The Celtics and Building a Contender - Roster Crunch.

JakeRae

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 21, 2005
8,200
New York, NY
While ordinarily a team wouldn't trade a player like Love for a player like Bradley (plus take on salary), the point is that Bradley would have a specific and extreme value to the Cavs as being one of the few guys in the NBA who seem to be able to slow down Curry a little. It's like the way the Cs got DJ to guard Magic.

While the players aren't equal value, it would seem to me that while it doesn't solve all of CLE's problems, replacing Love with Bradley gives CLE a better chance at winning the title.

At any rate, CLE is reportedly denying that Love is on the market so I'll quit now. Just wishful thinking.
If the Cavs are looking to trade Love for a player like Bradley, they should be pushing Charlotte to think about moving Batum. Batum is a more versatile and better player than Bradley, but he's possibly not going to stay in Charlotte this off-season. Charlotte would be trading for Love's longer commitment. Cleveland gets a player who plays on both sides and is a better fit for their roster. That's not a complete trade, but it's a reasonable start to one that might make sense for both teams. In contrast, it's hard to construct trades involving the Celtics and Love that make sense for either team. Love doesn't fit on the defense focused Celtics and the Celtics don't have anyone with enough individual talent, except possibly Crowder, that it would make sense to think about trading Love for them.
 

jon abbey

Shanghai Warrior
Moderator
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
71,303
I think something like Bradley and Smart and a pick or two could work, but I have a very low opinion of Kevin Love.
 

JakeRae

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 21, 2005
8,200
New York, NY
I think something like Bradley and Smart and a pick or two could work, but I have a very low opinion of Kevin Love.
I think the Celtics would be crazy to trade Bradley and Smart for Love, without any picks being added. You'd also have to include Jerebko to make the money work, which isn't a big deal, but definitely makes it a worse trade for the Celtics. I also don't think that Cleveland would do it, and I'm not sure that they should either. Which brings me back to my point that the teams just don't fit as trade partners, even in the imaginary world where Love is being shopped.
 

benhogan

Granite Truther
SoSH Member
Nov 2, 2007
20,489
Santa Monica
I have zero interest in giving up Bradley and Smart for Kevin Love, they are too good defensively. Plus both are improving offensively.

We have "Kevin Love-lite" in Kelly Olynyk.

After watching Kenneth Faried tonight, I'd like to figure out a way to get him.

He is ferocious, put him on the court with Crowder, Avery, Smart and Kelly and watch the fireworks ensue.

Would Faried be worth the Nets pick + Young + Lee?

He is 26, with 2.5 yrs left on his contract at $12.5MM/per
 

BigSoxFan

Member
SoSH Member
May 31, 2007
47,312
There is no way in hell Danny let's go of the Nets pick for an undersized PF. Faried is perfectly suited to be the Tristan Thompson to somebody else's LeBron but we are trying to find that star player. The Nets pick(s) are our best hope. You either keep and trade for a star (Cousins) or your take a swing in the draft.
 

smastroyin

simpering whimperer
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2002
20,684
So would you give up Olynyk and Smart for Love? (Let's say Cleveland would)

If the question comes off as an attempt at a gotcha, it's not. The basic point is that would you combine two third tier players to upgrade one of them to a second tier player in Love. From the other side, does Cleveland have any reason to do this?
 

moondog80

heart is two sizes two small
SoSH Member
Sep 20, 2005
8,303
So would you give up Olynyk and Smart for Love? (Let's say Cleveland would)

If the question comes off as an attempt at a gotcha, it's not. The basic point is that would you combine two third tier players to upgrade one of them to a second tier player in Love. From the other side, does Cleveland have any reason to do this?

Yes. Marcus Smart has a 35.9% career FG%, and was only 41.9 in college (even Jason Kidd was 46.8 in college). He's not a good FT shooter either (67%), or even a particularly good assist man. And he's been injury prone. He's young, yes, and he does bring toughness/rebounding/defense. But how often does that package mature into anything more than solid rotation guy? Has it ever?
 

ALiveH

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 23, 2010
1,104
I definitely like Love more than most here. I'd give up Smart & Olynyk for him without hesitation. That would be an absolute steal. Cleveland would never do it. They'd probably ask for Bradley or the Brooklyn 1st (possibly both), and even then i'd probably still do it.
 

Grin&MartyBarret

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 2, 2007
4,932
East Village, NYC
Cleveland's only making a deal with Boston if it gives them players that help them match up with Golden State right now. Marcus Smart isn't that guy yet. The only way I see Cleveland biting is if it's Bradley and Crowder. They need to get better on the wing fast, and those two guys bring obvious skill sets that help them right now.
 

Sprowl

mikey lowell of the sandbox
Dope
SoSH Member
Jun 27, 2006
34,704
Haiku
Yes. Marcus Smart has a 35.9% career FG%, and was only 41.9 in college (even Jason Kidd was 46.8 in college). He's not a good FT shooter either (67%), or even a particularly good assist man. And he's been injury prone. He's young, yes, and he does bring toughness/rebounding/defense. But how often does that package mature into anything more than solid rotation guy? Has it ever?
This guy was never a good shooter from the field, took three years to become good at free throws, and five years to become a good assist man. He always brought the toughness/rebounding/defense package, and was certainly more than just a rotation guy.
 

the moops

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 19, 2016
4,776
Saint Paul, MN
Should we list the 99% of basketball players that were poor shooters in college and their first couple years in the NBA that never became more than rotation players?

I mean, sure, DJ is a best case scenario, but how realistic is it?
 

moondog80

heart is two sizes two small
SoSH Member
Sep 20, 2005
8,303
Smart isn't just a bad shooter. He's horrible. He shot 36.7% last year and 34.2% this year. DJ shot 50.4% and 41.7% and was 47.9% in college. His PER this first two seasons was 16.1; Marcus checks in at 11.2.

Faced with a choice, I'd rather trade him than Bradley or Crowder.
 

benhogan

Granite Truther
SoSH Member
Nov 2, 2007
20,489
Santa Monica
There is no way in hell Danny let's go of the Nets pick for an undersized PF. Faried is perfectly suited to be the Tristan Thompson to somebody else's LeBron but we are trying to find that star player. The Nets pick(s) are our best hope. You either keep and trade for a star (Cousins) or your take a swing in the draft.
Brad's a star maker...just ask IT

Going and getting Cousins is an utter pipe dream. Unless we hand over a king's ransom, something like Avery, Jae and all the Nets/our picks, its not happening. Just put Boogie in the Giancarlo Stanton file.

We need to develop/find the next 'good to great' player, and turn him into a star.

Stevens turns Faried into the next Paul Millsap.

http://espn.go.com/nba/player/stats/_/id/3015/paul-millsap

Simmons is a superstar in the making, and I'm cool with rolling the lottery dice there, but outside of him sorry if I don't get excited. I watch a fair amount of college hoops and Ingram/Ellenson/Skal would be boys in a man's league for a few seasons.
 
Last edited:

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
35,030
This guy was never a good shooter from the field, took three years to become good at free throws, and five years to become a good assist man. He always brought the toughness/rebounding/defense package, and was certainly more than just a rotation guy.
I mean beyond it being one guy, the league was very different then, and he played on a team with 3 of the 50 or so best players of all time including one who may be top 10.
 

sox311

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 30, 2004
1,753
That's what she said.
Faried into Millsap? They are not even similar players. Faried is ten times more likely to turn into a modern day JJ Hickson than to become a David West type player not to mention a perennial all star like Millsap.

A nice start by Myles Turner tonight... Oh what could have been had we moved up to take him....
 

Jed Zeppelin

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 23, 2008
51,622
Brad's a star maker...just ask IT

Going and getting Cousins is an utter pipe dream. Unless we hand over a king's ransom, something like Avery, Jae and all the Nets/our picks, its not happening. Just put Boogie in the Giancarlo Stanton file.

We need to develop/find the next 'good to great' player, and turn him into a star.

Stevens turns Faried into the next Paul Millsap.

http://espn.go.com/nba/player/stats/_/id/3015/paul-millsap

Simmons is a superstar in the making, and I'm cool with rolling the lottery dice there, but outside of him sorry if I don't get excited. I watch a fair amount of college hoops and Ingram/Ellenson/Skal would be boys in a man's league for a few seasons.
You don't need to trade a top 5 pick for a good player...just ask IT.
 

Sprowl

mikey lowell of the sandbox
Dope
SoSH Member
Jun 27, 2006
34,704
Haiku
Should we list the 99% of basketball players that were poor shooters in college and their first couple years in the NBA that never became more than rotation players?
If you like. I was just answering moondog's 'has it ever?' question.
I mean, sure, DJ is a best case scenario, but how realistic is it?
Smart is still 21. DJ was a rookie at 22. I think DJ is Smart's best comp -- a backcourt defensive stopper whose skills derive from power, not speed. The problem is that Smart in 2016 is miscast as IT's relief as point guard and distributor. Smart isn't very creative (like DJ, he needs somebody to create for him), he's not a great ballhandler, and he is prone to taking the contested early jump shot instead of dishing it off.

Once Smart finds the right fit as off guard (and if he stays healthy), I think he's the Celtics' best asset. For the Cavaliers in 2016, of course, Bradley & Crowder are much more valuable.
Faried into Millsap? They are not even similar players. Faried is ten times more likely to turn into a modern day JJ Hickson than to become a David West type player not to mention a perennial all star like Millsap.
Faried is a freakish athlete at 26, while Millsap still has the complete package on offense at nearly 31. I don't see them as comparable players either, except in that both of them have peaked, and neither one should be an acquisition target for the Celtics.
 

nighthob

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
12,717
I mean beyond it being one guy, the league was very different then, and he played on a team with 3 of the 50 or so best players of all time including one who may be top 10.
He ws also an NBA Finals MVP, four time NBA All Star, five time NBA All Defense, two time All NBA team player before arriving in Boston. Let's not pretend that DJ was some scrub kicking around the NBA before Bird, Parish, and McHale rescued him.
 

HomeRunBaker

bet squelcher
SoSH Member
Jan 15, 2004
30,485
I have zero interest in giving up Bradley and Smart for Kevin Love, they are too good defensively. Plus both are improving offensively.

We have "Kevin Love-lite" in Kelly Olynyk.

After watching Kenneth Faried tonight, I'd like to figure out a way to get him.

He is ferocious, put him on the court with Crowder, Avery, Smart and Kelly and watch the fireworks ensue.

Would Faried be worth the Nets pick + Young + Lee?

He is 26, with 2.5 yrs left on his contract at $12.5MM/per
The target on the Nugggets has to be Gallinari who Ainge has always spoken highly of while filling a need for some perimeter shooting at a low cost. We need more floor spacing from our forwards not less.....Faried is a terrible fit for Stevens offense.
 

Erik Hanson's Hook

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 20, 2013
1,083
I mean beyond it being one guy, the league was very different then, and he played on a team with 3 of the 50 or so best players of all time including one who may be top 10.
Not trying to derail the thread or call you out, because you're definitely a knowledgable NBA poster...but prime Larry, before injuries, has chunks of "possibly top 10" in his stool. Really his only competition for all time starting five is prime Lebron, depending on if you slot them at the 3 or 4.

Sorry, I'm a Bird fanatic.
 

wade boggs chicken dinner

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 26, 2005
30,913
Should we list the 99% of basketball players that were poor shooters in college and their first couple years in the NBA that never became more than rotation players?

I mean, sure, DJ is a best case scenario, but how realistic is it?
Didn't we discuss this when Smart was drafted. What about Kawhi Leonard, who shot 25% from 3P range in college? Bruce Bowen?

Smart is improving his offensive game - he's going to the rim more often and getting to the line more (and making a slightly higher percentage). If Smart can shoot 37% from 3P range and get to the line say seven times a game, isn't he a perennial All-Star and possibly more? I don't know why people would want to give up on that after 92 games.

While admittedly a long shot, in terms of building a championship team, I'd rather have right now Smart's potential than Love's production only because at this point the Cs do not really have any one else with his ceiling.
 

smastroyin

simpering whimperer
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2002
20,684
I think this discussion kind of gets to the point of how hard it is to acquire an NBA star, and perhaps also how difficult it is to get a second tier guy like Love compared to how much they may actually help.

Obviously this is more a general comment as specific needs and goals have a large effect on individual teams and trade ideas.
 

HomeRunBaker

bet squelcher
SoSH Member
Jan 15, 2004
30,485
Smart is improving his offensive game - he's going to the rim more often and getting to the line more (and making a slightly higher percentage). If Smart can shoot 37% from 3P range and get to the line say seven times a game, isn't he a perennial All-Star and possibly more? I don't know why people would want to give up on that after 92 games.
Kawhi and Bruce reinvented their shot and eliminated the wasted motion to become consistent shooters while Smart still has his long windup from his waist along with horrific shot selection. Recognizing the problem is the first step......and consistency will remain an issue with the windup.

I like Smart to be a solid player in this league if he can beat the injury bug and IF he can shoot his 3's at 37% and get to the line 7 times a game he will be a perennial All-Star.......of course he's shooting 23% and doesn't have the lift or quick hops in traffic to generate whistles in the lane which is why he can't get to the line 3 times a game even while he still has his athleticism. So while the former has a chance to be reached with a reinvention the latter doesn't appear to be within reach due to his physical skills.

Smart should watch Tony Allen videos and eliminate the noise in his offensive game while focusing on his strengths. Right now his decision making it what is holding Smart back from being an above average NBA player.
 

moondog80

heart is two sizes two small
SoSH Member
Sep 20, 2005
8,303
Didn't we discuss this when Smart was drafted. What about Kawhi Leonard, who shot 25% from 3P range in college? Bruce Bowen?

Smart is improving his offensive game - he's going to the rim more often and getting to the line more (and making a slightly higher percentage). If Smart can shoot 37% from 3P range and get to the line say seven times a game, isn't he a perennial All-Star and possibly more? I don't know why people would want to give up on that after 92 games.

While admittedly a long shot, in terms of building a championship team, I'd rather have right now Smart's potential than Love's production only because at this point the Cs do not really have any one else with his ceiling.
Leonard shot 37.6% from 3 as a rookie (Smart has never had an overall FG% that high) and 49.3% overall.

Is trading Smart for Love really "giving up" on him? Were the Red Sox giving up on Manuel Margot when they traded him for Craig Kimbrel?
 

ALiveH

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 23, 2010
1,104
If Smart were coming out of college this year, based on what we know about him now where would he be drafted? I don't think it would be #1 overall. It would probably be around where he was actually drafted (#6), maybe slightly higher. And that's before even considering 2 less years of control. Based on this logic, I view the value of Smart as similar to one of the Brooklyn picks, i.e., maybe could be a star, but this is the sort of asset you trade when you can get very good player.
 

chilidawg

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 22, 2015
6,086
Cultural hub of the universe
If Smart were coming out of college this year, based on what we know about him now where would he be drafted? I don't think it would be #1 overall. It would probably be around where he was actually drafted (#6), maybe slightly higher. And that's before even considering 2 less years of control. Based on this logic, I view the value of Smart as similar to one of the Brooklyn picks, i.e., maybe could be a star, but this is the sort of asset you trade when you can get very good player.
To me you could say that Smart is worth a #5 pick, because that's about where he might slot. Two problems with this though, first any new pick isn't likely to be productive for a couple years, so you're losing that immediate productivity. On the other hand, the pick has the chance to be higher, and perhaps net someone like Simmons or Ingram. To me, that gamble is worth it, and thus I value the pick more than I might Smart at this point.
 

cardiacs

Admires Neville Chamberlain
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
3,003
Milford, CT
Kawhi and Bruce reinvented their shot and eliminated the wasted motion to become consistent shooters while Smart still has his long windup from his waist along with horrific shot selection. Recognizing the problem is the first step......and consistency will remain an issue with the windup.

I like Smart to be a solid player in this league if he can beat the injury bug and IF he can shoot his 3's at 37% and get to the line 7 times a game he will be a perennial All-Star.......of course he's shooting 23% and doesn't have the lift or quick hops in traffic to generate whistles in the lane which is why he can't get to the line 3 times a game even while he still has his athleticism. So while the former has a chance to be reached with a reinvention the latter doesn't appear to be within reach due to his physical skills.

Smart should watch Tony Allen videos and eliminate the noise in his offensive game while focusing on his strengths. Right now his decision making it what is holding Smart back from being an above average NBA player.
Great post - completely agree with everything written here.
 

nighthob

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
12,717
Is trading Smart for Love really "giving up" on him? Were the Red Sox giving up on Manuel Margot when they traded him for Craig Kimbrel?
It's a moot point since the Cavs aren't reducing their odds of winning a title while the best player on the planet still plays for them so that they have the pieces to put around Kyrie Irving down the road. They already have someone like Smart, what they need is a guy that can defend the PG spot and space the floor when Kyrie is injured and or the bench.
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
35,030
We're running into the problem that there are lots of buyers and no sellers, and the number of real stars in the league is low. If the Celtics make a deal before the deadline it is going to look like an overpay.
 

wade boggs chicken dinner

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 26, 2005
30,913
Kawhi and Bruce reinvented their shot and eliminated the wasted motion to become consistent shooters while Smart still has his long windup from his waist along with horrific shot selection. Recognizing the problem is the first step......and consistency will remain an issue with the windup.

I like Smart to be a solid player in this league if he can beat the injury bug and IF he can shoot his 3's at 37% and get to the line 7 times a game he will be a perennial All-Star.......of course he's shooting 23% and doesn't have the lift or quick hops in traffic to generate whistles in the lane which is why he can't get to the line 3 times a game even while he still has his athleticism. So while the former has a chance to be reached with a reinvention the latter doesn't appear to be within reach due to his physical skills.

Smart should watch Tony Allen videos and eliminate the noise in his offensive game while focusing on his strengths. Right now his decision making it what is holding Smart back from being an above average NBA player.
I'm not sure what you mean by "above-average" NBA player, but I think every team in the NBA would want him and would be playing him. His defense alone may make him above-average.

As for the rest, Smart shot .335 from 3P last year so he should be able to shoot much better. And he has been getting to the line more often but the fact that he's not going even more is likely due to the fact that in a lot of rotations, he doesn't touch the ball much.

Smart's floor is Tony Allen and I think the odds are he's going to be netter than that. Much better.
 

wade boggs chicken dinner

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 26, 2005
30,913
Rumour has it that the Lakers are shopping Russell. Wonder if there is a three-way that sends Love to LA, Russell to BOS, and Jae and Avery to CLE.

Just for fun, I tried Bradley, Crowder, and Turner to CLE; Love and James Young to LA; and Russell, Nick Young, and Lou Williams to BOS, and that trade works cap-wise.
 

JakeRae

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 21, 2005
8,200
New York, NY
Kawhi and Bruce reinvented their shot and eliminated the wasted motion to become consistent shooters while Smart still has his long windup from his waist along with horrific shot selection. Recognizing the problem is the first step......and consistency will remain an issue with the windup.

I like Smart to be a solid player in this league if he can beat the injury bug and IF he can shoot his 3's at 37% and get to the line 7 times a game he will be a perennial All-Star.......of course he's shooting 23% and doesn't have the lift or quick hops in traffic to generate whistles in the lane which is why he can't get to the line 3 times a game even while he still has his athleticism. So while the former has a chance to be reached with a reinvention the latter doesn't appear to be within reach due to his physical skills.

Smart should watch Tony Allen videos and eliminate the noise in his offensive game while focusing on his strengths. Right now his decision making it what is holding Smart back from being an above average NBA player.
I don't think Smart needs to shoot 37% from three and get to the line 7 times a game to be an elite player. He needs to become an above average 3-point shooter OR get to the line at a high rate (and develop the ability to finish at the rim) to be an elite player. The former is the Jason Kidd track of offensive development (notwithstanding the rather large other differences in their games). Kidd never became a good 2-point scorer, never got to the line at a really high rate, and struggled to finish at the rim, but the rest of his game made up for it. The latter is the Dwayne Wade route. Wade has never been a good shooter, in fact, he's a pretty terrible shooter, but he gets to the rim and the line, finishes at the rim, and shoots well, although not extraordinarily so, from the line. I actually think developing into a Wade-style player remains the most realistic path for Smart, and he has taken some steps toward that this year. He has improved his free throw shooting substantially, from 65% to 71%, and is getting to the rim a lot more, from 18% of his shots to 27%. He's also getting more 3-10 foot looks, up from 9% to 15%. But, his finishing is down; he is only making 50% of his shots at the rim versus 56% a year ago (although he has improved markedly from 3-10, going from 26% to 36%).

Obviously, his shooting rates remain abysmal. A comparison to Wade shows that the strides he has made in getting to the rim are substantial, even while his ability to finish has a long ways to go. Wade has a career 36% rate at the rim, but took nearly half his shots there early in his career. His 15% career mark from 3-10 matches Smart, on the other hand. However, Wade shoots 66% and 47%, respectively, from the distances noted. And, has gotten to the line 8 times per game, versus the 3 that Smart currently averages this year. Wade is a career 77% FT shooter. Better than Smart, but it's not hard to see Smart continuing to improve and getting into the upper 70's.

The good news is, if Smart can get better at finishing, the trips to the line will likely follow. Smart is making large strides to being the sort of attack the rim bulldog that Wade has made a career out of being. And, that seems to fit his athleticism and natural game much better than being a range 3-point shooter (although improving his shooting mechanics can only be a good thing). The gains he's made this year in getting to the rim already make him pretty good at it. As another point of comparison, he's already better than DeMar DeRozan at getting to the rim. (DeRozan finishes almost as well as Wade and has a much better mid-range game than either Wade or Smart.) The next big step for Smart is figuring out a way to become a 60% plus finisher at the rim. I have no idea how realistic that is, but it seems like, with his natural strength, it should be something he can learn to do. I'm still pretty optimistic he can do this. I like the progression he's shown so far, and I'm hopeful he can continue that to become a significant positive at the offense end alongside his elite defense.
 

ElcaballitoMVP

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 19, 2008
3,955
Rumour has it that the Lakers are shopping Russell. Wonder if there is a three-way that sends Love to LA, Russell to BOS, and Jae and Avery to CLE.

Just for fun, I tried Bradley, Crowder, and Turner to CLE; Love and James Young to LA; and Russell, Nick Young, and Lou Williams to BOS, and that trade works cap-wise.
I'm sorry, but I'm just not understanding this deal from Boston's perspective. I suppose a 3 guard lineup of IT, Smart and Russell would have upside, but you're creating a huge hole at SF and giving up a 25 yr old 3&D SG for a pretty big question mark. He doesn't give the team a big, nor does he make this team better now. I'd trade AB straight up for him, but I think adding Crowder makes this a big overpay.

If we're going to overpay, I'd prefer it to be for more of a sure-thing, or for a big with upside. If Blake or Boogie is actually available, I'd rather overpay for one of them, including adding a BKL pick (preferably the pick swap in '17). Something like AB, Crowder, Sully, the '17 BKL pick swap, '16 DAL and '17 BOS 1sts. That deal gives LA everything they need, but obviously, LA needs to be willing to move him. Outside of a deal like that, I'd rather Danny stand pat and hope we get lucky in the lottery.
 

HomeRunBaker

bet squelcher
SoSH Member
Jan 15, 2004
30,485
I don't think Smart needs to shoot 37% from three and get to the line 7 times a game to be an elite player. He needs to become an above average 3-point shooter OR get to the line at a high rate (and develop the ability to finish at the rim) to be an elite player. The former is the Jason Kidd track of offensive development (notwithstanding the rather large other differences in their games). Kidd never became a good 2-point scorer, never got to the line at a really high rate, and struggled to finish at the rim, but the rest of his game made up for it. The latter is the Dwayne Wade route. Wade has never been a good shooter, in fact, he's a pretty terrible shooter, but he gets to the rim and the line, finishes at the rim, and shoots well, although not extraordinarily so, from the line. I actually think developing into a Wade-style player remains the most realistic path for Smart, and he has taken some steps toward that this year. He has improved his free throw shooting substantially, from 65% to 71%, and is getting to the rim a lot more, from 18% of his shots to 27%. He's also getting more 3-10 foot looks, up from 9% to 15%. But, his finishing is down; he is only making 50% of his shots at the rim versus 56% a year ago (although he has improved markedly from 3-10, going from 26% to 36%).

Obviously, his shooting rates remain abysmal. A comparison to Wade shows that the strides he has made in getting to the rim are substantial, even while his ability to finish has a long ways to go. Wade has a career 36% rate at the rim, but took nearly half his shots there early in his career. His 15% career mark from 3-10 matches Smart, on the other hand. However, Wade shoots 66% and 47%, respectively, from the distances noted. And, has gotten to the line 8 times per game, versus the 3 that Smart currently averages this year. Wade is a career 77% FT shooter. Better than Smart, but it's not hard to see Smart continuing to improve and getting into the upper 70's.

The good news is, if Smart can get better at finishing, the trips to the line will likely follow. Smart is making large strides to being the sort of attack the rim bulldog that Wade has made a career out of being. And, that seems to fit his athleticism and natural game much better than being a range 3-point shooter (although improving his shooting mechanics can only be a good thing). The gains he's made this year in getting to the rim already make him pretty good at it. As another point of comparison, he's already better than DeMar DeRozan at getting to the rim. (DeRozan finishes almost as well as Wade and has a much better mid-range game than either Wade or Smart.) The next big step for Smart is figuring out a way to become a 60% plus finisher at the rim. I have no idea how realistic that is, but it seems like, with his natural strength, it should be something he can learn to do. I'm still pretty optimistic he can do this. I like the progression he's shown so far, and I'm hopeful he can continue that to become a significant positive at the offense end alongside his elite defense.
Smart isn't developing a game at the rim as you claim nor has he utilized quick fast twitch movements to get into the lane or at the rim any differently from last year. You are taking numbers way out of context.

What is REALLY occurring is Stevens is no longer utilizing Smart as a pure 1 (which is good since he isn't a 1) instead posting him up more in the paint versus advantageous matchups thus increasing his attempts at the rim......which he isn't converting. Naturally this results in a few more FTA, but not many in Smart's case due to his lack of quick hops to generate whistles.....and to top it off he's not finishing well. Brad's utilization of him offensively has changed probably to divert Smart's attention from launching so many bad 3's at a low rate which was his M.O. in college as well.
 

benhogan

Granite Truther
SoSH Member
Nov 2, 2007
20,489
Santa Monica
The target on the Nugggets has to be Gallinari who Ainge has always spoken highly of while filling a need for some perimeter shooting at a low cost. We need more floor spacing from our forwards not less.....Faried is a terrible fit for Stevens offense.
I think offering the Nets pick for Farried was overzealous on my part. I compared him to Millsap, because of their similar stats their first 4 years in the league. Agreed, Gallinari, would be great, but probably too expensive. At this point it feels like Brad is going with a 9-man rotation and if we are adding a 10th man to that rotation, I think the Celtics need, at the moment and in the playoffs, is some muscle (no, Zeller isn't that muscle).

A month ago I had concerns about our 3pt shooting and suggested Middleton (too expensive) and maybe cheaper options in Casspi, Jon Leuer or Hollis Thompson. BUT Jerebko, and Kelly have picked it up from the outside and have started to fill our need for a stretch 4/5. And as long as Brad halves/stops Smart, Amir, Sullinger and Turner's attempts from deep we should move from being a below avg. to a good 3pt shooting team.

If Danny can add a shooter on the cheap great, BUT if not I'd like to see us add some muscle/ offensive rebounder (for the #10 role), an aggressive forward to play with the 2nd unit (Kelly, Jerebko, Turner, Smart). Maybe kick the tires on Thaddeus Young? a Dwight Powell return would work and if we really want to go dumpster diving consider Thomas Robinson, he hits the boards hard for the few minutes he plays.
 
Last edited:

snowmanny

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 8, 2005
15,800
He ws also an NBA Finals MVP, four time NBA All Star, five time NBA All Defense, two time All NBA team player before arriving in Boston. Let's not pretend that DJ was some scrub kicking around the NBA before Bird, Parish, and McHale rescued him.
Late to this, but by the time DJ made it to Boston he'd lost some (almost all) of his "little eraser" hops:

Edit: The ball in the above picture was now moving right to left.
 

Grin&MartyBarret

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 2, 2007
4,932
East Village, NYC
I'll be honest, I don't get the Blake Griffin trade talk at all. I know the Clippers aren't going to get over the hump in the Western Conference, and that that's a disappointment, but if you're looking to retool isn't the obvious choice to deal your 30 year old point guard without knee ligaments who is in the midst of what might be his best year ever? You can get huge value for him, and build around Griffin who is 3 years younger and locked into a contract that's going to be a really good value under the cap.
 

Swedgin

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 27, 2013
703
I'll be honest, I don't get the Blake Griffin trade talk at all. I know the Clippers aren't going to get over the hump in the Western Conference, and that that's a disappointment, but if you're looking to retool isn't the obvious choice to deal your 30 year old point guard without knee ligaments who is in the midst of what might be his best year ever? You can get huge value for him, and build around Griffin who is 3 years younger and locked into a contract that's going to be a really good value under the cap.
The rationale is fit. At their most efficient Blake and Jordan occupy the same space on the court. While Blake can play at the elbow, he's better on the block. If you could replace with him a wing scorer, you would have a more balanced time. Personally, I think Blake for Melo makes a ton of sense for both sides.
 

Grin&MartyBarret

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 2, 2007
4,932
East Village, NYC
The rationale is fit. At their most efficient Blake and Jordan occupy the same space on the court. While Blake can play at the elbow, he's better on the block. If you could replace with him a wing scorer, you would have a more balanced time. Personally, I think Blake for Melo makes a ton of sense for both sides.
So why not trade Jordan?
 

CreightonGubanich

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 13, 2006
1,388
north shore, MA
So why not trade Jordan?
Zach Lowe touched on this recently, regarding what an awkward fit Blake Griffin actually is in today's NBA. He's a power forward that can't shoot threes or protect the rim, and it's tough to find the right big man to pair guys like that with. Next to Jordan, the two of them really hinder the team's spacing, but next to a stretch guy, the defense would be porous. And Griffin also isn't built to play as a small ball center like Draymond Green, because he lacks both length and the bulk to defend in the post. He'd be a great fit next to, say, Serge Ibaka -- a guy that can stretch the floor AND protect the rim -- but there aren't many Ibakas in the NBA.

Still...Griffin is talented enough that you can overcome these deficiencies, I think. It'd be a mistake for the Clippers to trade him.
 

HomeRunBaker

bet squelcher
SoSH Member
Jan 15, 2004
30,485
I'll be honest, I don't get the Blake Griffin trade talk at all. I know the Clippers aren't going to get over the hump in the Western Conference, and that that's a disappointment, but if you're looking to retool isn't the obvious choice to deal your 30 year old point guard without knee ligaments who is in the midst of what might be his best year ever? You can get huge value for him, and build around Griffin who is 3 years younger and locked into a contract that's going to be a really good value under the cap.
Who are those talking about trading Blake though? I've only seen these click bait guys feeding off this recent incident. The Clippers finally have a winning team, a legit core all 30 and under.....and people can't wait to create ideas about them wanting to break it up. It's silly really.
 

Swedgin

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 27, 2013
703
So why not trade Jordan?
You could. But if the spacing issue is the rationale for the trade, then you need to replace Jordan with someone who still gives you his rim protection and rebounding on defense and can really shoot the ball. There are not a ton of guys who fit that bill, and if you have one why would you want to replace him with Jordan. NY does have such a guy (or at least the potential of one) in Kristaps, which is one reason I think Blake for Melo could be good for both teams.
 

HomeRunBaker

bet squelcher
SoSH Member
Jan 15, 2004
30,485
You could. But if the spacing issue is the rationale for the trade, then you need to replace Jordan with someone who still gives you his rim protection and rebounding on defense and can really shoot the ball. There are not a ton of guys who fit that bill, and if you have one why would you want to replace him with Jordan. NY does have such a guy (or at least the potential of one) in Kristaps, which is one reason I think Blake for Melo could be good for both teams.
Carmelo has a full no-trade to protect him against being traded prior to the 2016-17 season when his 15% trade kicker gets activated......plus he loves playing in NY. There is as close to a 0% chance he agrees to trade by Feb 18th as 0% gets.
 

Swedgin

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 27, 2013
703
Carmelo has a full no-trade to protect him against being traded prior to the 2016-17 season when his 15% trade kicker gets activated......plus he loves playing in NY. There is as close to a 0% chance he agrees to trade by Feb 18th as 0% gets.
My understanding was that he has a full no trade and a trade kicker throughout his deal (though the trade kicker is worth more in future years due to the vagaries of the CBA). Putting the discrepancy aside, the trade makes more sense during the summer for all sides. From the Clips perspective, you give this core one more chance to break through. If (and when) they fail to make the Finals, moving Blake is an easier sell to the fan base. Plus both teams get a full offeseason to integrate a new, high usage guy.. As to the no-trade and his willingness to waive, I have no inside info, much less any mind reading ability, but I would hazard a guess that Melo and LaLa can find it in their hearts to accept living in LA, especially since 1) he gets to bring the 5 year with him and 2) he would have a far superior chance of getting a ring.
 

BigSoxFan

Member
SoSH Member
May 31, 2007
47,312
In what world is trading a soon-to-be 26 year-old Griffin for a soon-to-be 32 year-old Melo a good idea for the Clippers? I mean, if they went that route, I'd expect them to get far more than a 32 year-old volume scorer who's probably teeing up on the 12th or 13th hole at this point.
 

Grin&MartyBarret

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 2, 2007
4,932
East Village, NYC
Zach Lowe touched on this recently, regarding what an awkward fit Blake Griffin actually is in today's NBA. He's a power forward that can't shoot threes or protect the rim, and it's tough to find the right big man to pair guys like that with. Next to Jordan, the two of them really hinder the team's spacing, but next to a stretch guy, the defense would be porous. And Griffin also isn't built to play as a small ball center like Draymond Green, because he lacks both length and the bulk to defend in the post. He'd be a great fit next to, say, Serge Ibaka -- a guy that can stretch the floor AND protect the rim -- but there aren't many Ibakas in the NBA.

Still...Griffin is talented enough that you can overcome these deficiencies, I think. It'd be a mistake for the Clippers to trade him.
You could. But if the spacing issue is the rationale for the trade, then you need to replace Jordan with someone who still gives you his rim protection and rebounding on defense and can really shoot the ball. There are not a ton of guys who fit that bill, and if you have one why would you want to replace him with Jordan. NY does have such a guy (or at least the potential of one) in Kristaps, which is one reason I think Blake for Melo could be good for both teams.
See, but this is where I get tripped up. In general, when people refer to "today's NBA" they're basically saying "you can't beat the Warriors small ball lineup with Blake at the 4 or 5." And that's basically true. But you can't really matchup against the Warriors small ball lineup with Jordan at the 5 either, and you can't really play him crunch time minutes because of his free throw shooting.

Meanwhile, while Jordan provides rim protection, he still can't matchup against Draymond at the 5. Last year everybody went crazy clamoring about how Cleveland couldn't compete because they didn't have a rim protector next to Love, and then they went and got one in Mozgov, and 6 months later he's obsolete and they've got a roster full of useless bigs that don't fit "today's NBA."

Today's NBA means the Warriors. it's really, really, really difficult to beat the Warriors. Draymond is an insanely unique piece, and he's flanked by two of the best shooters in the world, if not the two best. Which brings me to the greater point: should everybody in the league be building rosters to compete with Golden State? Is that really today's NBA? Or is Golden State an aberration that's basically impossible to match up against? Put it this way: if Draymond Green tears his ACL tomorrow, what does "today's NBA mean" in the context of Blake Griffin's fit as a 4? Is Blake Griffin an awkward fit against the second best team in the league (San Antonio)? Is he an awkward fit against the Cavs?