Built for the Regular Season?

wade boggs chicken dinner

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 26, 2005
30,504
Sure the Bulls were a much better team with Rondo but the Cs were a much much better team putting Green in. Having that one guy who could sit in the paint and disrupt IT4's drives while getting nothing from Amir on defense lead to both the poor offense and defense. Green could still play Mirotic even if Rondo was in the game and on offense, the extra space was what IT needed to work.

And with Green in the lineup instead of Johnson, the Cs are much better closing out on the shooters.

Sure Rondo could have gone crazy and lead the Bulls to a win; we'll never know. But I think Brad had some answers that would have won the day. At least that's the way I'll be remembering the series.
 

GreenMonster49

Well-Known Member
Silver Supporter
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
644
I think we need to take a moment to appreciate how great Al Horford has been in the playoffs so far...averaging 16.1/8.6/7. He has been the C's best all-around player so far and I don't think it's actually that close. To see that line from a center is crazy. I wasn't as hard on him as a lot of folks were during the regular season, but still probably didn't appreciate him as much as I should have. Playoff Al is real and he's spectacular.
Horford's stats in the playoffs so far per basketball-reference:
145 ORtg, 105 Dtg, 0.312 WS/48, 0.700 TS%, 9.3 BPM, 32.8% AST% (would be in the top 16 in the regular season this year). Those are MVP-caliber numbers so far.
 

Eddie Jurak

canderson-lite
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 12, 2002
44,478
Melrose, MA
Horford's stats in the playoffs so far per basketball-reference:
145 ORtg, 105 Dtg, 0.312 WS/48, 0.700 TS%, 9.3 BPM, 32.8% AST% (would be in the top 16 in the regular season this year). Those are MVP-caliber numbers so far.
Certainly he is the easy choice for C's playoff MVP as of now.
 

moly99

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 28, 2007
939
Seattle
I do also think it's ridiculous to think the team *needs* a star center and a star wing, unless we are really diluting what star means. (I know the Horford haters will say I've already done that in this very post).
Obviously it depends on what we are building. Are we trying to build the strongest team in the NBA? Or are we simply competing to win the East? If it is the former we have a lot of work to do. If it is the latter we don't need to add anyone.

Personally I think the Celtics now have the ammunition to build a dynasty, so I want them to either be patient with the Brooklyn picks or trade for two all star players. I don't want them to trade the Brooklyn picks just to get a seat at the table with the big boys. Especially since we are already there.

Before the comeback against the Bulls I said that we may need a center and that Horford is probably the best big man they will be able to find. In other words we are probably stuck competing in the East rather than building a dominant team. (IE by adding Boogie + Butler.) And there's nothing wrong with that. Right now they are a very fun and competitive team and also have a bright future thanks to our young guys and the Nets picks. But the flip side of that is that our chances of winning a title are not very high this year.
 

Reardon's Beard

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 3, 2005
3,795
What has blown me away about this team is not the development, growth, and play of their starting unit but that of the second/third unit. I am not sure there are many teams in the NBA that will boast the level of depth this team can put on the floor next year. Another year of growth for Smart, Rozier, and JB is going to be huge. It is a major strength for the regular season and I would say paying dividends in the playoffs right now (Rozier with 8rb in 15, you kiddin me?)
 

BigSoxFan

Member
SoSH Member
May 31, 2007
47,094
What has blown me away about this team is not the development, growth, and play of their starting unit but that of the second/third unit. I am not sure there are many teams in the NBA that will boast the level of depth this team can put on the floor next year. Another year of growth for Smart, Rozier, and JB is going to be huge. It is a major strength for the regular season and I would say paying dividends in the playoffs right now (Rozier with 8rb in 15, you kiddin me?)
Yup. And the exciting part is that it's only going to get better. Next year, at a minimum, we're adding Fultz/Ball/Jackson/Tatum to a unit that is already kicking other teams' 2nd units' asses. And if Danny can add 1 more elite starter in FA or trade, we are simply going to wear teams down.
 

#classicsquander

New Member
Jul 25, 2016
48
Really curious to see what happens with Rozier. I feel like he could be decent but if they get a guard in the draft theres no minutes for him.
If they end up with Fultz, I wouldn't be opposed to trading Bradley and moving Smart into the starting lineup. Bradley's minutes could be divided between Rozier and Fultz. I can't imagine the Celtics are going to pay Bradley his market value after next season with extensions for Isaiah and Smart coming in the future, so that would make sense.
 

DeJesus Built My Hotrod

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 24, 2002
48,214
One thing is for certain - the C's really cannot trade Thomas this offseason. I still dont think NBA GMs will want to pay up for him but given what he has done these past three weeks, Ainge would likely alienate a good segment of the fanbase and quite a few guys in the locker room too if he was dealt.
 

BigChara33

New Member
May 2, 2017
79
If they end up with Fultz, I wouldn't be opposed to trading Bradley and moving Smart into the starting lineup. Bradley's minutes could be divided between Rozier and Fultz. I can't imagine the Celtics are going to pay Bradley his market value after next season with extensions for Isaiah and Smart coming in the future, so that would make sense.
I don't understand how we can't pay everyone considering the Warriors have proven that there is no salary cap in the NBA.
 

lexrageorge

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2007
18,100
I don't understand how we can't pay everyone considering the Warriors have proven that there is no salary cap in the NBA.
What is your point?

If you took 5 minutes to research it, you would know that the NBA salary cap had a one-time bump last summer due to the latest TV deal. And will undergo a similar bump this coming summer. Between the bump and some unusual circumstances unique to Golden State, the Warriors, you know, actually had the cap space to sign Durant (as did the Celtics and several other teams).

The Celtics could, theoretically, keep and pay everyone (google "Bird rights" if you must). The only drawbacks to that approach:

1.) The Celtics would be paying luxury tax (but you probably don't care about that).

2.) The Celtics would not be able to sign free agents as the salary cup bumps come to an end.

3.) Trades would be complicated (if not outright hindered) by the fact the team has a bunch of veteran players on long term, expensive contracts that would be hard to get rid of if they need to make the salary numbers match.

4.) Between the 2017 and 2018 Nets pick, other draft assets and guys like Rozier, Brown, Zizic, Yabusele, the team would be facing a likely roster crunch at several key positions.

5.) The roster crunch, in turn, means that the team would be paying a lot of money to guys that could see their role reduced to coming off the bench for 15 minutes per game.

6.) Those vets coming off the bench may not be too thrilled about it.

But other than that, there's absolutely no downside to just keeping everyone currently on the roster on max contracts through their mid-30's.
 

ALiveH

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 23, 2010
1,104
Assuming the Celtics can't lure a high-priced FA and have lots of excess cap space, do the rules allow them to restructure / extend IT for a couple years to effectively convert his 1 year / $6 M to something like 3 years / $67M and spread the cap hit evenly across all 3 years? That would take him through his age 32 season. I used Allen Iverson as a comp and AI was very effective through his age 32 before starting to fall off a cliff (AI was still decent age 33, then bad after and presumably medical / training practices have gotten better).
 

slamminsammya

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2006
9,193
San Francisco
Assuming the Celtics can't lure a high-priced FA and have lots of excess cap space, do the rules allow them to restructure / extend IT for a couple years to effectively convert his 1 year / $6 M to something like 3 years / $67M and spread the cap hit evenly across all 3 years? That would take him through his age 32 season. I used Allen Iverson as a comp and AI was very effective through his age 32 before starting to fall off a cliff (AI was still decent age 33, then bad after and presumably medical / training practices have gotten better).
This sort of football style contract doesnt really happen in the NBA. Because it makes zero sense for the players. IT would be leaving over a hundred million dollars on the table in this scenario. And for what? It is not like the NFL where your career might end at any moment.
 

Sam Ray Not

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
8,849
NYC
I don't understand how we can't pay everyone considering the Warriors have proven that there is no salary cap in the NBA.
By having the 8th highest payroll in the league?

Or by having to cut loose Barnes, Bogut, Ezeli, Speights, Barbosa and Rush and replace them with cheap alternatives to clear space for Durant?
 

JakeRae

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 21, 2005
8,125
New York, NY
The injury luck narrative spun in this thread has hit a bit of a roadblock with Markieff Morris able to play and looking reasonably effective. Also missing from that narrative is that the best player to miss significant time in both series is not Rondo, but Amir Johnson. The Bulls were lucky to get to play a series against us with a hobbled Amir, allowing Robin Lopez to dominate the paint early until the Celtics figured out how to adjust. That Stevens could adjust to losing a good basketball player while the Bulls were left listless when they lost a mediocre one does not detract from their success, it amplifies it.
 

mcpickl

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 23, 2007
4,546
Assuming the Celtics can't lure a high-priced FA and have lots of excess cap space, do the rules allow them to restructure / extend IT for a couple years to effectively convert his 1 year / $6 M to something like 3 years / $67M and spread the cap hit evenly across all 3 years? That would take him through his age 32 season. I used Allen Iverson as a comp and AI was very effective through his age 32 before starting to fall off a cliff (AI was still decent age 33, then bad after and presumably medical / training practices have gotten better).
They can, though I doubt he'd accept a short term deal.

I would guess he wouldn't sign for less than the maximum amount of years, and probably max dollars.

Especially since if he waits till next summer, he'd have enough service time to qualify for 30% of the cap as his max as opposed to 25% this summer.
 

Eddie Jurak

canderson-lite
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 12, 2002
44,478
Melrose, MA
Assuming the Celtics can't lure a high-priced FA and have lots of excess cap space, do the rules allow them to restructure / extend IT for a couple years to effectively convert his 1 year / $6 M to something like 3 years / $67M and spread the cap hit evenly across all 3 years? That would take him through his age 32 season. I used Allen Iverson as a comp and AI was very effective through his age 32 before starting to fall off a cliff (AI was still decent age 33, then bad after and presumably medical / training practices have gotten better).
AI is not necessarily a good comp for IT because of the vast difference in minutes played.

Through this year (his age 27 year), IT has 13,214 minutes played.

Through his age 27 year, AI had 20,124 minutes played. For his career, he played 37,524 minutes.
 

Kliq

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 31, 2013
22,673
IT and AI get comped together because of how small they are and how fearless they play, but that is about when the similarities end. AI was a volume scorer who played a billion minutes, got knocked down a dozen times a game and had a legendary night life. It was really unsurprising when he fell off a cliff.

IT I think is more committed to being great. He also is a much more efficient scorer, can rely on deep jumpers to pile up points and doesn't take near the beating or play near the minutes than Iverson did.
 

nighthob

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
12,680
IT and AI get comped together because of how small they are and how fearless they play, but that is about when the similarities end. AI was a volume scorer who played a billion minutes, got knocked down a dozen times a game and had a legendary night life. It was really unsurprising when he fell off a cliff.

IT I think is more committed to being great. He also is a much more efficient scorer, can rely on deep jumpers to pile up points and doesn't take near the beating or play near the minutes than Iverson did.
Actually it was surprising when he fell off the cliff because guys his size usually went south long before their age 33 season.
 

HomeRunBaker

bet squelcher
SoSH Member
Jan 15, 2004
30,096
The injury luck narrative spun in this thread has hit a bit of a roadblock with Markieff Morris able to play and looking reasonably effective. Also missing from that narrative is that the best player to miss significant time in both series is not Rondo, but Amir Johnson. The Bulls were lucky to get to play a series against us with a hobbled Amir, allowing Robin Lopez to dominate the paint early until the Celtics figured out how to adjust. That Stevens could adjust to losing a good basketball player while the Bulls were left listless when they lost a mediocre one does not detract from their success, it amplifies it.
A "hobbled" Amir? When he's horrific it's because he's injured and when he has an occasional good game he's healthy. He didn't match up well the the quicker Bulls frontcourt and even worse against the quicker Wizards forwards. Amir hasn't been listed on any injury report and Stevens started Amir in Game 2 when he's been clearly overmatched (or "injured" as his supporters like to say) and allowed us to be down double digits early. Let's hold off enshrining Brad to the coaching HOF just yet. The one thing that was amplified in both games was the players ability to overcome having Green and Amir helping dig them a hole. Why Jaylen, who is the obvious ideal matchup against the Wizards frontcourt, wasn't the player starting is pretty inexcusable imo.

Green was a great call by Stevens at the 4 as defensively all he had to do was shadow Mirotic behind the arc and not screw up the single weak side rotation requirement off a spot-up shooter. Against the Wizards he can't play as he must be effectively part of a defensive scheme which he has shown over his entire career that he isn't capable of consistently. Going back to Amir is indefensible imo. It HAS to be Jaylen in Game 3 as he best fits with our starting unit allowing Smart and Rozier to remain in the roles they have been in all season with our 4-guard rotation often playing 3 together.
 
Last edited:

BaseballJones

ivanvamp
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
24,386
The C's deserve a lot of credit. Injuries to opponents or not, it's really hard to win six straight playoff games, three of which have been on the road. They've played well. Don't like them falling behind so much early in these games, and think if that happens on the road they could be blown out, but so far, they've had the right answers.
 

smastroyin

simpering whimperer
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2002
20,684
Moved a couple posts, just trying to keep the discussion about the ongoing series in one place.
 

#classicsquander

New Member
Jul 25, 2016
48
I don't understand how we can't pay everyone considering the Warriors have proven that there is no salary cap in the NBA.
I see them extending Isaiah and Marcus, I can't see them paying Avery what he thinks he deserves in addition to that. Salary cap aside, I think it's just a matter of minutes if they draft Fultz. I would like to see Terry get 20+ minutes per game next season (while he shot .318% from 3 overall this year, he shot .359% when he played 20+ minutes, and his shooting during the playoffs and his stroke make me think he could post a number in that range in a full season). Much like with Jaylen, I see nothing in Terry's game that is broken, and he has a fair amount of upside given his length and athleticism. I don't think he would entirely replace Bradley next year, but I'd rather seem them go that route than commit $18,000,000 a season to Bradley, or whatever he'll demand next summer.
 

HomeRunBaker

bet squelcher
SoSH Member
Jan 15, 2004
30,096
I see them extending Isaiah and Marcus, I can't see them paying Avery what he thinks he deserves in addition to that. Salary cap aside, I think it's just a matter of minutes if they draft Fultz. I would like to see Terry get 20+ minutes per game next season (while he shot .318% from 3 overall this year, he shot .359% when he played 20+ minutes, and his shooting during the playoffs and his stroke make me think he could post a number in that range in a full season). Much like with Jaylen, I see nothing in Terry's game that is broken, and he has a fair amount of upside given his length and athleticism. I don't think he would entirely replace Bradley next year, but I'd rather seem them go that route than commit $18,000,000 a season to Bradley, or whatever he'll demand next summer.
I agree that Rozier will be taking on a larger role in his 3rd year just as he took on a larger role in his 2nd year. He's had bumps in the road but I like his trajectory this season as a 2nd year point guard. We get much greater value at his salary then we do with Avery ($20-22m) or Smart ($15-20m). Who remains and who is moved will be determined by who we draft and/or trade for in June as we can't pay both of these players while also extending Isaiah. Avery has always appeared to be the obvious one to go and with so many durability issues that would be my call.

Those shooting numbers you posted can be deceiving though as nearly all fringe bench players (8th-11th men) will show higher percentages when they play more minutes as those games when they are in the single digits are generally the ones where they start off shooting poorly as the coach goes to other options in the 2nd half.
 

DannyDarwinism

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 7, 2007
4,883
I agree that Rozier will be taking on a larger role in his 3rd year just as he took on a larger role in his 2nd year. He's had bumps in the road but I like his trajectory this season as a 2nd year point guard. We get much greater value at his salary then we do with Avery ($20-22m) or Smart ($15-20m). Who remains and who is moved will be determined by who we draft and/or trade for in June as we can't pay both of these players while also extending Isaiah. Avery has always appeared to be the obvious one to go and with so many durability issues that would be my call.

Those shooting numbers you posted can be deceiving though as nearly all fringe bench players (8th-11th men) will show higher percentages when they play more minutes as those games when they are in the single digits are generally the ones where they start off shooting poorly as the coach goes to other options in the 2nd half.
After being somewhat bearish on him, I really like what I've seen lately and it's great that Brad is showing some faith in him, but I don't know if I'm buying Rozier as a starting caliber PG. I've just never seen that sort of vision or ball-handling from him, and unlike the jump shot, I get the sense it's pretty rare for a guy to develop these skills to NBA starter level proficiency if they didn't show much in college or their first couple of season. If he can learn to play at his pace with his head up, I'd be pretty happy with his game, but I think he's more likely to be Tony Delk-like, head-down scoring threat on offense. That's a valuable piece of the bench, and with his athleticism, defensive potential and rebounding*, it's worth taking the gamble that he develops his handle and vision, but I don't think it's a good idea to move forward banking on him to be something other than a match-up dependent bench piece.




* He really is an excellent rebounder, crashing the glass with a great combination of timing, explosiveness and effort. Full list of guys under 6'5 with rebounding rates > 10% this year:

- Westbrook*** (17.1%)
- Harden (12.2%)
- Beverly (10.4%)
- Bradley (10.1%)
- Rondo (10.4%)
- Rozier (10%)
 

#classicsquander

New Member
Jul 25, 2016
48
I agree that Rozier will be taking on a larger role in his 3rd year just as he took on a larger role in his 2nd year. He's had bumps in the road but I like his trajectory this season as a 2nd year point guard. We get much greater value at his salary then we do with Avery ($20-22m) or Smart ($15-20m). Who remains and who is moved will be determined by who we draft and/or trade for in June as we can't pay both of these players while also extending Isaiah. Avery has always appeared to be the obvious one to go and with so many durability issues that would be my call.

Those shooting numbers you posted can be deceiving though as nearly all fringe bench players (8th-11th men) will show higher percentages when they play more minutes as those games when they are in the single digits are generally the ones where they start off shooting poorly as the coach goes to other options in the 2nd half.
I think you're probably right on about Rozier's shooting numbers, but when I watch him shoot, I see a player who could shoot 35-37% from three. I don't think that's out of the realm of possibility. You're one of the bigger Terry boosters on the board, what do you see him developing into as a shooter and a player overall?

Moving on from Avery raises another question, what could the Celtics get for him in a trade this summer?
 

JCizzle

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 11, 2006
20,539
The common consensus seems to be keeping Marcus over Avery, but I'm curious why? Is it simply size and passing? Money?

Marcus is a bad shooter and hasn't improved since joining the league. He's been sub 30% from 3 for the past two years and doesn't have the athleticism to get to the rim. Both are plus plus defenders, but Marcus is clearly more flexible due to his size. In Brad's offense, shooting is a premium asset and Avery is significantly better than Marcus in that regard and is also willing to hit the glass as shown above. There's no denying that Marcus is an elite competitor and I love him on the team, but I'm not sure it's worth paying him when considering the major holes in his game.
 

TheRooster

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 3, 2001
2,483
If they end up with Fultz, I would think that Ainge would basically see what two of Bradley, Rozier, Smart and, for a truly special piece, Thomas would net. Assuming they get back an elite wing or big, you'd still have 3 very strong guards plus either Brown or the '18 Nets pick. While each is unique, Bradley, Rozier and Smart seem somewhat interchangeable in that they are all above average defenders who can be useful on offense. I'd expect some teams to prefer one over the other two, but I'm not 100% clear on which one has the most objective value.
 

nighthob

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
12,680
The common consensus seems to be keeping Marcus over Avery, but I'm curious why? Is it simply size and passing? Money?

Marcus is a bad shooter and hasn't improved since joining the league. He's been sub 30% from 3 for the past two years and doesn't have the athleticism to get to the rim. Both are plus plus defenders, but Marcus is clearly more flexible due to his size. In Brad's offense, shooting is a premium asset and Avery is significantly better than Marcus in that regard and is also willing to hit the glass as shown above. There's no denying that Marcus is an elite competitor and I love him on the team, but I'm not sure it's worth paying him when considering the major holes in his game.
Bradley's a 6'2" SG on a team that starts a 5'8" PG. That's why he's going to be the odd man out when Boston has to choose between beating Brooklyn's offering near max and Smart signing an extension at team friendly rates next fall. But honestly I expect Boston to deal Bradley this summer.
 

BigSoxFan

Member
SoSH Member
May 31, 2007
47,094
If we're talking trade value, I think it's:

Smart
Bradley
Rozier

Bradley is the best overall player but his contract situation hurts his value. Marcus is still a couple of years away from his payday but has shooting issues that may scare some teams off. Rozier is the cheapest but also has less good game tape and has some projectability risk. My concern with all 3 is that they're players that are more valuable to us than other teams. I don't think any of them has great standalone value.
 

TheRooster

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 3, 2001
2,483
I don't necessarily disagree with that ranking but I could see some teams liking Rozier's age/athleticism enough to put him at the top while someone that thinks they are the proverbial one piece away might prioritize Bradley's polish and shooting.
 

Cesar Crespo

79
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
21,588
Fair to say AB has probably peaked or pretty close to it while Smart and Rozier are young enough to get better. If you rank them close to each other, take the players who can improve.
 

nighthob

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
12,680
Bradley is the best overall player but his contract situation hurts his value. Marcus is still a couple of years away from his payday but has shooting issues that may scare some teams off. Rozier is the cheapest but also has less good game tape and has some projectability risk. My concern with all 3 is that they're players that are more valuable to us than other teams. I don't think any of them has great standalone value.
I think Bradley has a lot of value to teams running their offenses through positions other than the 1 guard spot and teams whose PGs are big enough to defend the SG spot.

That covers a healthy chunk of the league. In any event, I fully expect him to be moved this summer as part of adding an upgrade in the front court. Any team trading for him isn't interested in a rental, so getting his Bird rights is actually a positive.
 

BigSoxFan

Member
SoSH Member
May 31, 2007
47,094
I think Bradley has a lot of value to teams running their offenses through positions other than the 1 guard spot and teams whose PGs are big enough to defend the SG spot.

That covers a healthy chunk of the league. In any event, I fully expect him to be moved this summer as part of adding an upgrade in the front court. Any team trading for him isn't interested in a rental, so getting his Bird rights is actually a positive.
Thoughts on possible teams/options? Bradley seems like a play for a playoff team that is already good but wants to get better. But those teams would likely not have much to offer that would entice us.
 

Cesar Crespo

79
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
21,588
The Pelicans could use him. But the Pelicans could use bodies in general. The Pacers, Bucks could probably use him too though not ideal. Minnesota, 76ers, Jazz could also use him.
 

BigSoxFan

Member
SoSH Member
May 31, 2007
47,094
The Pelicans could use him. But the Pelicans could use bodies in general. The Pacers, Bucks could probably use him too though not ideal. Minnesota, 76ers, Jazz could also use him.
And what are we getting from those teams that makes it worth our while?
 

Cesar Crespo

79
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
21,588
That I don't know. Rodney Hood would be a nice piece but I'm not sure it's enough or if the Jazz would do that or what Hayward is doing. Seems like all those teams have to offer are picks unless you think the sixers would trade Saric or if you'd even want Saric.

Almost any return we'd get back would seem like less of a return but would make the team better because with Fultz, there are too many guards.
 

Eddie Jurak

canderson-lite
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 12, 2002
44,478
Melrose, MA
I don't necessarily disagree with that ranking but I could see some teams liking Rozier's age/athleticism enough to put him at the top while someone that thinks they are the proverbial one piece away might prioritize Bradley's polish and shooting.
Bradley strikes me as someone who would be incredible on the Rockets.
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
34,464
This playoff stretch has made it harder to do, but long term I still think the guy you want to move (or let walk I guess) is Isaiah Thomas. He's the oldest, he has the game least likely to age well, and he's due the biggest contract likely.

His defense has been abysmal in the playoffs (as all season) and it's been overshadowed by some huge scoring nights and his teammates playing well. It just doesn't seem like a sustainable strategy to hope he has massive offensive seasons every year going forward.
 

DeJesus Built My Hotrod

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 24, 2002
48,214
This playoff stretch has made it harder to do, but long term I still think the guy you want to move (or let walk I guess) is Isaiah Thomas. He's the oldest, he has the game least likely to age well, and he's due the biggest contract likely.

His defense has been abysmal in the playoffs (as all season) and it's been overshadowed by some huge scoring nights and his teammates playing well. It just doesn't seem like a sustainable strategy to hope he has massive offensive seasons every year going forward.
I will never say never and I don't think anyone here disagrees that Thomas defense is a problem and, furthermore, that his offense will suffer in the not too distant future when he starts his inevitable decline. However, I have a hard time seeing the Celtics dealing him after this season, after these playoffs and after what happened with his sister.

Thomas is the face of of the franchise and its not just for the fans - he also appears to be fairly popular with his contemporaries. Dealing him now, after everything, would appear especially heartless and would certainly send a bad message to prospective free agents.

That said, they can let him walk as you pointed out but it will still likely make the team look bad. I was listening to NBA radio today and Scal said he thought the C's would resign him to a max contract and they would simply lowball him in terms of years. I suspect any suitors for Thomas' services will do the same - everyone knows what his flaws are. But until then, IT4 is the Celtics centerpiece even if their best move would be to deal him.
 

nighthob

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
12,680
Thomas' four year max next time around is going to average more than 40 million per at the end of the day. You can see why Boston would be nervous investing that sort of coin in a 5'8" 29 year old player. I agree that a five year deal for a player like that would be cap crippling the last two years.
 

Eddie Jurak

canderson-lite
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 12, 2002
44,478
Melrose, MA
I will never say never and I don't think anyone here disagrees that Thomas defense is a problem and, furthermore, that his offense will suffer in the not too distant future when he starts his inevitable decline. However, I have a hard time seeing the Celtics dealing him after this season, after these playoffs and after what happened with his sister.

Thomas is the face of of the franchise and its not just for the fans - he also appears to be fairly popular with his contemporaries. Dealing him now, after everything, would appear especially heartless and would certainly send a bad message to prospective free agents.

That said, they can let him walk as you pointed out but it will still likely make the team look bad. I was listening to NBA radio today and Scal said he thought the C's would resign him to a max contract and they would simply lowball him in terms of years. I suspect any suitors for Thomas' services will do the same - everyone knows what his flaws are. But until then, IT4 is the Celtics centerpiece even if their best move would be to deal him.
If they end up not signing a free agent and push themselves over the cap, the obvious thing to do is renegotiate Thomas' current deal to a 4 year max starting next season. More money than he can get anywhere else even if he waits for a year. At the same time, Celtics are off the hook after 2020-21 rather than a year or two later. There's no real basis for expecting him to fall off a cliff by then.

After this offseason, they will be over the cap and out of the max free agent business one way or another, anyway. I wouldn't hold off making a run at a top free agent to extend Thomas, but if that doesn't happen they have no real reason not to.

Viewing him as some kind of liability continues to be a mistake, IMO. He has, and will always have defensive issues, yes, but you can count on one hand the number of NBA players who could step in for him on the current Celtics team and come anywhere close to his offensive value and none who could do so and make this team a legit championship contender.

The premises by which trading IT makes sense are either addition by subtraction, which is just silly, or that we have some sort of unique perspective on his limitations and somewhere in rest of the league is a team that will overpay massively. Both are ridiculous, everyone knows he is 5'8".
 

DeJesus Built My Hotrod

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 24, 2002
48,214
If they end up not signing a free agent and push themselves over the cap, the obvious thing to do is renegotiate Thomas' current deal to a 4 year max starting next season. More money than he can get anywhere else even if he waits for a year. At the same time, Celtics are off the hook after 2020-21 rather than a year or two later. There's no real basis for expecting him to fall off a cliff by then.

After this offseason, they will be over the cap and out of the max free agent business one way or another, anyway. I wouldn't hold off making a run at a top free agent to extend Thomas, but if that doesn't happen they have no real reason not to.

Viewing him as some kind of liability continues to be a mistake, IMO. He has, and will always have defensive issues, yes, but you can count on one hand the number of NBA players who could step in for him on the current Celtics team and come anywhere close to his offensive value and none who could do so and make this team a legit championship contender.

The premises by which trading IT makes sense are either addition by subtraction, which is just silly, or that we have some sort of unique perspective on his limitations and somewhere in rest of the league is a team that will overpay massively. Both are ridiculous, everyone knows he is 5'8".
Great post.

And, yes, VE, Thomas has been a constant topic of trade discussions in this forum. However it's come up regardless of whether the Celtics win or lose. It's more a function of where the team is in its attempt to build a true contender as well as the unique nature of Thomas as a player.
 

ALiveH

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 23, 2010
1,104
I'd sign up for that 4-year max deal (if we can't lure a max FA this offseason). I also assume Ainge trades him after year 3 of that deal to Sacramento for two unprotected 1sts in 2022 and 2024.
 

Eddie Jurak

canderson-lite
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 12, 2002
44,478
Melrose, MA
I'd sign up for that 4-year max deal (if we can't lure a max FA this offseason). I also assume Ainge trades him after year 3 of that deal to Sacramento for two unprotected 1sts in 2022 and 2024.
I don't see that happening, but if Seattle ever gets a team that would be a potential landing spot for the contract. (They come into the league under the cap).
 

nighthob

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
12,680
After this offseason, they will be over the cap and out of the max free agent business one way or another, anyway. I wouldn't hold off making a run at a top free agent to extend Thomas, but if that doesn't happen they have no real reason not to.
They can't extend Thomas, because extensions are based on the value of the existing contract. They could renegotiate the deal this summer, but they would need cap room to fit the contract into.

So, if they fail to sign a major free agent, then they can renegotiate IT's contract, which is somewhat more palatable since the four years would cover what are likely to be the productive ones (Brady aside you can't cheat father time forever, especially when you live off your quickness, those guys just don't last very long). And then hope that the draftees become the core of a new contender, but that's also not an ideal situation for Boston.