16 Days in January—Determining Trade Deadline Activity

Cesar Crespo

79
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
18,809
Ignoring your goalpost move of "for a 1st" here are the teams that will likely be interested in Schroder if he's made available:
BKN, CHI, MIL, MIA, CLE, PHI, CHA, GS, PHX, UTA, LAL, LAC, MEM, DAL minimum. He is cheap and he'd make most team's rotation come playoff time, especially with injuries/COVID.
All those teams and probably more kick the tires, now if they would give us enough that Brad makes the deal, that may be a different question.
Yeah, I don't buy that. DS will be moved for a few 2nds or be on the team. I didn't move the goalpost. BenHogan said it would be malpractice if Brad traded him for less than a 1st. He's not getting a 1st. Moving him for a few 2nds wouldn't be an awful move because DS has little to no trade value.

I also don't think any of those teams are actually interested. Schroder isn't even a starter on the vast majority of teams in the NBA.
 

Cesar Crespo

79
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
18,809
I'm still confused as to your reasoning. He isn't a starter, so nobody would be interested? Teams bring in bench players all of the time.
He's not very good and there will be better players available. His contract is a non factor. All teams have salary filler they can move for a player on an expiring deal.

My main point is DS has no real trade value and the Celtics aren't going to get a real asset for him because "oh his contract though." It also wouldn't be malpractice to dump Schroder for 2 2nds if the team is 24-28. We aren't getting Coby White or a 1st rounder for DS. We will end up moving him for what is essentially a salary dump, unless he's salary filler in a bigger deal.

So yeah, teams will be interested if the price is "free."

edit: Or we just keep him.
 

shoelace

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 24, 2019
187
He's not very good and there will be better players available. His contract is a non factor. All teams have salary filler they can move for a player on an expiring deal.

My main point is DS has no real trade value and the Celtics aren't going to get a real asset for him because "oh his contract though." It also wouldn't be malpractice to dump Schroder for 2 2nds if the team is 24-28. We aren't getting Coby White or a 1st rounder for DS. We will end up moving him for what is essentially a salary dump, unless he's salary filler in a bigger deal.

So yeah, teams will be interested if the price is "free."

edit: Or we just keep him.
I think this is probably right. Folks will have to forgive me if this comparison has already been made, but this feels like when Memphis wanted a first for Tyreke Evans in 2017-2018 when he was on a 1 year deal and averaging 19/5/5 on almost 40% from three. No one gave in to that, and he signed as a free agent elsewhere the following year.

It's possible that some contender gets desperate, I suppose, but it doesn't feel likely to me. In general I feel like teams are more judicious about trading firsts than they were even in 2017-2018. It just feels like wishcasting to think they'll get a first. This just seems like something people want to be able to get mad about if Brad doesn't trade Schroder, ignoring the fact that Brad has very little leverage in any deal centered around this specific player.

We saw Evan Fournier come here last year and make a minimal impact due to health/COVID-19. I thought that was a good move because it was low risk. Trading a first for Schroder is a high risk proposition if he gets hurt or doesn't mesh with the acquiring team. Just feels like poor asset management, even for a team with a low first and a chance to contend.
 
Last edited:

Jimbodandy

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 31, 2006
6,519
around the way
Best part of this DS speculation and debate is that we get a resolution to it pretty damn soon.

Hopefully something better happens than just the conclusion of Schrodergate.
 

BigSoxFan

Member
SoSH Member
May 31, 2007
40,667
Best part of this DS speculation and debate is that we get a resolution to it pretty damn soon.

Hopefully something better happens than just the conclusion of Schrodergate.
I’m rooting for a Schroder trade purely for the victory lap posts that will be sure to follow shortly afterwards.
 

Jimbodandy

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 31, 2006
6,519
around the way
I’m rooting for a Schroder trade purely for the victory lap posts that will be sure to follow shortly afterwards.
Lol. That's the best part. We'll get victory lap posts either way.

Danny more or less sat on his hands since the Kyrie trade. Brad hasn't done a career-defining move yet. It would be nice if that trend is broken.
 

Cesar Crespo

79
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
18,809
Lol. That's the best part. We'll get victory lap posts either way.

Danny more or less sat on his hands since the Kyrie trade. Brad hasn't done a career-defining move yet. It would be nice if that trend is broken.
A Schroder move probably isn't going to be it either.
 

benhogan

Granite Truther
SoSH Member
Nov 2, 2007
13,463
Santa Monica
I think this is probably right. Folks will have to forgive me if this comparison has already been made, but this feels like when Memphis wanted a first for Tyreke Evans in 2017-2018 when he was on a 1 year deal and averaging 19/5/5 on almost 40% from three. No one gave in to that, and he signed as a free agent elsewhere the following year.

It's possible that some contender gets desperate, I suppose, but it doesn't feel likely to me. In general I feel like teams are more judicious about trading firsts than they were even in 2017-2018. It just feels like wishcasting to think they'll get a first. This just seems like something people want to be able to get mad about if Brad doesn't trade Schroder, ignoring the fact that Brad has very little leverage in any deal centered around this specific player.

We saw Evan Fournier come here last year and make a minimal impact due to health/COVID-19. I thought that was a good move because it was low risk. Trading a first for Schroder is a high risk proposition if he gets hurt or doesn't mesh with the acquiring team. Just feels like poor asset management, even for a team with a low first and a chance to contend.
Ty Evans is a good comp, nice recall. Funny you should bring that up since the Celtics could have used him against the Cavs in Game 7 when they scored 79pts & went 7-39 from 3 or in Game 6 when they scored 99pts. Then again they used that late 2018 1st to select Robert Williams.

BUT I digress, no one is wishcasting for a 1st. If we're going to waste wishes, it's for this team to play better, compete, and keep Schroder as an offensive sparkplug off the bench, right? maybe Tatum fixes his 3pt shooting and life is swell when he returns, so Feb. 10 turns into buying talent?

Failing that (& they continue to play like crap) you'd like to turn DS+ into a young, blocked PG (like Coby White). OR go bigger & put together a real package (like Monte Morris). AFTER that try to deal DS for a late first which would be used in a further/bigger trade this summer. The JAYs & their agents would be clued in with the game plan of adding assets to make a bigger trade for 2022-23.

There would be no need to draft late firsts with the plethora of young undeveloped projects under team control (Begarin, Mader, Hauser, Thomas, Fernando, Nesmith, PP, Langford - I've unilaterally graduated Granite).

Dealing DS for a 2nd would be unimpressive. Confident PBS can get something better.
 
Last edited:

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
24,579
I think this is probably right. Folks will have to forgive me if this comparison has already been made, but this feels like when Memphis wanted a first for Tyreke Evans in 2017-2018 when he was on a 1 year deal and averaging 19/5/5 on almost 40% from three. No one gave in to that, and he signed as a free agent elsewhere the following year.

It's possible that some contender gets desperate, I suppose, but it doesn't feel likely to me. In general I feel like teams are more judicious about trading firsts than they were even in 2017-2018. It just feels like wishcasting to think they'll get a first. This just seems like something people want to be able to get mad about if Brad doesn't trade Schroder, ignoring the fact that Brad has very little leverage in any deal centered around this specific player.

We saw Evan Fournier come here last year and make a minimal impact due to health/COVID-19. I thought that was a good move because it was low risk. Trading a first for Schroder is a high risk proposition if he gets hurt or doesn't mesh with the acquiring team. Just feels like poor asset management, even for a team with a low first and a chance to contend.
One note on Evans, the word at the time from the local Memphis sources was that there was a 1st on the table, but Wallace turned it down because it involved taking back salary for the next year. He apparently set the floor as a future 1st (didn't want a 2018 pick) and zero future money. That's a much bigger ask than just a 1st. The rumors were MEM asked for a 1st and PHI would do it (and throw in TLC possibly) if MEM ate a year of Jarred Bayless, but MEM decided against it because they didn't want to pay Bayless and didn't want a 2018 pick.
 

nighthob

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
10,964
One note on Evans, the word at the time from the local Memphis sources was that there was a 1st on the table, but Wallace turned it down because it involved taking back salary for the next year. He apparently set the floor as a future 1st (didn't want a 2018 pick) and zero future money. That's a much bigger ask than just a 1st. The rumors were MEM asked for a 1st and PHI would do it (and throw in TLC possibly) if MEM ate a year of Jarred Bayless, but MEM decided against it because they didn't want to pay Bayless and didn't want a 2018 pick.
Yep. Memphis was trying to avoid the 2019 luxury tax, hence their refusal to take a 2018 #1 or future salary in any Evans deal. If I recall correctly Philly wanted Evans and a small filler deal in exchange for the 2/18 that Bayless had left for that #1. A less than palatable situation for the Grizz.
 

HomeRunBaker

bet squelcher
SoSH Member
Jan 15, 2004
23,060
Name the 8 buyers. You have to squint to find one. Schroder is not valuable.
On the trade front he probably isn’t unless a contender suffers a key backcourt injury. He’s much more valuable to this team down the stretch and in the playoffs than (ex: ) the 46th pick in next summers draft. I think people forget how valuable post season wins and post season series wins are to this team moving forward.
 
Last edited:

chilidawg

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 22, 2015
3,396
Cultural hub of the universe
On the trade front he probably isn’t unless a contender suffers a key backcourt injury. He’s much more valuable to this team down the stretch and in the playoffs than (ex: ) the 46th pick in next summers draft. I think people forget how valuable post season wins and post season series wins are to this team moving forward.
No Schroder means 44 minutes of PP when Smart is out. Not a winning formula.
 

RSN Diaspora

molests goats for comedy
SoSH Member
Jul 29, 2005
8,667
Washington, DC
No Schroder means 44 minutes of PP when Smart is out. Not a winning formula.
Valid if we continue the current winning ways this month. The next five games are going to be critical (and fairly harsh--only one day off in between each), with one against the Spurs (14-21), two against the Knicks (17-20), and two against the Pacers (14-23). If we win at least four of these games, then maybe that makes it progressively less reasonable to move Schroder. If we falter, OTOH, we limp into games against the Bulls and Sixers and maybe you start entertaining offers. If, come February, we're not ensconced in at least a play-in game, then a bad return might be better than no return at all.
 

the moops

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 19, 2016
3,259
Saint Paul, MN
Portland seems like a nice logical fit for a trade. Their defense is atrocious and they have lost 14 of their past 18 games. Yet somehow are only 4 games back of the 8 seed. A Dame/Smart backcourt fits so much better than a Dame/CJ duo.

Smart, Horford, Pritchard, 2023 1st
for
CJ, Nance Jr
 

JakeRae

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 21, 2005
6,967
New York, NY
Portland seems like a nice logical fit for a trade. Their defense is atrocious and they have lost 14 of their past 18 games. Yet somehow are only 4 games back of the 8 seed. A Dame/Smart backcourt fits so much better than a Dame/CJ duo.

Smart, Horford, Pritchard, 2023 1st
for
CJ, Nance Jr
Portland’s defense is atrocious in no small part because of CJ. CJ is also an overrated offensive player. He’s a good scorer and a very good shooter, but the latter sometimes causes people to overrate his overall offensive game, which is much more similar to someone like Fournier than someone like Dame. He’s also 30 and undersized.

Put differently, this is an awful trade idea that makes the Celtics worse now and in the future. Smart is better than CJ and Horford is better than Nance. I know people are going to disagree with me on Smart, but whatever people here might think, Stevens clearly agrees with the advanced metrics that more or less unanimously see him as a good to very good player, since he paid him like one. He’s not going to trade him for an overrated, wrong side of 30, volume scorer.
 

PedroKsBambino

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 17, 2003
26,754
One thing that I believe has always been true of Stevens the coach---and remains so as GM---is that he values defense first and offense second. I'm not sure that is wrong, but it is very unlikely to change.

I personally think you can replicate some of Smart's defense with Richardson---not all, but credibly. The question is whether you can get enough offensive juice in the swap for it to be wortwhile. CJ is a good scorer, but not a great one, and not a distributor. Personally, if I'm dealing Smart I want someone who can help move the ball around more offensively. I just can't name the guy who is both avaialble and fits---unfortunately Lonzo is the closest and they missed their chance there.

I don't think it is a disaster to move a secondary player---Richardson/Horford---for a CJ/Fournier type scorer because they badly need a third shot creator. But that is to me a deck-chairs kind of move and unless January is a very, very strong month I don't think such a move is worthwhile as I'd rather save flexibility and chips for a bigger upgrade/change in the offseason.
 

Bernie Carbohydrate

writes the Semi-Fin
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 2, 2001
3,363
South Carolina via Dorchestah
It’s been three posts since anyone talked in circles about Schröder. Can we please get back on topic?
Can I ask if the Schröder trade is alive or dead, or perhaps both alive and dead?

I'm of the "keep him" school.

The Celtics will never, ever, ever be fully healthy ever again, not even at the heat death of the universe. Not even in 2058 when all NBA players are invincible cyborgs. The ones in green will still break. It is in their nature, as the scorpion said.

So I'd rather watch the marginally more competitive team that includes Schröder that the weaker team that would take the court in the second half of this season if Schröder is traded. I don't know what he'd fetch, but aren't we taking about netting some longshot/ eurostash / Tacko-style project who might -- might -- make the end of the roster in 2024, a latter day Fab Melo? Covid will kill us all by 2025, so let's try to make the second round this year so I can have an extra week of basketball. Schröder, warts and all, is a real NBA player who might go off in a playoff game.

I've also grown fond of The Schröder Experience, which is The Port Cellar seeing him as a flawed spare part that might be of limited utility in the right situation and Schröder seeing himself as a Latter Day Kobe. The man is a vengeful gunslinger who got screwed by The System, has a huge chip on his shoulder, and thinks he should have the ball in crunchtime. He puts his head down and drives into the crowded lane with no plan beyond incandescent self-confidence. The kid has moxie.

Ben Pepper me no Ben Pepper. Win now.
 

benhogan

Granite Truther
SoSH Member
Nov 2, 2007
13,463
Santa Monica
December litmus test wasn't good but Brad should wait until Feb. 10 to decide on Schroder.

ATL is getting desperate, their offense goes from awesome to horrific once Trae leaves the floor. The Hawks have an offensive rating of 117.1 with Young on the floor this season (which would be the best offense in the NBA) and a 100.2 offensive rating when Young sits.

They may have an interest in trying to make a 2nd half of the season run like they did last season. Schroder would help with their 2nd unit scoring
 

lexrageorge

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2007
14,068
December litmus test wasn't good but Brad should wait until Feb. 10 to decide on Schroder.

ATL is getting desperate, their offense goes from awesome to horrific once Trae leaves the floor. The Hawks have an offensive rating of 117.1 with Young on the floor this season (which would be the best offense in the NBA) and a 100.2 offensive rating when Young sits.

They may have an interest in trying to make a 2nd half of the season run like they did last season. Schroder would help with their 2nd unit scoring
I doubt very much either the Hawks or the Celtics will want to do anything to make each other better this season. The Hawks struggling to make the playoffs is not Brad Stevens' problem to solve.
 

benhogan

Granite Truther
SoSH Member
Nov 2, 2007
13,463
Santa Monica
I doubt very much either the Hawks or the Celtics will want to do anything to make each other better this season. The Hawks struggling to make the playoffs is not Brad Stevens' problem to solve.
I doubt any NBA team wants to make another team better at their expense.

Yet amazingly trades happen
 

lexrageorge

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2007
14,068
I doubt any NBA team wants to make another team better at their expense.

Yet amazingly trades happen
I am reacting to the standings. Both teams are currently fighting for the play-in game slot. If that remains status quo, I don't see Stevens bailing on Schroder to improve the Hawks.
 

benhogan

Granite Truther
SoSH Member
Nov 2, 2007
13,463
Santa Monica
I am reacting to the standings. Both teams are currently fighting for the play-in game slot. If that remains status quo, I don't see Stevens bailing on Schroder to improve the Hawks.
We'll have a better idea of the standings in a month+ on Feb. 10 but ATL has a bunch of interesting youngsters blocked.

A trade can help both teams fill needs.

I'm sure Boston/Atlanta viewed each other as EC elite this summer, but they made a trade.
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
24,579
I'm starting to think we won't see much this year in terms of trades from BOS.

Schroder makes some sense to trade if we're struggling, but I think we'll turn it around enough that they don't want to re-set and the problem with trading him for a "now" piece with more future use is that what we need is a PG... and what team with a PG wants to trade him for Schroder? I guess maybe you find a team that wants Schroder to play more 2 as a bench scorer?
 

PedroKsBambino

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 17, 2003
26,754
I'm starting to think we won't see much this year in terms of trades from BOS.

Schroder makes some sense to trade if we're struggling, but I think we'll turn it around enough that they don't want to re-set and the problem with trading him for a "now" piece with more future use is that what we need is a PG... and what team with a PG wants to trade him for Schroder? I guess maybe you find a team that wants Schroder to play more 2 as a bench scorer?
I think it's that or a team with a young PG who is looking for a playoff-ready option. Bulls, with White, are the only possible fit on that I fear, though.

I agree it is quite possible there just isn't a lot to do, and that the next round of change is in the offseason--when they still have exceptions to try to utilize as well as a bit more flexibility around the lux tax.
 

HomeRunBaker

bet squelcher
SoSH Member
Jan 15, 2004
23,060
I doubt any NBA team wants to make another team better at their expense.

Yet amazingly trades happen
Two things. One, if you’re trading Schroder you aren’t looking to give yourself the best chance to advance in the playoffs this year anyway so who you trade him to doesn’t matter a whole lot. Secondly, you can easily avoid any conflict by trading the player out of conference to not affect your playoff chances/seeding.
 

benhogan

Granite Truther
SoSH Member
Nov 2, 2007
13,463
Santa Monica
I'm starting to think we won't see much this year in terms of trades from BOS.

Schroder makes some sense to trade if we're struggling, but I think we'll turn it around enough that they don't want to re-set and the problem with trading him for a "now" piece with more future use is that what we need is a PG... and what team with a PG wants to trade him for Schroder? I guess maybe you find a team that wants Schroder to play more 2 as a bench scorer?
pretty difficult to get their PG/ballhandler of the future in any DS trade. A PG is Brad's top priority this summer.

If "16 January/Feb games" will dictate if they are buyers/sellers, the majority of the Orlando game didn't excite me. DS status is still up in the air, but he did drop 21 against the Magic. The guy has value to a contender. If it's for the Celtics, yippee...If the C's aren't above .500, they aren't a contender, move him for an asset that can be used this summer in a bigger trade (or kept on the roster)

Two things. One, if you’re trading Schroder you aren’t looking to give yourself the best chance to advance in the playoffs this year anyway so who you trade him to doesn’t matter a whole lot. Secondly, you can easily avoid any conflict by trading the player out of conference to not affect your playoff chances/seeding.
agree with your bolded

The point is if they are dealing DS on Feb.10, Brad will obviously have decided they are NOT CONTENDERS.

So DS would be made available to every EC & WC team, since he'll freely be on the move this summer
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
24,579
pretty difficult to get their PG/ballhandler of the future in any DS trade. A PG is Brad's top priority this summer.
Oh I don't think they would get their PG/ballhandler of the future. Question was could they get a ballhandler who can be a bench piece next year too. I don't see it, but maybe? Would have to find a team who needs scoring and has a more pass/spot-up focused PG they are willing to let go for Schroder's driving skills.
 

Eddie Jurak

Go Leafs Go
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 12, 2002
34,334
Melrose, MA
So I'd rather watch the marginally more competitive team that includes Schröder that the weaker team that would take the court in the second half of this season if Schröder is traded. I don't know what he'd fetch, but aren't we taking about netting some longshot/ eurostash / Tacko-style project who might -- might -- make the end of the roster in 2024, a latter day Fab Melo? Covid will kill us all by 2025, so let's try to make the second round this year so I can have an extra week of basketball. Schröder, warts and all, is a real NBA player who might go off in a playoff game.
/QUOTE]I disagree with the premise. I don't think moving Schroder makes them meaningfully worse. It could perhaps make them better once they adjust.
 

benhogan

Granite Truther
SoSH Member
Nov 2, 2007
13,463
Santa Monica
If the 18-19 Celtics aren’t contenders, than I don’t think the 16-20 Hawks are either.
the beautiful thing is the Celtics and the Hawks have until Feb.10 to decide if they are buyers/sellers

But I bet if you go to Tree Rollins Dentist's Office, there are Hawk fans looking to add a back up PG
 

benhogan

Granite Truther
SoSH Member
Nov 2, 2007
13,463
Santa Monica
Oh I don't think they would get their PG/ballhandler of the future. Question was could they get a ballhandler who can be a bench piece next year too. I don't see it, but maybe? Would have to find a team who needs scoring and has a more pass/spot-up focused PG they are willing to let go for Schroder's driving skills.
If Brad decides they are a seller, it's about getting the best asset possible regardless of position.

Coby would be a fabulous get and would take DS+++
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
24,579
If Brad decides they are a seller, it's about getting the best asset possible regardless of position.

Coby would be a fabulous get and would take DS+++
Oh I agree, I was saying that's the reason I don't think we see much action. Because you only trade DS in 2 situations:
1. You are a true seller (I think this is unlikely)
2. You see a trade that you think is close to a wash this year but the player isn't gone the next like Schroder.

#2 can be possible in a lot of situations, but I was noting that our need being PG and Schroder being a PG makes it tougher, you then need a team that has a PG who is more valuable to us (3pt shooter?) but that they would want to replace with DS (they need a slasher/driver).
 

DeJesus Built My Hotrod

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 24, 2002
37,275
It really feels like the Schroder trade spectrum is purely a function of return expectations. Schroder is a roll of paper towels to me. His production is remarkably consistent around league-averagish, he is clearly a known commodity around the league and his contract situation was one of the stories of the offseason - the Schroder market dried up when he was available for just money and his cost was a pittance.

Its hard to see Stevens holding another team over a barrel for Schroder and extracting anything other than a lottery ticket in return. Lottery tickets are good but the value to this team, at this point in time is fairly low.

On the other hand, if Brad can swap Schroder for an actual player with control/upside like in CD's #2 above, that makes more sense. But if the idea is to trade Schroder for a pick that will become useful production during the Tatum/Brown window, that seems a stretch.
 

benhogan

Granite Truther
SoSH Member
Nov 2, 2007
13,463
Santa Monica
The Celtics have used late firsts/2nds the last 3 years in trades to make/move regrettable FA signings. And 2nds to get Fournier. Any draft capital secured by trading DS will probably be used in a future trade.

They have enough popcorn in a pan as noted above and wouldn't mind if they used their draft capital this summer to get the PG of the future
 

nighthob

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
10,964
If the 18-19 Celtics aren’t contenders, than I don’t think the 16-20 Hawks are either.
T-Schlenk is in his fifth season as the Hawks DoBO and his teams have racked up a truly impressive 130-209 record. He’s nearing the unemployment line. And given how bad the Hawks have been he might not get a second chance.

We'll have a better idea of the standings in a month+ on Feb. 10 but ATL has a bunch of interesting youngsters blocked.
Jalen Johnson is intriguing, but not good enough for the Hawks to gag given Reddish’s improvement this year.
 

Eddie Jurak

Go Leafs Go
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 12, 2002
34,334
Melrose, MA
It really feels like the Schroder trade spectrum is purely a function of return expectations. Schroder is a roll of paper towels to me. His production is remarkably consistent around league-averagish, he is clearly a known commodity around the league and his contract situation was one of the stories of the offseason - the Schroder market dried up when he was available for just money and his cost was a pittance.

Its hard to see Stevens holding another team over a barrel for Schroder and extracting anything other than a lottery ticket in return. Lottery tickets are good but the value to this team, at this point in time is fairly low.

On the other hand, if Brad can swap Schroder for an actual player with control/upside like in CD's #2 above, that makes more sense. But if the idea is to trade Schroder for a pick that will become useful production during the Tatum/Brown window, that seems a stretch.
They need to trade him for whetver they can get because, on this team, he doesn't make them better. It's just not working. He played 26 minutes yesterday, not including the 5 minutes he spent 'walking the dog' in the 4th quarter and eliminating any possibility of the Celtics playing with pace. If that time had been instead distributed to Richardson (who has some ability to create for himself), Grant (who can hit the corner three), Pritchard (granted he was not available), I think they would have had a better chance to win.
 

Petagine in a Bottle

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 13, 2021
2,726
I don’t disagree in theory but Grant Williams played 22 minutes with 2 points, 0 rebounds, 0 assists, and 2 turnovers. He has far too many games where he’s invisible. His efficient shooting percentages are nice but he needs to actually shoot the ball more than a few times a game to be useful.

Hard to feel good about this team at all. They look like Tatum, Brown, and not much else.
 

HomeRunBaker

bet squelcher
SoSH Member
Jan 15, 2004
23,060
They need to trade him for whetver they can get because, on this team, he doesn't make them better. It's just not working. He played 26 minutes yesterday, not including the 5 minutes he spent 'walking the dog' in the 4th quarter and eliminating any possibility of the Celtics playing with pace. If that time had been instead distributed to Richardson (who has some ability to create for himself), Grant (who can hit the corner three), Pritchard (granted he was not available), I think they would have had a better chance to win.
How could Schroder’s minites be distributed to Richardson when he was in the game with Schroder during nearly all of his minutes, Grant who was in the game for most of his minites, and Pritchard who wasn’t available?

I mean I get how people Love/Hate different players on the team but rotations don’t work this way in reality when the opponent has a quick 1 (or a quick 1 & 2) in the lineup at all times. Matchups matter.
 

Eddie Jurak

Go Leafs Go
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 12, 2002
34,334
Melrose, MA
How could Schroder’s minites be distributed to Richardson when he was in the game with Schroder during nearly all of his minutes, Grant who was in the game for most of his minites, and Pritchard who wasn’t available?

I mean I get how people Love/Hate different players on the team but rotations don’t work this way in reality when the opponent has a quick 1 (or a quick 1 & 2) in the lineup at all times. Matchups matter.
Smart played 33 minutes in this one. Schroeder should have gotten the 15 when he was on the bench and no more. The other 11 to other players. Richardson and Grant played 22 each, Ime could have played them more. Give the other 3 to Brown.
 

PedroKsBambino

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 17, 2003
26,754
I don't love Schroder for this team but he was pretty effective in the 4th quarter relative to the rest of the team---he at least can get to the rim and keeps attacking. I'd like more passing, but frankly the problem last night was the other guys far more than him.
 

HomeRunBaker

bet squelcher
SoSH Member
Jan 15, 2004
23,060
Smart played 33 minutes in this one. Schroeder should have gotten the 15 when he was on the bench and no more. The other 11 to other players. Richardson and Grant played 22 each, Ime could have played them more. Give the other 3 to Brown.
For the same reason he’s more valuable to this particular roster than most others in that we don’t have another guard who can break down a defense with his dribble to generate offense. There may not be another playoff team, if you want to call this a playoff team, where DS skillset is so important to the team as it’s an area the Celtics severely lack.
 

Eddie Jurak

Go Leafs Go
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 12, 2002
34,334
Melrose, MA
For the same reason he’s more valuable to this particular roster than most others in that we don’t have another guard who can break down a defense with his dribble to generate offense. There may not be another playoff team, if you want to call this a playoff team, where DS skillset is so important to the team as it’s an area the Celtics severely lack.
If Schroder's purpose is "break down a defense with his dribble to generate offense," and he isn't doing it, than there is no real advantage to having him out there. He played the entire 4th quarter and the Celtics scored 20 points. I think they could have put up 20 without him.
 

HomeRunBaker

bet squelcher
SoSH Member
Jan 15, 2004
23,060
If Schroder's purpose is "break down a defense with his dribble to generate offense," and he isn't doing it, than there is no real advantage to having him out there. He played the entire 4th quarter and the Celtics scored 20 points. I think they could have put up 20 without him.
But he DID do this in the 4Q when we scored 12 in the first 4:30 of the 4Q. We slowed pace to a crawl and the Spurs only scored 19. After that we missed shots at the rim a couple times late and Jaylen had 3 dead possessions…..I’m sure what Schroder had to do with this. It’s a real stretch to watch this game and conclude that Schroder was the problem when once again he was one of our 2-3 most important players on the floor.
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
24,579
I don't love Schroder, but he's pretty good, he's not the problem at all.

We lost last night because Jayson Tatum's jumpshot has disappeared, and our stars didn't execute in the clutch again.
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
24,579
Technically not "trade" related, but with Ime seemingly committed to "TWO BIGZ NO MATTER WHAT", I think we should make a claim on Cousins when he's waived and cut Jabari. Cousins is a better more well rounded bench big option than Jabari, and he has different strengths than Kanter.
 

DeJesus Built My Hotrod

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 24, 2002
37,275
Technically not "trade" related, but with Ime seemingly committed to "TWO BIGZ NO MATTER WHAT", I think we should make a claim on Cousins when he's waived and cut Jabari. Cousins is a better more well rounded bench big option than Jabari, and he has different strengths than Kanter.
If you are claiming Cousins, do you really want Kanter taking a roster space?