2019 Celtics Offseason Thread

So I'm asked to recall what his dad said but ignore what he, himself said later?

Again I'm not advocating anything. Just requesting that we not pick and chose which comments to obsess over. And to not overlook context when we hear runors/comments.

I know I sometimes ask you guys to go back multiple posts to get the full breadth of my point. It's probably annoying. But literally in the post RIGHT above yours I indicate (for the 2nd or 3rd time) that I'm not advocating for anything.

So NOTHING "is on me".

The context that you are referring to exists and has been presented ad nauseum.. I accept it as very real/possible. I'm merely reminding people that other possibilities exist and NOTHING that was said eliminates those possibilities.

There are motivations for Paul to be saying what hes saying now and the landscape that will impact his clients will likely not be the same in 2020.

So in case it's not clear

IM NOT ADVOCATING ANYTHING. I DONT KNOW WHAT I WANT OR THINK DANNY SHOULD DO.

If/when Kyrie leaves - Rozier will be on the Celtics next year and likely as the starting PG. As he should be, unless they can sign and trade him for something good. They will offer the QO and he will probably play on it in hopes of restoring his value and becoming an UFA.

The point I was trying to make is that the lack of team play, heck even just running our offense was a much bigger issue than Morris and Rozier. If you bring back Irving you need to make big changes, like to the starters unless Irving will change his style. Trading out bench pieces won't do it, not even close.

Nevermind you won't get better players, not even close. Like those guys are going to get likely close or more than 10 million per. Like I can see a team giving Morris close if not full mid-level money, Rozier getting a Smart like contract. We don't have that type of money, only the smaller tax payer mid-level and bi annual exception. You can hope for a better fit, but your going to get lesser players. Heck the biggest effect might just be less players Stevens feels he needs to play and can go back to uses his whole bench on a per game basis. Too much talent is an issue, even if 75% of this board thinks that's crazy.

Rozier overall 9 points, 3.9 rebounds, 2.9 assists, .9 steals 38.7% FG and  35.3% from deep. As a starter 13.1 points, 5.2 rebounds, 5.0 assists, 1.7 steals, 42.9% FG, and 40.9% from deep.

Just like last year, the more Rozier plays the better he is and he's a different player as a starter. He doesn't fit with Irving one bit because they both need/want the ball. Like Rozier needs it's, Irving wants it. Playing Rozier at SG just makes him worse, you take away so much of his good value and ask him to do the one thing you shouldn't, be a floor spacer. Just a bad situation for Rozier who is still very much learning and growing as a player. Like given his role, he added a long two point shot this year. It was brutal. Maybe it helps him long-term, but that wasn't the role for him last year.

We just have to get back to team Basketball and run our offense. Like Stevens can make anything work, if the players listen and run the plays. You play like last year and it's like Stevens doesn't even matter. The one thing I love about Rozier is he runs Stevens offense and does what he wants. No changing plays, no not running them because he doesn't want to or major free lancing. I hate to lose Irving for nothing, that just sucks. Yet Rozier isn't a bad second option and I think he fits a lot better. You won't be as talented, but you will play Stevens type of Basketball.

If he signs for 4/50 then the Cs would
Be dumb to not match. Worst case it’s a tradable contract and/or salary filler. Too valuable a contract not to.

So, Kyrie to the Nets? Bye, Kyrie! Thanks for....well, just bye!

2 of the biggest FAs this offseason might miss the entire 19-20 campaign.

Crazy

The Celtics have had a higher winning percentage than the Yankees since the NBA Finals trophy became present in 1950.

The Lakers have been around since 1950 and have won 16 titles (23.19%). The Celtics have won 17 (24.64%). San Antonio Spurs have been around since 1967 and has won 5 titiles (9.6%).

The Yankees have been around since 1903. They've won 27 titles since then. Even if you take out the two years in baseball where there was no world series (1904, 1994). The Yankeees would have won 27 titles in 113 years (23.8%).

So I say this again with math correctly. The Celtics are the most winningest (dominant) franchise in all of sports.

I can't think of a worse way to calculate this. Who cares what teams did when the leagues were almost completely rigged for the best teams to win every single year? There were 8 teams in the league for half of the Celtics championships and there was no way for players to ever leave teams if the team didn't want to let them. The 62-63 team had 9 freaking hall of fame players on it and they kept them all for as long as they wanted. And for whoever they did let go, they actually got well compensated for it!

Same goes for the Yankees.  There was no free agency, so whoever had the most money had the best players on the field, on the bench and on the reserve rosters.  They bought all of their players and kept them for as long as they wanted, which not only made their team the best, but hoarding talent away from other teams also made those teams worse.  Yankees dominance completely changed after reserve rosters were eliminated.

So what you are saying is it’s clearly the Patriots.

Pedro you get the Championships your counting go back to 1947 right? Like one of the Lakers titles you talk about was pre 1950. You wanna talk facts but yet your using the wrong numbers. You can't say the Lakers have 16 titles since 1950, that is incorrect, they have 15, yet no one would claim that because it's 1947 that counts. Like look at the page I posted. Everyone says the Lakers have 16 and for good reason. I think I'll trust wiki over what you think are facts. It litterally explains what is the definition of a modern Championship is.