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.
2017 Celtics offseason
|
|
Post by texs31 on Jun 27, 2017 23:00:00 GMT -5
A) You're still looking at this individually. I would argue they wouldn't have traded down and gotten that pick if it wasn't to do this very thing.
B) That pick staying a high one is just as risky, if not moreso, than PG13 leaving after 1 yr.
If Brown, Tatum or 18 BRK is part of the dealings, then I'm with you. Otherwise, you are better than you were in the playoffs and you still have your primary future assets.
|
|
|
|
Post by soxjim on Jun 27, 2017 23:07:57 GMT -5
George will sign here if they have Hayward... I would love this desk if we kept that Laker pick... I still think we do. But if not, I'll be ok. I can't see us giving up both Smart and the Lakers pick on top of Bradley and Crowder. Also this team can beat Cleveland. Paul George is very near Elite and he matches up well with LeBron. No he won't. I would bet on this. IMO it's a Alice in Wonderland to think he'll sign with the Celts.
The Celts team will not and cannot beat the Cavs if they get George and remain so small. I would bet on this.
And George is not "elite enough yet" to slow down LeBron enough. There's a reason why LBJ averaged near 33ppg in the playoffs off of George with a 59.2% efg%. And what happens when the Cavs pick-and-roll/ pick-and-pop LeBron? How would the overall defense be for "the next man-up" guarding LBJ?
And with the Celts being so small- they will struggle mightily vs LeBron, struggle big time vs Irving and then you play small and will get even more wiped off the glass.
I actually won't bet. I hate LeBron. I'd much rather be wrong. But the Celts aren't as good as you think they are. Neither are the players you think the Celts will get-- in one year - they will not win come playoff time.
I base my opinion of George being a waste because I think no way he signs. If he signs -- different story - depending on money and draft picks etc. I don't think there is a prayer he stays with Boston. I question NBA player's "patience." This kid said he wants LA and yet LA stinks. What does that tell you? So why LA and not a super team? IMO - If he can't see near-term that he can win a title, imo he is going to go to a place where he wants to live. Nowhere was Boston in his love interest, was it? From what I've heard on the radio, no way he is going to stay with Boston. IMO you are setting yourself up for an enormous disappointment in George's ability to shutdown/significantly slowdown LeBron and the point you think he can be kept which will end up in losing to Cleveland whether they have the one year rental player or don't.
Will you admit this--> If the Celts don't sign him for more than 1 year, and they give up a top-tier pick, Bradley and Crower, then the move more than likely would have been a blunder?
And imo Isiah Thomas is "tick-tock" "tick-tock"tick-tock" in terms of his ability to maintain tremendous offensive play while being such a negative defensively. |
|
|
|
Post by soxjim on Jun 27, 2017 23:12:28 GMT -5
If you get George you get the rights to give him the biggest deal. You can give him 5 years, compared to 4 years. Ainge would have to believe the chances George resigns is really high to do that deal. Danny just wouldn't do that deal for one year of George. So you agree that the trade is a blunder fi they can't sign George if you are giving up Bradley, Crower and a top-tier pick. |
|
|
|
Post by soxjim on Jun 27, 2017 23:20:07 GMT -5
A) You're still looking at this individually. I would argue they wouldn't have traded down and gotten that pick if it wasn't to do this very thing. B) That pick staying a high one is just as risky, if not moreso, than PG13 leaving after 1 yr. If Brown, Tatum or 18 BRK is part of the dealings, then I'm with you. Otherwise, you are better than you were in the playoffs and you still have your primary future assets. I don't agree with "A." The Celts got themselves an extra high-tier pick which they don't expect to see normally based on their record going forward. They have one next year I think too with Brooklyn again? But their own picks-- they are going to have very good records. And the overall number 1 pick of this year would supposedly have been deficient at defense- may not be able to play well with IT for some time, so at least imo there is a valid reason to bypass the number 1 pick for this year?
If one were to believe as I've heard on the radio that I believe there is no shot to sign PG, then an overall top-tier pick ALONG WITH Crower is better than one-and-done George.
|
|
|
|
Post by pedrofanforever45 on Jun 27, 2017 23:40:11 GMT -5
Any fan that doesn't want Paul George over Bradley, Crowder, and a pick that you didn't even have to start the beginning of the off-season is crazy.
I'd rather risk losing George then to see this group of players on this roster beat a dead horse and get eliminated from the playoffs because of the lack of talent. At some point, you have to go for it. Golden State is losing Iguadala. LeBron is another year older. You have to go for it at some point instead of always deferring and building assets that you probably can't keep after 4 years anyways.
Look at what's happening with Kelly Olynik. The Celtics are going to lose him and he was a top 15 pick because they don't have the cap space or room on the roster for him.
|
|
|
|
Post by pedrofanforever45 on Jun 27, 2017 23:42:51 GMT -5
I said the same thing with the Sox when it came to trading for Sale too. At some point, you have to cash in your assets for the very best if you even want a shot at a title. The Sox are ready to win now with their young talented roster and the Celtics will be ready to win too if they somehow pull this off. Even better, the Celtics didn't even have to trade their best prospects to get a chance at a ring.
How can you beat that?
|
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Jun 28, 2017 0:19:38 GMT -5
If you get George you get the rights to give him the biggest deal. You can give him 5 years, compared to 4 years. Ainge would have to believe the chances George resigns is really high to do that deal. Danny just wouldn't do that deal for one year of George. So you agree that the trade is a blunder fi they can't sign George if you are giving up Bradley, Crower and a top-tier pick. Sure. Thing is I don't think Danny makes it unless he can sign George. You are also really under estimating the impact George could have, nevermind George and Hayward. Go look what George did against the Cavs in first round. It was the type of thing superstars do. The Cavs are a very good team, but not some unbeatable force. Our team would be similar to Warriors. I can easily see that team beating the current Cavs. We would have the stars and scoring to match the Cavs and way better depth. Nevermind the better coach. Come on you're taking a team that could win a game against the Cavs without Thomas and adding two stars. Nevermind Tatum, Ojeleye, Zizic and Yabu. That's the type of depth and lineup options the Cavs dream of having. The Warriors showed the best way to beat the Cavs is just outscore them. |
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Jun 28, 2017 0:22:45 GMT -5
A) You're still looking at this individually. I would argue they wouldn't have traded down and gotten that pick if it wasn't to do this very thing. B) That pick staying a high one is just as risky, if not moreso, than PG13 leaving after 1 yr. If Brown, Tatum or 18 BRK is part of the dealings, then I'm with you. Otherwise, you are better than you were in the playoffs and you still have your primary future assets. I don't agree about A. They traded down because they liked Tatum over Fultz. It helps make a trade easier, but you make it sound like they passed on the better player to make a trade. By all reports Tatum was there #1 player. |
|
|
|
Post by texs31 on Jun 28, 2017 5:56:01 GMT -5
I've heard the same things on the radio. I've also just read, from the most reliable sources out there, info to the contrary (or, at least, the possibility exists).
And, again, he'd be giving up money and a clearer path to succeed so that he can go home to a bad team and be a part of the Lavar Ball circus.
As to the trade back, I do believe Tatum was their guy. I also believe that it was close enough that the need for space and extra assets outweighed the difference.
Danny admitted (on T&R) that the lower cap screwed them as they had planned things out. To even just get max space, it changed what they needed to do.
It worked out beautifully that their #1 guy also allowed them to fill their need. I just have a hard time believing that he was so far and above Fultz that they don't make this move regardless.
|
|
|
|
Post by texs31 on Jun 28, 2017 5:58:24 GMT -5
A) You're still looking at this individually. I would argue they wouldn't have traded down and gotten that pick if it wasn't to do this very thing. B) That pick staying a high one is just as risky, if not moreso, than PG13 leaving after 1 yr. If Brown, Tatum or 18 BRK is part of the dealings, then I'm with you. Otherwise, you are better than you were in the playoffs and you still have your primary future assets. I don't agree about A. They traded down because they liked Tatum over Fultz. It helps make a trade easier, but you make it sound like they passed on the better player to make a trade. By all reports Tatum was there #1 player. Definitely don't think they took the lesser player on their board. |
|
|
|
Post by ryan24 on Jun 28, 2017 6:42:46 GMT -5
Interesting, CBS sports guy has the Celtic's getting Daniel G from the nuggets in FA. First I heard that one. I guess he is the fall back if you do not get Hayward? I have to ask umass again but I am not sure that whether we can sign Daniel G instead of George plus hayward? I DO NOT want to give up much of anything for a 1 year player. Besides I am trying to wrap my head around bringing two small forward/multi position players at the expense of development of brown and tatum. One maybe. Brown - Tatum - Hayward and George can all play together. You could add either thomas or Horford to that if you wanted. It's just how the game is now. Brown, Tatum, Hayward and George are all going to play 40 minutes plus a game? I understand all four have multi position possibilities especially in today's game of small ball, spacing the floor, and shooting 3's. All are 6'5" to 6' 8". Thomas can not guard multi positions and be effective for any length of time so he plays the lead guard. Hopefully he can incorporate all 4 in the flow of the game and still get horford touches. It seems like if you had all 4 it is redundant. |
|
|
|
Post by ryan24 on Jun 28, 2017 7:07:32 GMT -5
I'm going to go against the grain here a little bit. I don't want to trade for George with an extension. First, it's kind of unrealistic to expect him to sign an extension as a condition of the trade - there is no financial benefit for him to do so other than security and I really hope he's past the security stage of earnings. Secondly, the cost would likely go up to acquire him. I would gamble on him resigning if you can get him for Bradley, Crowder plus say the Celtics and Clippers picks next year. I just don't see that happening. If they don't want Love why would they want Bradley and Crowder? Per report's they want high draft picks and young players. That's why Cleveland tried to get Denver to take Love and ship picks and young players to the Pacers. I can see the Pacers taking Crowder, he's a great asset they can flip down the road. They are going to want a good young player or a good pick. If they were going to just trade him for a crappy deal he would have been dealt by now. There GM is being Smart, unlike the Bulls GM. If I had to guess it would be Crowder, Bradley and the Lakers pick. The other way it could work is finding a third team to take Bradley and send the Pacers the assets they want. A team like the Pistons makes sense. They send Ellenson, Johnson and a first round pick to the Pacers. We send Crowder and some picks to them and we get George. Reports are the 3 team trade between the Cavs, Pacers and Nuggets is dead. Thing is I wouldn't be surprised to see them try and make it work again after free agency. It just makes sense. The Nuggets really need Love and have a ton of good young players. They can offer players like Harris, Mudiay, Beasley and Hernangomez. All that being said it just doesn't make a ton of sense to sign Hayward and trade for George. Why not sign Griffin and trade for George? That seems to make more sense. You can go small and play Griffin at center. I just don't like the mix of George, Hayward, Tatum and Brown. I've had my fill of watching the Celtics get out rebounded every game. I like small ball in small stretches to create mismatches, but I don't want to see a full game of it. I agree I do not like the mix of George, Hayward, tatum ,and brown. I would be very surprised if griffin signs with the Celtic's. I think he will be more about the money, than the opportunity to play for a POSSIBLE title. As far as trading for George, I think that is a long shot. Danny guards his picks carefully. I do not think he will give up as much as someone else to get the guy for one year. The draw to L.A. is too much. As far as projecting how bad some of the possible lottery picks we have next year will be, I think Danny has a very high percentage shot to get at least one of the top 3 picks because, he has lots of extra picks . So if worse comes worse Danny could still get his guy by trading some of the extra picks he has and or some of the young players on his present roster to move up to get the pick. I think George gets traded, but not likely to the Celtic's. Hayward is a fair shot to happen, going to the Celtic's. Starting Saturday I really believe that it will be very wild with many players getting moved. I think the strength of the Warriors at least for the next few years will cause lots of the middle of the pack teams to rethink their positions and go for the fences or tear down and build for the future. |
|
|
|
Post by prangerx on Jun 28, 2017 7:13:43 GMT -5
My bad I meant Hayward and George. |
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Jun 28, 2017 7:18:48 GMT -5
Brown - Tatum - Hayward and George can all play together. You could add either thomas or Horford to that if you wanted. It's just how the game is now. Brown, Tatum, Hayward and George are all going to play 40 minutes plus a game? I understand all four have multi position possibilities especially in today's game of small ball, spacing the floor, and shooting 3's. All are 6'5" to 6' 8". Thomas can not guard multi positions and be effective for any length of time so he plays the lead guard. Hopefully he can incorporate all 4 in the flow of the game and still get horford touches. It seems like if you had all 4 it is redundant. No, no one plays 40 minutes a game by Hayward and George can play 30-34 and Brown and Tatum 25ish. |
|
|
|
Post by prangerx on Jun 28, 2017 7:20:37 GMT -5
I'd do the trade for one year of George but without the Lakers pick. If we do have an extension on the table, I do the trade with the pick in a heart beat. Even if you fail to win a title you still have Brown,Tatum, and the Booklyn pick as plan B.
|
|
|
|
Post by texs31 on Jun 28, 2017 7:24:34 GMT -5
I look at it this way. Which is easier for me to believe:
- That a GM whose motivation has been accumulating assets for the big move and gaining max cap space REMAINED a GM motivated by accumulating assets and gaining max cap space
or
- There was a significant enough gap between Tatum and the consensus #1 that Danny would not only change his MO but also draft a guy who had skill set and/or positional redundancy to a) likely the 1 "untouchable" on his team and b) his #1 free agency target and c) his #1 trade target (of guys that are reportedly available).
Admittedly, I'm guessing either way (and it's impossible for me to ever know the truth) but that first one sure seems more likely to me.
|
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Jun 28, 2017 7:27:09 GMT -5
So here's the deal. I agree with UMass that Danny doesn't do the trade for George unless he is comfortable he has s real chance to resign him. George's camp leaks like a sieve and there has been positive news surrounding that, if Hayward is here. I disagree with him on the 5 year deal. It will be a 3 year contract. The 5 year deals are over-rated no one wants them because they want to become free agents again after 10 years in the league so they can get the real max contract.
I don't like the idea of trading that Lakers pick. If you are giving up multiple starters and players then I want to really keep that pick. Based on the players giving up and your competition, I really don't think they will be trading that pick. I think Tatum, brown, Brooklyn and lakers picks are off the table and should be.
I will admit that a trade could be a blunder but I also think it can be great. Need to see the cost. Remember, I've been King of the longterm play here and still am. But I also think winning as much now is super helpful longterm, assuming you keep the key assets.
Tex, I understand your sentiment about that Lakers pick but they can't treat it like some devalued asset because of how they obtained it. That could be a top end talent next year; it's not a throw in to sweeten a deal.
|
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Jun 28, 2017 7:31:03 GMT -5
I look at it this way. Which is easier for me to believe: - That a GM whose motivation has been accumulating assets for the big move and gaining max cap space REMAINED a GM motivated by accumulating assets and gaining max cap space or - There was a significant enough gap between Tatum and the consensus #1 that Danny would not only change his MO but also draft a guy who had skill set and/or positional redundancy to a) likely the 1 "untouchable" on his team and b) his #1 free agency target and c) his #1 trade target (of guys that are reportedly available). Admittedly, I'm guessing either way (and it's impossible for me to ever know the truth) but that first one sure seems more likely to me. I think you are over thinking it. I doubt they would have taken a lessor player by trading down to 3 for cap space and another asset. |
|
|
|
Post by pedrofanforever45 on Jun 28, 2017 7:39:10 GMT -5
I just don't think the deal is enticing enough unless you include the Lakers pick for the Pacers. That's the one asset that is separating the offers from say the Washington Wizards for instance. The Wizards could offer a nice player like Porter for instance (who I put in the same category as a Crowder in terms of talent) but the reason why the Pacers are dealing with the Celtics is because of that one asset that has a chance to be great.
The Pacers can wait this out if you don't include that pick.
The only thing that kills the deal for me is if the Celtics have to give up Smart. I'd really want to keep him, I'd also like to keep Bradley if at all possible but not likely. At least keep one of these two players. You're going to need one of them starting or coming off the bench.
|
|
|
|
Post by texs31 on Jun 28, 2017 7:47:51 GMT -5
It depends on how close you believe Tatum and Fultz were on the board.
I'd also add (with, admittedly, a caveat that GM Speak needs to be taken with a grain of salt) that all the talk was about Fultz and how he'd fit with Isaiah. Then the cap projection decreased . . .
Again, I DO NOT DOUBT that Tatum was #1 on their board. I DO doubt that the difference was significant enough for Danny to stop being Danny.
Not even being open to the possibility seems . . . odd.
|
|
|
|
Post by texs31 on Jun 28, 2017 7:50:14 GMT -5
I just don't think the deal is enticing enough unless you include the Lakers pick for the Pacers. That's the one asset that is separating the offers from say the Washington Wizards for instance. The Wizards could offer a nice player like Porter for instance (who I put in the same category as a Crowder in terms of talent) but the reason why the Pacers are dealing with the Celtics is because of that one asset that has a chance to be great. The Pacers can wait this out if you don't include that pick. The only thing that kills the deal for me is if the Celtics have to give up Smart. I'd really want to keep him, I'd also like to keep Bradley if at all possible but not likely. At least keep one of these two players. You're going to need one of them starting or coming off the bench. There are MAJOR differences between Porter and Crowder (regardless of how you feel about them as a player). Likely to be about 17 million of them (give or take). |
|
|
|
Post by texs31 on Jun 28, 2017 7:56:53 GMT -5
In case anyone missed it, Woj is set to move to ESPN starting on . . . July 1 (the first day of free agency). Meaning the most credible source in the business will likely have his content (beyond tweets, of course) behind the Insider pay wall right in line with the kickoff of one of the most exciting free agency periods (especially for C's fans) in a while.
I already pay for other but still . . . that sucks for many.
|
|
|
|
Post by texs31 on Jun 28, 2017 8:13:19 GMT -5
@dangercart tweeted a graphic that outlines the steps for the 2 most likely ways to make this happen. The differences largely come down to:
1. Trading Bradley for future assets and then Crowder/Zeller plus picks for George or waiving Zeller and Trading Bradley and Crowder plus picks for George.
2. Keeping Smart, stashing Yabu, trading Rozier and waiving/stretching Jackson vs Keeping/Signing Rozier, Jackson and Yabu and trading Smart
3. Though it's really a result of #2, signing 4 minimum vets vs signing 2 minimum vets.
|
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Jun 28, 2017 8:28:38 GMT -5
It depends on how close you believe Tatum and Fultz were on the board. I'd also add (with, admittedly, a caveat that GM Speak needs to be taken with a grain of salt) that all the talk was about Fultz and how he'd fit with Isaiah. Then the cap projection decreased . . . Again, I DO NOT DOUBT that Tatum was #1 on their board. I DO doubt that the difference was significant enough for Danny to stop being Danny. Not even being open to the possibility seems . . . odd. It doesn't depend on anything we believe regarding Tatum or Fultz. Danny got his player and added a great asset that is Danny being Danny and him being smart. The lower cap came out after the trade and had zero to do with it. I don't think Danny would trade a lessor Tier talent at the top of the draft for a little more cap space and that extra pick. |
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Jun 28, 2017 8:43:59 GMT -5
I just don't think the deal is enticing enough unless you include the Lakers pick for the Pacers. That's the one asset that is separating the offers from say the Washington Wizards for instance. The Wizards could offer a nice player like Porter for instance (who I put in the same category as a Crowder in terms of talent) but the reason why the Pacers are dealing with the Celtics is because of that one asset that has a chance to be great. The Pacers can wait this out if you don't include that pick. The only thing that kills the deal for me is if the Celtics have to give up Smart. I'd really want to keep him, I'd also like to keep Bradley if at all possible but not likely. At least keep one of these two players. You're going to need one of them starting or coming off the bench. When has Washington even been involved? The Lakers don't have a pick next year so us offering 2 picks plus players is a better package than anything the Lakers can offer. The only enticing player the Lakers have (that they would be willing to deal Ball and Ingram are untouchable) is Randle and he's going to have to get paid on a deal he hasn't earned after next year so he's really not enticing. What kind of team does he fit? Plus, they'd need to add Deng's lousy deal. You can argue the Nuggets can offer a package but that makes some assumptions on players. The point is the Celtics can make the best deal without that pick being included. |
|
|
