If Smart goes 1-11 from deep regularly, the Celtics have a problem. He also had a game this year where he was 5-11 and a streak where he went: 4-9, 4-7, 4-8 and 5-9. If you don't want the games where he misses, you should not want him shooting on those good nights too.I’m a Smart fan, but I’m actually not that confident he knows to limit his shots. Didn’t he have a 1-10 game from 3 or something like that? I remember his teammates told him to keep on shooting. Unfortunately, teammates don’t often really tell you the truth
There are a few different issues being discussed:If Smart goes 1-11 from deep regularly, the Celtics have a problem. He also had a game this year where he was 5-11 and a streak where he went: 4-9, 4-7, 4-8 and 5-9. If you don't want the games where he misses, you should not want him shooting on those good nights too.
I know its what we do here but we seem to be drawing big conclusions from small sample sizes. Or maybe I am misunderstanding the points being made. In my view, Smart's shooting isn't great but he does enough to be very valuable for this team on most nights. Unless he is part of a true upgrade transaction, it makes little sense to trade him given that he is one of the team's primary facilitators and defenders. As I posted upthread, I suspect he has a very specific market and unless you think he is no better than a low first and some bench filler, I am not sure what the objective is. Its more than likely that any Smart trade would weaken this team overall.
Both the team, and Smart, have been going through some things this year. I'd like to reserve judgment until he and the team are back at 100%, or reasonably close to that.I know its what we do here but we seem to be drawing big conclusions from small sample sizes. Or maybe I am misunderstanding the points being made. In my view, Smart's shooting isn't great but he does enough to be very valuable for this team on most nights. Unless he is part of a true upgrade transaction, it makes little sense to trade him given that he is one of the team's primary facilitators and defenders. As I posted upthread, I suspect he has a very specific market and unless you think he is no better than a low first and some bench filler, I am not sure what the objective is. Its more than likely that any Smart trade would weaken this team overall.
BTW Baynes looks pretty cooked (worn down to a nub)*I guess my reservation about Smart goes more along the lines of: as the Jays progress, and once the Celtics have an off-season or two to rebalance the roster (it’s not that hard to find Baynes and Lopii equivalents), would you rather have Marcus Smart or a Danny Green type long-term? The answer for me is pretty clearly the latter.
Yeah, I’d be interested in collecting and shrinkwrapping older centers with good defense and smarts. It’s just a challenge for any coach to stay disciplined enough to not overplay them (Brad was actually quite good about that with Baynes imo, and we’ve seen what happens when Phoenix tried to use him as a full-time regular season starter—Nub City!)BTW Baynes looks pretty cooked (worn down to a nub)*
After playing all summer for Oz + major minutes the first 30 games he's completely drained of energy. He needs a reboot with the summer off (maybe it will keep away any interest?)
No worries, plenty of 5s that have a similar skill set.
*The same thing happened to Gasol. I could see him being added this summer by a shrewd GM for pennies on the dollar ($5MM or less)
Yea, I'm more inclined to stick the "C" on Smart's chest and look to keep him longer. Have Brad/Danny tell him he doesn't need to be an offensive/scoring star to be important to the Celtics. The Celtics will have alpha scorers in Tatum, Brown, Kemba (potentially Romeo?) in the years to come. I'm sure they can find 3pt snipers off the bench without dealing Marcus.Both the team, and Smart, have been going through some things this year. I'd like to reserve judgment until he and the team are back at 100%, or reasonably close to that.
I think he's a great fit here still because he contributes in different ways than the rest of the Celtics' top 5. He's made a meaningful offensive improvement this year that no one mentions: a drastic reduction in turnovers even as he continues to be one of the key facilitators on the team.
Yes, he has notable flaws, but the perfect is the enemy of the good.
ha, the Brad machine with three experienced Centers (@~$5MM/each) works well with a wing heavy roster.Yeah, I’d be interested in collecting and shrinkwrapping older centers with good defense and smarts. It’s just a challenge for any coach to stay disciplined enough to not overplay them (Brad was actually quite good about that with Baynes imo, and we’ve seen what happens when Phoenix tried to use him as a full-time regular season starter—Nub City!)
I see no such redundancy. We are now in year 5 of the Celtics primary point guard being a score first guy. During that span we’ve had 3 different players in the role, and all of them were trade or free agent acquisitions.Upon reflection, I do see more clearly the redundancy of "secondary, non-ballhandler initiator" that Marcus shares with Gordon.
I'm not saying that Smart's ballhandling is redundant. I'm saying that Kemba + ballhandler2 (currently BW) + GH + MS is more ballhandling than they need, if getting the tax bill down is a thing.I see no such redundancy. We are now in year 5 of the Celtics primary point guard being a score first guy. During that span we’ve had 3 different players in the role, and all of them were trade or free agent acquisitions.
It is very, very clear at this point t that what Danny and Brad want in a PG is a 20+ PPG scorer who is not a black hole but is also not the primary facilitator in the lineup. Playmaking on Brad Stevens’ teams has been a group effort relying on a handful of guys, some of whom are also starters.
Smart’s playmaking isn’t really redundant on this team.
Im not sure what the difference is between “redundant” and “more than they need”, but in any case I disagree with the latter point. BW is just another guy and shouldn’t factor into the argument at all. Smart and Hayward are stylistically different in how they playmake and both are valuable on this team.I'm not saying that Smart's ballhandling is redundant. I'm saying that Kemba + ballhandler2 (currently BW) + GH + MS is more ballhandling than they need, if getting the tax bill down is a thing.
Ok so they both playmake but are different, so having both is a good idea. Agreed.Im not sure what the difference is between “redundant” and “more than they need”, but in any case I disagree with the latter point. BW is just another guy and shouldn’t factor into the argument at all. Smart and Hayward are stylistically different in how they playmake and both are valuable on this team.
All of this is correct; the Celtics will be over the cap for quite some time. A couple of caveats, however:The Celtics have Hayward's Bird rights, correct? So, my limited understanding of capology is that the Celtics can keep Tatum and Hayward and Smart without any real issue to the cap. There is, of course, an issue with Wyc's wallet - but that's not really my concern. The Celtics will be over the cap, but they are over the cap anyway.
My understanding, very limited at best, is that if Hayward opts out and leaves - the Celtics wouldn't be able to sign a max free agent to replace him (unless of course Hayward goes to a team where a sign and trade is possible). So, unless you think Hayward would be a bad contract, it's better to sign him then watch him go away without any replacement (all of this assumes he plays well the rest of this season).
I threw in the disaster scenario as not as something that is likely to happen. Or even something that could happen. Just pointing out that every owner has their budget, and unfortunately the luxury tax does have to be taken into account when assessing signings and re-signings, and so the possibility does exist that Hayward is gone after this year (to be fair, he could be gone anyway, as free agents are free to go where they want). The good news is that Danny and Wyc seem to be on the same page when it comes to spending Wyc's money, which was not the case with the franchise down the road.I understand the point, but the NBA is even more of a player's league than baseball is. If the Celtics were do decide to trade Tatum for flotsam and jetsam to save money, I think that would have a much more negative impact on the value of the franchise than trading Betts would - in my opinion.
The Celtics seem to be on the beginning of a bit of a 'Golden Era'. They've got 2 young stars on the upswing (the second of which will hopefully sign a long-term deal in the next few years), and they are contenders for the conference championship. It only takes a few bad moves to wreck all that and go back to the dark ages of ML Carr and Rick Pitino. I personally gave up basketball for awhile during those years. In this sports town, no one needs to be loyal to ineptitude.
The issue is the repeater tax gets very expensive as the Thunder found out when their payroll expenses neared $300 million. As for Hayward leaving, he isn't going to one of the rebuilding teams under the cap. If he wants to go, it will be to chase a ring somewhere like Golden State, LA, or Milwaukee. Those are all going to be sign & trade transactions where Boston can fashion a TPE to use to add talent after.The Celtics have Hayward's Bird rights, correct? So, my limited understanding of capology is that the Celtics can keep Tatum and Hayward and Smart without any real issue to the cap. There is, of course, an issue with Wyc's wallet - but that's not really my concern. The Celtics will be over the cap, but they are over the cap anyway.
My understanding, very limited at best, is that if Hayward opts out and leaves - the Celtics wouldn't be able to sign a max free agent to replace him (unless of course Hayward goes to a team where a sign and trade is possible). So, unless you think Hayward would be a bad contract, it's better to sign him then watch him go away without any replacement (all of this assumes he plays well the rest of this season).
Net negative.Now imagine the same scenario with the on-court and postgame reaction of Mr. Chemistry.
To quote the early aughts philosopher Marlo Stanfield, "you want it to be one way...but its the other way".His shot looks good generally...I just wish he would apply the "would Tatum take this shot" test to every 3 he takes, he'd cut out those 2-4 crappy shots per game that he's probably a ~20-25% shooter on.
I wanted to agree with you, but he teased me with restraint in prior games. (yes, phrasing)To quote the early aughts philosopher Marlo Stanfield, "you want it to be one way...but its the other way".
In my experience, acceptance is a path to appreciating Smarf and life in general.
I think he's been better with his restraint this year.I wanted to agree with you, but he teased me with restraint in prior games. (yes, phrasing)
A big game for Marcus last night and just like that he's up to 35.5%Maybe not 40, but i still think he finishes between 36-38.
This aged quite well.Now he's gonna come back as a dead-eye shooter.
“The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the unreasonable man.”To quote the early aughts philosopher Marlo Stanfield, "you want it to be one way...but its the other way".
In my experience, acceptance is a path to appreciating Smarf and life in general.
I'm not sure if I should be excited or worried that "offensively confident" Marcus will be in full greenlight mode for the rest of the seasonDid you ever think you would see a day where, in his previous 2 games, Marcus Smart hit 16 three-pointers?
35.5 on 6.6 attempts/game is...kind of totally fine? He mostly seems to press when the team has absolutely nothing going offensively, which I suppose is understandable.A big game for Marcus last night and just like that he's up to 35.5%
Tatum is shooting the same percentage (well, 35.6%)on 6.5 attempts per game for context35.5 on 6.6 attempts/game is...kind of totally fine? He mostly seems to press when the team has absolutely nothing going offensively, which I suppose is understandable.
If he were on any other team and didn't have his irrational confidence rep, we'd all just be like: "oh yeah, guess that guy who used to be bad at shooting learned to shoot. Cool."
GBS was a brilliant man but I am not sure that even he or even an unreasonable cyborg designer is going to create a NBA player who is perfect in every regard.“The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the unreasonable man.”
Meh, I think this is selling short both his BBIQ and normal, being a smart person, IQ. In the games Kemba has played recently, he's shown a lot of restraint in shooting off the dribble 3s early shot-clock, and has also attacked the paint really aggressively.It may be good to be unreasonable about political regimes or inefficient processes but no amount of unreasonableness will make Marcus Smarf be 100% efficient in every decision or play he makes. Imo, nothing will change the fact that even the best of the best aren't perfect and never will be. That is the beauty of following sports like the NBA - getting those rare moments where everything works.
Yeah when Kemba is out there he clearly feels less need to press. It’s great to see.I've been very impressed with his passing lately. I was very afraid after his 11 3P he would start chucking up shots like it's the end of the world, but he really hasn't. Aside from about one ugly drive per game, I've been quite pleased with what he's been doing on the offensive end. He's taking open 3 pointers, and he's been making great passes to his teammates.
??? He's a good FT shooter with decent touch. He actually probably needs to work some on adding a 12-15 footer, which we saw him bust out some against Orlando. It's a pretty important tool for the type of guard they want him to be, and the type he'll need to be once Hayward ages out and Smart hits his next contract, just for team salary structure.The next improvement I'd like to see from Smart is for him to be more efficient inside the arc. Unless the shot clock is all the way down, Smart should not be taking any shots outside the paint.
Smart is at 36.7% on non-layup twos, 59.5% on layups, and 35.1% from three. I think he could do a better job when he dribble drives and posts up for his turnaround jumper from short range, and with his floater. He rushes a lot of these shots. Smart is way too strong for many defenders, and should be using that strength better. For example, Jaylen Brown is 43.9% on non-layup twos. He used to be shakier from short range, but this season he's getting to his spots, taking his shots under control, and getting to the line around 30% more too.??? He's a good FT shooter with decent touch. He actually probably needs to work some on adding a 12-15 footer, which we saw him bust out some against Orlando. It's a pretty important tool for the type of guard they want him to be, and the type he'll need to be once Hayward ages out and Smart hits his next contract, just for team salary structure.
He's also a good enough passer that when teams have to overplay that short mid-ranger, a lot of passes down low will open up. His equity on that shot isn't just it's raw %: it's the additional passes for high % shots it creates.