 19, 2017 21:13:11 GMT -5
I'm suprised you believe that what Utah did was more committed to winning than Boston. Btw, don't be fooled by that trade as 100% committed to winning. Doesn't take a genius to know they had 1 play bc THIS was their team. Won't get better unless organically. As you said, stars don't long to play with rookies. Trading late lotto in a bad draft for a vet pg was a no brainer. That was about being 100% committed to keeping Hayward not 100% committed to winning. Boston refused to part with assets to improve this year, the Jazz traded away a lottery pick. The reason they did it means nothing, they did it. The Celtics could have sent a late first for a Vet, put didn't. They have so many assets they could have done anything they wanted. They are competing while developing young players instead. It worked out well, but they could have easily been better. But they couldn't have made it further so what's the point? |
|
wcp3
Veteran
Posts: 3,860
|
Post by wcp3 on May 19, 2017 21:18:06 GMT -5
Lol at acting like a few vets would've made any difference
|
|
|
|
Post by pedrofanforever45 on May 19, 2017 22:33:31 GMT -5
The Celtics have been losing to double digits every night. Nothing they could of done would change that. It's borderline retarded to give up assets for a run this year.
|
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on May 19, 2017 23:34:05 GMT -5
Utah had 1 shot and they took it. Last chance and they dud all they could. Kudos. Difference is, it wasn't Danny's last shot. But hey, if you don't believe that, I doubt I'm going to convince you. I never said it was Danny's last shot. I simply pointed out how the Jazz and Celtics looked at this season differently and took different paths. You tried saying they didn't, when they clearly did. Remember I said Danny's best pitch to Hayward is he's willing to make those moves if Hayward signs. |
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on May 19, 2017 23:35:56 GMT -5
Boston refused to part with assets to improve this year, the Jazz traded away a lottery pick. The reason they did it means nothing, they did it. The Celtics could have sent a late first for a Vet, put didn't. They have so many assets they could have done anything they wanted. They are competing while developing young players instead. It worked out well, but they could have easily been better. But they couldn't have made it further so what's the point? I'm not even trying to say they should have, just that they didn't, while the Jazz did. |
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on May 19, 2017 23:39:41 GMT -5
Lol at acting like a few vets would've made any difference So a few more Vets doesn't make us better? You understand I'm not talking about this series right? I'm talking about the season in general. |
|
|
|
Post by pedrofanforever45 on May 19, 2017 23:52:35 GMT -5
Lol at acting like a few vets would've made any difference So a few more Vets doesn't make us better? You understand I'm not talking about this series right? I'm talking about the season in general. How much better do you want? They were the number one seed, they went to the ECF, they met every expectation this year. I really don't know what you're clamoring for. |
|
|
|
Post by tizzle on May 19, 2017 23:53:44 GMT -5
Jackie McMullen was on Bob Ryans podcast and said that Danny offered up Thomas during last year's draft for an additional lottery pick. I'm shocked that it took a year for this to come out so take it with a grain. Celticsblog retweeted a link to the pod if you're interested. So they wanted to get an extra lottery pick so they can trade the #3 pick for Butler and maybe lure in Durant and they thought they would be able to get Brown with another lottery pick because the highest he was projected to go was 9th. They were not able to Trade IT but they held on to the #3 pick. The biggest thing out of this little story is how much they like Jaylen Brown. You may e right on your main point. But I have to dispute the idea that 9 was the highest Brown was projected to go. Basically everyone who covered the draft felt tier 2 was made up of Dunn, Murray, Heild, Chriss, Bender and Brown, in interchangeable order. It always seems virtually certain those guys would go 3-8, but no one knew the order. So, it would be more accurate to say Brown was projected to go no lower than 8. |
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on May 20, 2017 0:32:12 GMT -5
So a few more Vets doesn't make us better? You understand I'm not talking about this series right? I'm talking about the season in general. How much better do you want? They were the number one seed, they went to the ECF, they met every expectation this year. I really don't know what you're clamoring for. Did you even read all the posts? That the Jazz put winning above the future and player development to win this year and we didn't. That's all I'm saying. I'm not even saying it was the wrong thing, just that's what they did because Texas thinks they didn't, and that thought was crazy. |
|
|
|
Post by tizzle on May 20, 2017 1:48:08 GMT -5
Guys I think you're selling Utah short because you want Hayward. If you look at both teams who has the best player? For me it's Gobert, the guys 24 years old and already a monster. By advanced stats he's better than Hayward and hasn't yet hit his prime. Who would you rather play with for the next 4-5 years, Thomas or Gobert? They have good young players like Hood and Favors. They have young guys with upside like Lyles and Exum. They also have two first round picks and have had great success later in first round getting guys like Gobert and Hood. That's also a team that's committed 100% to winning at the cost of developing young players like Lyles and Exum. Something the Celtics haven't done. Utah traded it's lottery pick to get Hill and made second round of playoffs. I'm not complaining about the Celtics, just showing you what a Veteran player in his prime is thinking about. That's winning right now. Danny says I'm not trading any future assets for rentals to help us win now is the type of think veteran players remember. While I'm sure having a bunch of young high upside players doesn't hurt you, I'm not sure it helps in recruiting like you think it does. Does Brown take 5 years like Hayward did to become a star level player if he ever does? How quickly does Fultz make an impact? A guy like Hayward wants to win starting next year his age 27 season. He's not thinking about how good are young guys can be in 3-4 years. I'm sure he would much rather Danny trade those guys for Vets that are currently in there prime. You have to look at this from Haywards point of view, not our point of view. I hope I'm wrong but it's not nearly the slam dunk a bunch of you think it is. Danny's best selling point would be that he would make a trade to win now if Heyward signs. Not that we have a bunch of high upside young players, that could be really good in a few years. Just think about LeBron going to Cleveland. Wiggins is a great young player, but he wanted to play with a vet that was in his prime like Love. He wanted to win that year, not wait on a young guy to develop, with the chance he doesn't become the player everyone thought he would. No one should seek Utah short. They're a nice team, and Gobert is legit. But, assuming the goal is to win titles, it's kind of hard to see a path to one in Utah. Favors has been around quite a while, he's probably not getting much better. Hood seemed to regress a bit this year. Exum seems like a bust. The idea that they'll reach another level because of player improvement seems unlikely. Meanwhile, they have trouble attracting FAs to go there. They're too good to get any high draft picks anytime soon. Maybe they'll hit on a late draft pick, but with a big 3 of Hayward/Gobert/Favors, they're not a championship contender. They need another foundation player and it's a big long shot they can land one. The Celts are better than the Jazz now, without Hayward. Just signing here, from his perspective, puts him much closer to a title team. While we haven't seen anything the pinnacle of Jaylen Brown, we've got the Fultz pick, another likely very high pick next year, Zizic and Yabusele on the way, etc. If the choice is just between Utah and Boston and the consideration is rings, then Boston is his better choice for next year and the better choice for five years from now. And I don't think it's remotely close on either end. |
|
|
|
Post by texs31 on May 20, 2017 7:29:10 GMT -5
Utah had 1 shot and they took it. Last chance and they dud all they could. Kudos. Difference is, it wasn't Danny's last shot. But hey, if you don't believe that, I doubt I'm going to convince you. I never said it was Danny's last shot. I simply pointed out how the Jazz and Celtics looked at this season differently and took different paths. You tried saying they didn't, when they clearly did. Remember I said Danny's best pitch to Hayward is he's willing to make those moves if Hayward signs. I guess I'm just thinking you can't compare what one team did vs the other bc they were in entirely different situations. If I'm correctly following the line of thinking, you're suggesting that the difference in action suggests a difference in organizational philosophy (and the C's philosophy could hurt them). I'm suggesting that it's more a difference in circumstances. If the sides were switched, would each team act as the other did? |
|
wcp3
Veteran
Posts: 3,860
|
Post by wcp3 on May 20, 2017 7:37:50 GMT -5
Lol at acting like a few vets would've made any difference So a few more Vets doesn't make us better? You understand I'm not talking about this series right? I'm talking about the season in general. Like others have pointed out, they were the 1 seed and made the ECF. If you're not talking about this series, then what in the world are you talking about? |
|
|
|
Post by texs31 on May 20, 2017 7:40:32 GMT -5
While we disagree, I understand what he's trying to say. He's suggesting the difference in action suggests a difference in philosophy and that could hurt them.
If that's the point, then I agree with him that the results aren't the point.
|
|
|
