Built for the Regular Season?

BaseballJones

ivanvamp
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
24,375
2014-15 - Finished 40-42, 2nd in the Atlantic, big improvement over 2013-14. Made the playoffs (8th seed), promptly got swept by Cleveland, with no game being closer than 8 points. They had gone 2-2 in the regular season against Cleveland, but the playoffs are a whole other matter.

2015-16 - Finished 48-34, 2nd in the Atlantic, 8 game improvement over 2014-15. Made the playoffs (5th seed), lost to Atlanta in six games. They went 1-3 against Atlanta during the regular season.

2016-17 - Finished 53-29, 1st in the Atlantic, 5 game improvement over 2015-16. Made the playoffs (1st seed), and currently are down 0-2 at home to the 8th seeded Bulls. They went 2-2 against Chicago during the regular season.

So in the last 3 seasons, Boston has gone 141-105 (.573) during the regular season, but they've gone just 2-10 (.167) in the playoffs. Now, we know that you face better opposition in the playoffs than in the regular season. But against Cleveland (2014-15), Atlanta (2015-16), and Chicago (2016-17) those three years, they went 5-7 (.417). In the playoffs they've gone 2-10 (.167). Something is terribly amiss.

So what's going on? I propose that they are simply a team right now built for the regular season. They have a lot of pretty decent depth and they typically work hard, and their depth allows them to work hard night in and night out. Over the last three years, they've been a top 3 team in the NBA in the second game of back-to-backs. That speaks to depth and effort. Other teams may have better top-end talent, but on the second night of back-to-backs, it's usually the deeper team that has the energy to consistently play well in those games.

The NBA playoffs are a different animal. Rotations get shorter. There are no back-to-backs, so the schedule is actually much easier. Just a quick example. LeBron James plays, on average in his career, 38.9 minutes per game during the regular season. But in the playoffs, it's 42.1. This is also true for other star players. Just a few examples:

Jimmy Butler: 32.3 vs. 38.3
Kevin Durant: 37.4 vs. 41.9
Steph Curry: 34.7 vs. 38.5
Kawhi Leonard: 30.5 vs. 33.1
Russell Westbrook: 34.1 vs. 37.7

You get the idea. The stars play more in the playoffs. The Celtics cannot match up with other teams' top players; instead, they typically thrive in situations where their greater depth can win out. But in the playoffs, that isn't an issue, and the Celtics are at a disadvantage.

Moreover, the game gets more physical in the playoffs. That makes it harder for a small player like Isaiah Thomas. Consider his regular season numbers vs. playoff numbers the past two seasons with Boston.

Regular season: 25.5 pts, 18.1 fga, .446 fg%, .371 3pt%, 6.1 apg
Playoffs: 24.8 pts, 19.0 fga, .414 fg%, .293 3pt%, 4.8 apg

So Thomas has had to work harder but has produced fewer points (points + assists) in the playoffs compared to the regular season. I will grant that this year has pretty major extenuating circumstances for him, of course.

The physical play is shown in rebounding as well. Consider these rebounding numbers the past three seasons combined:

2015-16 regular season
- Bos: 43.8
- Opp: 44.7
- Diff: -0.9

2014-15 vs Cle
- Bos: 40.8
- Cle: 47.0
- Diff: -6.2

2015-16 regular season
- Bos: 44.9
- Opp: 46.0
- Diff: -1.1

2015-16 vs Atl
- Bos: 46.0
- Atl: 47.5
- Diff: -1.5 (note: Atlanta had the 3rd worst rebound differential in the NBA last year)

2016-17 regular season
- Bos: 42.0
- Opp: 44.5
- Diff: -2.5

2016-17 vs Chi
- Bos: 37.0
- Chi: 48.0
- Diff: -11.0

The Celtics, simply put, are not built for the playoffs. They are built for regular season success, which is no small or unimportant thing. But if they want to be a championship team, they need to be constructed differently. They need to add more top-end talent, even if it sacrifices some depth. And they need to add toughness. I think the former is more important than the latter, but I think both are needed.
 

lexrageorge

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2007
18,096
With the usual caveats that 2 games does not make a playoff series, I believe the observation above is correct when it comes to this year's team. The Celtics did what everyone expected them to do against the Cavs 2 years ago, and last season's team had some significant injuries when the playoffs came around.

However, I'll argue that the real question still remains as it always has been: Do the Celtics try to build through their unexpected bounty of draft assets over the next 2 seasons, and hope that Brown turns into a solid building block? Or do they try to cash in their chips and add a star player to their current core and hope that's enough?
 

BaseballJones

ivanvamp
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
24,375
With the usual caveats that 2 games does not make a playoff series, I believe the observation above is correct when it comes to this year's team. The Celtics did what everyone expected them to do against the Cavs 2 years ago, and last season's team had some significant injuries when the playoffs came around.

However, I'll argue that the real question still remains as it always has been: Do the Celtics try to build through their unexpected bounty of draft assets over the next 2 seasons, and hope that Brown turns into a solid building block? Or do they try to cash in their chips and add a star player to their current core and hope that's enough?
I think Danny would like to do the latter, but the right deal just hasn't come along. For me personally...I'm torn. I think that Thomas is likely not the central component of the next great Celtics team, not because they'll deal him, but rather because it'll take time.

I think what will likely happen is that they still find no trading partner that works for Danny. But of this or next year's 1st round picks, they end up landing a stud. A bona-fide stud. I also think Brown has the potential to be a sort-of Kawhi Leonard type player. Not necessarily on that level, but a Leonard-lite perhaps, which would be a damned good player. A star, if not an MVP caliber player. But I think that these two guys will take a few years (say, 4), and by then, Thomas will be 32 and past his prime. Their roster will have undergone some significant changes. I can see these two guys (Brown and one of their next two season's 1st round picks) being stars in 4 years and the Celtics being a true top-tier team. Thomas is a good player to bridge that gap and keep the Celtics a great entertainment value and solid playoff team during that time.

Of course, it may not work out at all, and none of these draft picks turn out to be anything great. That's the risk. But if they can swing it, they should have two young stars for years and years to come. And that means true championship contender.

Just my two cents.
 

sezwho

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 20, 2005
1,951
Isle of Plum
Apologies for posting something similar in a game thread, but seems more appropriate here. First off, IT and his teammates have my deepest sympathies. I can't pretend to imagine how I would perform after losing my 22yr old sister on Easter before Game 1.

What leaves me thinking the Celtic's performance isn't really related to the tragedy is that this is the exact template they followed last week against both Cleveland and Atlanta. Seeding mattered and they were trying, but were seemingly just outclassed. At the time I was willing to pass off to the vagaries of the season ending. I'm not so willing to do that anymore.

Huge C's fan, really hoping to be wrong and get accused of bed wetting, but I think this is who they are: not built for the playoffs.
 

Eddie Jurak

canderson-lite
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 12, 2002
44,475
Melrose, MA
I don't think it's fair to lump each of the past 3 seasons together.

In 2015, they were a below .500 team with no star players facing a top seed team with LeBron and Kyrie (and Love until Olynyk took him out).

In 2016, they played a worse team in Atlanta, but had to do it without their 3 most reliable outside shooters (AB, Jae (playing but injured and not shooting well), Kelly). You can argue that those 3 aren't anything special, but you cannot argue that they aren't a whole lot better than Marcus Smart & company.

This year is different. IT's tragedy and their lack of rebounding play into it, but even with those we are still getting an up close view of the team's flaws (as the Bulls expose them mercilessly).

This team, unlike the 2 previous ones, looks like a paper tiger.
 

DJnVa

Dorito Dawg
SoSH Member
Dec 16, 2010
53,840
I think that if this season was replayed 100 times we likely finish in the 3rd or 4th seed a large portion of that time--I think we kind of jumped the gun a bit with our rise to #1 seed, so that's making this look worse than it might actually be.

That said, I don't quite think this series is over yet.

EDIT: And now I see the Bulls are starting to talk. Granted, they've won the first 2 in Boston, but it's still bad form until series is done.
 
Last edited:

JakeRae

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 21, 2005
8,125
New York, NY
This board apparently still has not learned the lesson of the last 13 years of Boston sports. Don't give up until it's over. This series is far from over. They've played sloppy basketball for two games and have lost those games. That does not a series loss make.
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
34,460
I do think and always have, that this team was going to overperform in the regular season, and perhaps underperform in the playoffs. I didn't expect the 1 seed or this bad in the playoffs but.....
1. It's a deep team, that helps in the regular season
2. They are an all out effort team which helps in the regular season when you catch tired teams, guys shut it down etc.
3. The playoffs get played and called differently in terms of physicality inside. Hurts the Cs in 2 ways... A. exacerbates rebounding issues, B. Tiny guards get swallowed up and less bailout calls.
4. Tighter rotations mean less exploiting backups.
5. Teams make more of an effort to exploit matchups on every possession, leads to as we saw yesterday, big guards beasting small guards.
6. The Celtics were great against the worst teams, not actually good against playoff teams. Beating the teams you're supposed to beat is great, but you don't get to play bad teams come playoffs.
 

wade boggs chicken dinner

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 26, 2005
30,491
The Celtics, simply put, are not built for the playoffs. They are built for regular season success, which is no small or unimportant thing. But if they want to be a championship team, they need to be constructed differently. They need to add more top-end talent, even if it sacrifices some depth. And they need to add toughness. I think the former is more important than the latter, but I think both are needed.
Maybe the bottom line is that the Cs aren't that talented right now. I mean they are currently being outclassed at the 2, 3, and 5, and they aren't markedly better at the 1 or the 4. And this would be the same if they played most of the teams in the playoffs - I thought and still think MIL would have crushed them and they are a distinct underdog to CLE, TOR, and WASH.

HRB said this in the KO thread: "When you can point to half of the playoff participants as a "bad matchup" for us the problem isn't any one player or the coach who has minimal impact.......it is the overall personnel. Ainge knew this and knew this team wasn't worth investing any future assets for a marginal upgrade. We are still set up like kings with the two upcoming Nets picks and the Grizzlies pick a few years down the road."

Maybe Ainge did really know that just adding Butler or George wasn't going to make a marked difference and that's why he didn't make a deal. If that's true, hat's off to him.

A bunch of us said that we'd be happy if the Cs were to win one series. Whether or not they do, it's been a really enjoyable year watching this team. I'm not going to be upset by anything that happens until the day the ping pong balls are selected.
 

DeJesus Built My Hotrod

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 24, 2002
48,205
This board apparently still has not learned the lesson of the last 13 years of Boston sports. Don't give up until it's over. This series is far from over. They've played sloppy basketball for two games and have lost those games. That does not a series loss make.
Well said.

I would also add that even though we know better, we all tend to react to sss, especially when its against our team. If I am the Bulls and hope to close Boston out with continued 70%-handle shooting from Brook Lopez's feral twin and Paul Zipser, I wouldn't be making second round travel plans just yet.
 

Strike4

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
3,895
Portland, Maine
Well said.

I would also add that even though we know better, we all tend to react to sss, especially when its against our team. If I am the Bulls and hope to close Boston out with continued 70%-handle shooting from Brook Lopez's feral twin and Paul Zipser, I wouldn't be making second round travel plans just yet.
There are reasons Lopez and others are getting shot attempts that lead to 70% shooting.

But in the larger picture - the narrative after game one was that they were out hustled on the boards, only lost by 4, it was close, they were sloppy with the ball, Portis was great, Crowder can't be this bad two games in a row, etc. The narrative after game two is that Lopez shot out of his mind, Zipser was incredible, Celtics three good players stunk, etc. When does the narrative become unhelpful in understanding the problems the Celtics have and face in trying to win? When are they just excuses? They were killed on the glass in game one, knew it was the biggest problem, and came out in game two having not fixed the problem at all. I'm assuming they tried to address it - so maybe they are just playing a better team they are being beaten in multiple areas, multiple ways, and they can't cover everything with the players they have.
 

JCizzle

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 11, 2006
20,530

Stevens said Terry Rozier moved his locker weeks ago. "Not a big deal and certainly in the past."

---

I don't remember hearing about this, but it sounds like there might be some behind the scenes chemistry issues with this team. Someone who responded to Jay said it was away from Crowder. It's purely my opinion, but the team seemed much more cohesive last year than this one.
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
34,460
Well said.

I would also add that even though we know better, we all tend to react to sss, especially when its against our team. If I am the Bulls and hope to close Boston out with continued 70%-handle shooting from Brook Lopez's feral twin and Paul Zipser, I wouldn't be making second round travel plans just yet.
I mean, sure the Bulls could blow it, but even winning the series doesn't do much to alleviate concerns, CHI isn't just winning because of big performances by role players, they're winning because they are systematically exploiting two major weaknesses of the Celtics:
1. Rebounding, especially defensive.
2. Size in the backcourt.

Both of those concerns are going to be just as big a problem against a Washington team that is much better than Chicago. If Rajon Rondo is abusing IT, do we think JOHN WALL (or Bradley Beal) isn't going to? If Robin Lopez is Shaq 2.0 how will Gortat and Mahinmi look. If Paul Zipser is burying open 3s off the bench so will Bogdanovic.

Yes part of the 0-2 hole is CHI playing very well, but a big part of it is just flaws and holes in this roster, and a bunch of guys who are vulnerable to exploitation.
 

the moops

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 19, 2016
4,700
Saint Paul, MN
They were killed on the glass in game one, knew it was the biggest problem, and came out in game two having not fixed the problem at all.
They did fix this problem a little bit though. Game one they gave up 20 offensive boards and were outrebounded 53 to 36. Game two they gave up 11 offensive boards and were only outrebounded 43 to 38, which is generally in line with their poor rebounding all year.
 

nighthob

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
12,678
With the usual caveats that 2 games does not make a playoff series, I believe the observation above is correct when it comes to this year's team. The Celtics did what everyone expected them to do against the Cavs 2 years ago, and last season's team had some significant injuries when the playoffs came around.

However, I'll argue that the real question still remains as it always has been: Do the Celtics try to build through their unexpected bounty of draft assets over the next 2 seasons, and hope that Brown turns into a solid building block? Or do they try to cash in their chips and add a star player to their current core and hope that's enough?
I'm not sure there's an available star that makes the Lil' Zeke Celtics tier one contenders (well, Durant if he changes his mind about hitching his star to Golden State). I do think that Boston's uniquely situated to land Paul George this summer (there was a recent interview with Bird, where he claimed that the Pacers organization doesn't allow for tanking seasons in hopes of landing a franchise player in the draft), because they can build an offer around Thomas and Brown, which allows the Pacers to remain competitive while adding a potential replacement for George. But the problem, obviously, is what do you do after? Because George is a short term player, so they'd still need to add someone like Hayward to the mix.
 

Cesar Crespo

79
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
21,588
They did fix this problem a little bit though. Game one they gave up 20 offensive boards and were outrebounded 53 to 36. Game two they gave up 11 offensive boards and were only outrebounded 43 to 38, which is generally in line with their poor rebounding all year.
Chicago had less chances to get offensive rebounds. It's the difference between shooting 42.9% and 51.1% from the field.
 

lexrageorge

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2007
18,096
I'm not sure there's an available star that makes the Lil' Zeke Celtics tier one contenders (well, Durant if he changes his mind about hitching his star to Golden State). I do think that Boston's uniquely situated to land Paul George this summer (there was a recent interview with Bird, where he claimed that the Pacers organization doesn't allow for tanking seasons in hopes of landing a franchise player in the draft), because they can build an offer around Thomas and Brown, which allows the Pacers to remain competitive while adding a potential replacement for George. But the problem, obviously, is what do you do after? Because George is a short term player, so they'd still need to add someone like Hayward to the mix.
Paul George added to the current mix possibly gets the Celtics out of the first round. But still not realistically any further.

I should say they would probably have had an easier time getting by Chicago if Butler was a Celtic. Time to duck and run....
 

ifmanis5

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 29, 2007
63,740
Rotten Apple
The price for PG was way too high for a rental who wants to be in LA anyway. Butler was never realistically on the market.

The real concern is how to build the franchise going forward. Unspeakable tragedy aside, this is another playoffs where IT's problems are exposed. Do you really want to build around him or not?
 

moly99

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 28, 2007
939
Seattle
I should say they would probably have had an easier time getting by Chicago if Butler was a Celtic. Time to duck and run....
The goal is not to advance from the first round. It is to win a championship, and neither George not Butler would make the Celtics favorites over the Cavs.
 

Cesar Crespo

79
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
21,588
Unless someone becomes available, you just build with the Nets picks. Let Jaylen, Yabusele, Zizic mature another year. Celtics are in a weird position where they are still rebuilding but winning in the process. You don't have to build around IT but you don't have to trade him either. There are worse things than winning 50-55 games while your prospects develop.
 

fairlee76

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 9, 2005
3,631
jp
Unless someone becomes available, you just build with the Nets picks. Let Jaylen, Yabusele, Zizic mature another year. Celtics are in a weird position where they are still rebuilding but winning in the process. You don't have to build around IT but you don't have to trade him either. There are worse things than winning 50-55 games while your prospects develop.
Yep. Agree wholeheartedly with this and with Cellar-Door's analysis above. I'm a pretty casual fan at this point, but how this team seems to win (effort and depth) in the regular season does not a successful NBAplayoff team make. But man, are they well-positioned going forward when it comes to draft picks and cap space.
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
34,460
One thing about a 1st round crashout if it happens..... makes it a lot easier to sell fans on what would otherwise be unpopular trades (IT, Crowder, Avery etc.). If they had gone deep, no way they could trade IT after this season, a playoff disaster.... well now it really depends who is coming back in the deal.
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
34,460
It would look really insensitive given current events wouldn't it? In regards to IT4.
Maybe? Though it would be in a few months, but..... as all NBA guys always say.... It's a business man. IT is a tough guy to trade even ignoring the tragedy with his sister, since he's such a great character, great story, great personality etc. On the other hand.... can you be a really successful playoff team with him as one of your best/highest paid players? I've been pretty consistent on here saying that the answer is no. If Ainge agrees, have to at least look at moving him.
 

DJnVa

Dorito Dawg
SoSH Member
Dec 16, 2010
53,840
It would look really insensitive given current events wouldn't it? In regards to IT4.
As horrible as it is, I don't think the death of his sister should impact Ainge's offseason plans.
 

Sprowl

mikey lowell of the sandbox
Dope
SoSH Member
Jun 27, 2006
34,437
Haiku
I'm not sure there's an available star that makes the Lil' Zeke Celtics tier one contenders (well, Durant if he changes his mind about hitching his star to Golden State).
Cousins would have made an enormous difference inside, but apparently chemistry concerns made that acquisition inadvisable. Once Cousins went to New Orleans for such a paltry package, Ainge's low assessment of the 2017 Celtics' playoff chances became clear.

Unless someone becomes available, you just build with the Nets picks. Let Jaylen, Yabusele, Zizic mature another year. Celtics are in a weird position where they are still rebuilding but winning in the process. You don't have to build around IT but you don't have to trade him either. There are worse things than winning 50-55 games while your prospects develop.
So true -- this year's regular season was growth and great entertainment.
 

Scott Cooper

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 2, 2002
1,493
I agree with everything said here. The Celtics were built deep for the long season and over achieved. The playoffs are a much different animal. Although it would suck to be knocked out in the first round because i enjoy the hell out of this team, I'm happy that Ainge has stood pat. If the deals reported are true from Indiana and Chicago we would have been fleeced, and I want no part of Paul George unless he signs longterm, so no #1 for him.

The minor deals (Serge, Noel) shock me a little bit because i KNOW the Celtics could have offered better than those teams received for the players.....I don't think Philly wanted Noel in Boston....that's the only thing i can think of.

I'm all for trading the pick for a stud, but that stud better be more than a rental.
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
34,460
Cousins would have made an enormous difference inside, but apparently chemistry concerns made that acquisition inadvisable. Once Cousins went to New Orleans for such a paltry package, Ainge's low assessment of the 2017 Celtics' playoff chances became clear.
Cousins is tough to gauge, the biggest thing is obviously how they felt about him as a lockerroom presence. The second is apparently a lot of GMs never got the call that he was REALLY available. Vlade dumped him on New Orleans as quick as possible once he got permission, Third.... Vivek is a crazy person and was obsessed with getting Buddy Hield.
The move that told me Danny wasn't all that confident in the core this year was not making more of an effort to get Noel. Less cap issues than someone like Ibaka, probably not a huge cost.
 

NoXInNixon

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 24, 2008
5,297
I honestly can't think of a reason not to trade IT, whether or not they manage to come back from this and get to the ECF. They're probably drafting their PG of the future this year. They already have too many guards and not enough minutes. Someone is going to have to go, and it should be the guy with the least long term value and highest present value. That's IT by far.
 

Cesar Crespo

79
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
21,588
What are they going to get for IT4? Where would he be the difference? You'd get little value back. The only team I can really think of is New Orleans but that would require Jrue to guard the 2. With Davis and Cousins, they might be able to get away with it. Maybe the Bucks.
 

NoXInNixon

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 24, 2008
5,297
You mean an All-star who is going to finish top five in the MVP vote doesn't have trade value?
 

nighthob

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
12,678
Cousins would have made an enormous difference inside, but apparently chemistry concerns made that acquisition inadvisable. Once Cousins went to New Orleans for such a paltry package, Ainge's low assessment of the 2017 Celtics' playoff chances became clear.
I'm not sure that Cousins was available for so little to Boston. Cousins never really seemed to be on the market until the deal hit, and what was outbound was a present lottery pick and a player the owner was apparently in love with (allowing the Kings to actually convince him to sign off).

That opportunity cost for Boston was a top 4 pick to build a two center team that would have been weak on perimeter D. Dumping Horford right after signing him probably wasn't an option. Similarly I think the same thing happened with Ibaka, that the Magic wanted a prospect and a 2017 pick, only half of which Boston could supply.

What are they going to get for IT4? Where would he be the difference? You'd get little value back. The only team I can really think of is New Orleans but that would require Jrue to guard the 2. With Davis and Cousins, they might be able to get away with it. Maybe the Bucks.
That depends, Thomas is a great get for a team looking to get back to the middle. Or for a defensive oriented team desperate for a scorer.

Ironically if Boston lands the first pick, I bet that they could probably deal Lil' Zeke back to the Kings, who desperately want to get back to the middle given the way they sold their draft future to the 76ers in order to clear the cap space to fail to sign Wes Matthews. Orlando is a team that could really use Thomas' offense given the defensive talent they have.

There would be options. The idea that Boston would have trouble getting value for a 29 p/g scorer whose contract would make him amenable to signing an extension is sort of bizarre, frankly. I agree that building a contender around a 5'8" scorer isn't realistic, but that being said there are a lot of teams more interested in being competitive than being tier one contenders.
 
Last edited:

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
34,460
What are they going to get for IT4? Where would he be the difference? You'd get little value back. The only team I can really think of is New Orleans but that would require Jrue to guard the 2. With Davis and Cousins, they might be able to get away with it. Maybe the Bucks.
That is the question. Though in NO Jrue is allegedly as good as gone. I think there are three types of teams that might be looking to make a trade for IT.
Type 1: Think they are a PG away from being contenders
Type 2: Need scoring and/or PG and ownership really wants to make the playoffs.
Type 3: Crazy people chasing those POINTS PER GAME!!!!

Type 1 teams..... Utah if Hill leaves?, MIL?, Atlanta?
Type 2 teams..... Denver? KNICKS?, Minny?, Philly?, Detroit?, NO?, DAL?
Type 3 teams.... LAKERS, Orlando?,Sac?

It's really tough to figure out how teams value Thomas, as well as how teams will view themselves going into 2017-18. I think he could have a ton of trade value to the right team, BUT... the question is how to turn that into the return the Celtics need, likely in a 3 team deal. The problem remains as ever.... the Cs need a star to actually be available. I'd trade IT in a second to get the pieces for Butler/George or even a rising star like Porzingis. The problem is getting the right pieces and a willing partner.
 

Cesar Crespo

79
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
21,588
Also, what would teams like the Kings and Magic have to offer for IT4 that would help the Celtics?
 

Cesar Crespo

79
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
21,588
I'm guessing in any IT4 trade, you are looking to bring back length and athleticism in the front court. WCS and stuff?
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
34,460
I'm guessing in any IT4 trade, you are looking to bring back length and athleticism in the front court. WCS and stuff?
You'd more likely be using them as the 3rd team in a star. But if I were pillaging the Kings Skal would be on my list for sure, he showed some real growth after the trade.
 

nighthob

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
12,678
I'm guessing in any IT4 trade, you are looking to bring back length and athleticism in the front court. WCS and stuff?
With the Kings they'll have two top ten picks, so they'd clearly have one to trade, and someone like Skal Labissiere who's shown a lot of progress towards becoming the player people thought he'd be coming out of high school. Skal clearly thrives on being a garbage scorer, but he's shown some flashes of being able to fire up mid range jumpers with some efficiency. I'd prefer Cauley-Stein, but something tells me he's hitting untouchable status around now.

If Boston landed Fultz, and decided to go that route (dealing Lil' Zeke back home), then adding a high upside PF (knowing that you have Horford to help him grow) and a top ten pick to add another player to the bank for trade purposes isn't the worst spot in the world.
 

Cesar Crespo

79
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
21,588
In some hypothetical universe, what would a Celtics package look like for IT4? Something like Jaylen Brown and 2018 Nets pick? That's about on par with Scal and a top 10 pick this year.
 

ifmanis5

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 29, 2007
63,740
Rotten Apple
If they wanted to move IT they should have sold high a few months ago. This is the second playoffs where the league can see his flaws.
 

nighthob

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
12,678
I think Brown has considerably more upside than Skal, but, yes, if Boston were trying to get an efficient 29 p/g scorer that's probably going to be the ask.
 

nighthob

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
12,678
If they wanted to move IT they should have sold high a few months ago. This is the second playoffs where the league can see his flaws.
This isn't MLB, the idea isn't to sell high. There's value in having a player that can carry you to the playoffs. For one thing it means that Jaylen Brown is breaking in on a playoff team. There's a lot of value in that. Especially for a team that will continue to add young talent.

I don't think it's likely they trade Lil' Zeke. The only possible scenarios I could see are if they landed the first pick and decided to build around Fultz (letting Smart hold down the fort at the other guard spot for a year) or if Paul George wasn't eligible for a supermax deal. Because in that case, given Bird's comments on the necessity of being competitive every year, a deal built around Thomas and a blue chip prospect might be the best they do.
 

NoXInNixon

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 24, 2008
5,297
What teams do you think would trade something of value for IT4? Directed to NoX.
Every team in the league could use IT. He would be absolutely dynamite coming off the bench. By playing as a sixth man, his defensive liabilities are not as pronounced, and his value as an offensive weapon can be taken advantage of. I don't know how much that is worth in terms of value, or if a team who wanted him to play starter's minutes would give up more. But at the very least he brings back something equivalent to a mid-lottery pick.
 

ifmanis5

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 29, 2007
63,740
Rotten Apple
This isn't MLB, the idea isn't to sell high. There's value in having a player that can carry you to the playoffs. For one thing it means that Jaylen Brown is breaking in on a playoff team. There's a lot of value in that. Especially for a team that will continue to add young talent.

I don't think it's likely they trade Lil' Zeke. The only possible scenarios I could see are if they landed the first pick and decided to build around Fultz (letting Smart hold down the fort at the other guard spot for a year) or if Paul George wasn't eligible for a supermax deal. Because in that case, given Bird's comments on the necessity of being competitive every year, a deal built around Thomas and a blue chip prospect might be the best they do.
In the NBA you don't sell high? I'm confused.
By your definition, IT is a good complimentary player who can get you into the playoffs and that's where his value is, but not a Superstar. I think that's an accurate assessment of his ability but a few months ago it may have been possible (or not, hard to know how other teams actually value him) to sell him at Superstar prices and get something better back.
The question Danny has to answer by June is who to draft/trade with IT as a centerpiece, complimentary player or on someone else's team. If it's someone else's team, they are more than likely selling short now.
 

Saints Rest

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Every team in the league could use IT. He would be absolutely dynamite coming off the bench. By playing as a sixth man, his defensive liabilities are not as pronounced, and his value as an offensive weapon can be taken advantage of. I don't know how much that is worth in terms of value, or if a team who wanted him to play starter's minutes would give up more. But at the very least he brings back something equivalent to a mid-lottery pick.
I think this is why you keep IT4. Let him be The Man for the next couple years as Brown, this years Nets pick and next years Nets pick mature. By 2020, you hopefully have your new Big 3, who would all be young and relatively cheap. And IT4 becomes your Instant Offense Sixth Man
 

ifmanis5

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 29, 2007
63,740
Rotten Apple
I think this is why you keep IT4. Let him be The Man for the next couple years as Brown, this years Nets pick and next years Nets pick mature. By 2020, you hopefully have your new Big 3, who would all be young and relatively cheap. And IT4 becomes your Instant Offense Sixth Man
IT hates being the 6th man and prefers the ball in his hands.
If you take Ball or Fultz they'll need the ball. Or they can take Jackson instead.
 

BigSoxFan

Member
SoSH Member
May 31, 2007
47,088
Every team in the league could use IT. He would be absolutely dynamite coming off the bench. By playing as a sixth man, his defensive liabilities are not as pronounced, and his value as an offensive weapon can be taken advantage of. I don't know how much that is worth in terms of value, or if a team who wanted him to play starter's minutes would give up more. But at the very least he brings back something equivalent to a mid-lottery pick.
You think a guy who just averaged 29ppg, who just made the all-star game, and who is looking to set himself up with a big deal would be ok with moving to the bench? At 28 years-old?

I don't see any need to trade Isaiah. We have the assets to build with him. You clearly can't win with Isaiah as your top option but why not as your 2nd or 3rd?
 

wade boggs chicken dinner

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 26, 2005
30,491
You think a guy who just averaged 29ppg, who just made the all-star game, and who is looking to set himself up with a big deal would be ok with moving to the bench? At 28 years-old?

I don't see any need to trade Isaiah. We have the assets to build with him. You clearly can't win with Isaiah as your top option but why not as your 2nd or 3rd?
Because if IT4 isn't scoring 25 ppg, his defensive liabilities become more pronounced and possibly too pronounced to make sense?

Look, I love watching IT4 as a fan and I'm rooting for him as hard as I can but if I'm DA, my best case scenario is that whoever the Cs pick this year is the real deal; the Nets are the worst team in the league next year, and IT4 continues to post near-MVP numbers and signs a max contract with another team.