16 Days in January—Determining Trade Deadline Activity

Cesar Crespo

79
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
21,588
He's signed to a reasonable contract through 2025-2026. And you neglect to mention his defense. Blocks, steals, and improved quite a bit in his ability to be switched out onto a perimeter player and hold his own. Here's where clining the glass has him on defensive and rebounding:
  • Blocks: 94th percentile
  • Steals: 64th
  • Fouls: 83rd (meaning he fouls less than 83% of bigs)
  • Offensive rebounding (missed FGs): 90th
  • Defensive rebounding (missed FGs): 38th (worse than 62% of bigs)
  • Defensive rebounding (missed FTs): 93rd
On a team with a couple of ball dominant stars it is easy to find room for a low-usage guy on the other end. I think it would be hard to trade him and get reasonable value back in return because the contract is very favorable for the player we have this year.
Option B is a no brainer. You get some type of value even if it isn't great, you get to see which of the kids can handle a role going forward, you get under the tax. All that in exchange for 6 fewer wins.
It's interesting his DReb is so low, though it's probably how the C's play and playing alongside Brown, Tatum and Horford. He cleans up on the offensive glass though. Only person close to him on the team is Kanter.

FWIW, RL has 36 blocks and 37 assists in his last 12 games, 12 steals too. Per game totals: 3.0, 3.1, 1.0 That's in 389 minutes of play.
First 23 games he had 38 blocks, 27 assists, 18 steals. Per game totals: 1.6, 1.2, 0.7. That's in 638 minutes.

Good trend is good.
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
34,464
It's certainly not exactly "Sophie's Choice" but which of the following would you prefer as a fan?

OPTION A: Celtics more or less stand pat at the deadline. Maybe they staple a 2nd rounder to Hernandgomez to make sure they are under the tax. Celtics finish the season with around 41 wins, win the necessary play-in game(s), and lose in the first round of the playoffs in 5 games. Nesmith, Pritchard, and Langford are used minimally the rest of the season as Ime goes with his top 8 guys (Grant, Schroder, Richardson) the rest of the season.

OPTION B: Celtics offload anything of value. Schroder and Richardson are both off-loaded for some constellation of ~3 second rounders, or a late first, or whatever. Celtics win around 37 games, don't make the play-in game, or they are the 10th seed and lose (so no first round series). Nesmith, Pritchard, and Langford are used extensively the rest of the season (at least 20 minutes a game). Celtics get some sort of late lottery pick (10-14).
As written, obviously option A.
Richardson has real value both short and longer term, there would be no reason to dump him for garbage.

If you want to have it be a real choice I think you have to make Option A:
Celtics offload Schroder for two 2nds or a semi-bust recent first rounder. Make up his minutes through playing the young guys more, finish 10th or 11th (though I'm not sure they would).

Richardson being traded means we made a major move, he's on a good multi-year contract and playing well
 

HomeRunBaker

bet squelcher
SoSH Member
Jan 15, 2004
30,096
As written, obviously option A.
Richardson has real value both short and longer term, there would be no reason to dump him for garbage.

If you want to have it be a real choice I think you have to make Option A:
Celtics offload Schroder for two 2nds or a semi-bust recent first rounder. Make up his minutes through playing the young guys more, finish 10th or 11th (though I'm not sure they would).

Richardson being traded means we made a major move, he's on a good multi-year contract and playing well
It’s an obvious A.

I’d like to be a fly on the wall when CBS calls a board meeting to convince Wyc & Co. that his game plan is to take a team currently in a playoff position that ownership invested heavily in, willingly relinquish it along with all playoff revenue, piss off corporste partnerships who won’t have any playoff exposure…….so Aaron Freakin Nesmith can play more and we add a 2nd round pick from Turkey or St. Bonaventure. THEN explain this to Ime, Jayson, Jaylen and every other player busting their ass for wins.
 

lovegtm

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 30, 2013
12,001
I enjoy TL as a fan, certainly, but he's far from untouchable in my opinion. I just don't see his ceiling being much higher than he is, and I think he has a pretty low floor given his injury risk. He's a good passer, and he's a good rim runner, and I think he could potentially develop a 10 foot jumper. But, that's his ceiling as an offensive player, I think. That just doesn't seem all that valuable or hard to replace.

Again, I enjoy TL, and would much rather have him on the team than not have him on the team. But, if we got back another young player with equal or greater promise - I'd be fine with giving him up. I just don't see the 5 as being a terribly valuable position in the NBA.
Mentioning a center's value without bringing up defense at all takes commitment to the art. Respect.
 

Lazy vs Crazy

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
6,415
https://theathletic.com/3078848/2022/01/19/whats-the-latest-on-the-celtics-as-trade-deadline-approaches/?source=emp_shared_article
After spending the 16th pick in the 2021 NBA Draft to acquire Al Horford in the offseason, the Boston Celtics are exploring trading him as they pursue another center, league sources told The Athletic.

Jared Weiss at The Athletic cites sources that the Celtics are trying to move Horford for another center. I'm not sure another center should be the target here, but trading Al has to be priority one. He's been bad, and his salary slot has more value than he does for the Celtics. Moving him now makes more sense than in the offseason, since they need to guarantee his deal before trading him if it is past the deadline this year.
 

Cesar Crespo

79
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
21,588
If you’re moving Horford, there isn’t a player in the league who matches his salary to be a backup. Unless they come stapled to an expiring.
There aren't really any bigs who match up with Horford salary wise anyway. Wood and Turner definitely don't.

I'd assume any deal with Horford would be bringing back salary ballast and wouldn't be a 1 for 1.
 

Petagine in a Bottle

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 13, 2021
11,947
It says they are looking to move Horford as they pursue another center, not that they are trying to move Horford for a center, right?

What could they move him for? Assuming you need a similar salaried player under control for longer whom the other team would want to get out of? Buddy Hield? Gallinari? Hardaway? Barnes?
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
34,464
yeah, I'm not sure why you'd move Horford for a C. The team's biggest weaknesses are shooting and playmaking. While Horford has struggled from 3 this year, there aren't a lot of Cs who are good shooters who would be available, and no better playmakers at C.

I guess maybe what they mean is they want to trade Al and get a more traditional backup big so and stop playing 2 bigs at once? Lot more options there than another big that is an improvement on Horford.
 

PedroKsBambino

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 17, 2003
31,213
Horford and Langford for Bagley and Hield works cap-wise. I'm not sure it's a great fit for either team strategically---though Kings might feel like it balances their roster some and Celtics get shooting and whatever Bagley is (not much).

Anyway, agree that Horford is more likely salary to get a shooter or playmaker rather than directly a center
 

NomarsFool

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 21, 2001
8,160
Move Horford for another center so we can continue the 2Big lineup?!? Ugh, I hope not.

They do utilize Horford on the floor without Rob now, I don't see why they can't just split the C minutes between the two.
 

bakahump

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jan 8, 2001
7,522
Maine
Turner is interesting though right? And I have never been on the MT train.
I mean he is a career 35% 3pt shooter (al is .357)
Turner is younger
Turner is bigger
WS this season are almost equal
Turner is making 18 this and next (Compared to Als 27ish if you keep him....which is what you would essentially be doing).
Turner is also shooting 2pters better then al this year. And Scoring 2 pts a game more.
He really is a Younger cheaper same production Al Horford (Is he as good as 4 year ago al? probably not...but he is as good as todays Al).

He is NOT as good a passer.......but TL is becoming a similar passer to Al.

Smart (or eventually Passing PG who can shoot a Bit), JB,JT,TL and Turner would be a Defensive powerhouse and at least as good offensively as todays starters. Hell the JB/JT/TL/Turner and someone "like BEAL"......would be a Really good team.

At the minimum you need someone like Al or Turner at the 5 (IE someone who can hit some 3s and spread the floor a bit) IF you have TL on the floor with them. Which MIGHT be a worthwhile endeavor if your D is that good.

Plus a TurnerLord Front 2 would be hellacious on D and the boards.
 

nighthob

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
12,680
Turner’s injured and needs to have salary stapled to him to make the deal work. So it should be nothing. But it’s Pritchard and he’ll want a bunch of firsts, so stop dreaming.
 

Eddie Jurak

canderson-lite
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 12, 2002
44,480
Melrose, MA
It seems less about needing to trade Horford for a C and more about needing to get a C back if you trade Horford.

Unless they are in "give up on the season" mode, they need someone beyond Rob and Freedom at the position. If you are thinking longer term, Freedom is gone anyway.

Horford also has an enormous cap hit next year, $26.5 million of which $14.5 million is guaranteed. So they either have to pay him the $26.5 million, trade him, or cut him and absorb $14.5 million in dead money agaisnt the cap.
 

bakahump

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jan 8, 2001
7,522
Maine
Wouldnt Turner fit into one of the Trade exceptions?
But yeah Prichard does seem to have Morey disease.
 

bakahump

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jan 8, 2001
7,522
Maine
@Eddie Jurak wouldnt the Turner trade fix both those issues? Plus gives some stability for next year (Turner is signed).

Finally Indy might do it because they save four Million (assuming they cut al).
 

Petagine in a Bottle

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 13, 2021
11,947
Horford also has an enormous cap hit next year, $26.5 million of which $14.5 million is guaranteed. So they either have to pay him the $26.5 million, trade him, or cut him and absorb $14.5 million in dead money agaisnt the cap.
Yeah, so dump him now for a player signed longer term to preserve that salary to be included in a future deal, right? Hield, Gallinari, or Hardaway all seem most realistic to me, although hardly ideal…
 

Deathofthebambino

Drive Carefully
SoSH Member
Apr 12, 2005
41,949
This made me think
21/22 3-4 without Marcus, 20-18 with.
20/21, 12-12 w/o, 24-24 with
19/20 9-3 w/o, 39-21 with
18/19 1-1 w/o, 48-32 with
17/18 17-14 w/o, 38-13 with
16/17 2-1 w/o, 51-28 with
15/16 12-9 w/o, 36-25 with
14/15 5-9 w/o, 35-33 with

61-52 w/o .540, 291-194 with .600 with.

Heh. I'm sure there are other reasons surrounding all that but that's impressive.17/18 was something. Had a lot to do with the 34-10 start and 21-17 finish.
What's impressive? That he's a better player coming off the bench with Kyrie Irving, GH, Jaylen, Tatum, etc. all playing on the same team? He started 11 games that season (17-18, which is now 4 years ago) and the C's went 6-5 in those games. Lamarcus Aldridge was a top 10 scorer in the NBA in 17/18 and RWB averaged a triple double. A lot changes in that amount of time. If Marcus was playing 29mpg off the bench behind Kyrie Irving this season, I wouldn't have any issues with his game. That's a perfect role.

Ime ain't putting Marcus on the bench to start a game even if Magic Johnson rolled in here tomorrow.
 

benhogan

Granite Truther
SoSH Member
Nov 2, 2007
20,125
Santa Monica
It's interesting his DReb is so low, though it's probably how the C's play and playing alongside Brown, Tatum and Horford. He cleans up on the offensive glass though. Only person close to him on the team is Kanter.

FWIW, RL has 36 blocks and 37 assists in his last 12 games, 12 steals too. Per game totals: 3.0, 3.1, 1.0 That's in 389 minutes of play.
First 23 games he had 38 blocks, 27 assists, 18 steals. Per game totals: 1.6, 1.2, 0.7. That's in 638 minutes.

Good trend is good.
as far a DReb, TL is the king of the tap-out to the teammate (on both sides of the floor). I don't think he gets a statistical credit for that.

ALSO, Tatum is quick to the rim to grab defensive boards when the opponent is retreating
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
34,464
If Turner wasn't injured I think a deal built around
Turner/McConnell
for
Al, protected 1st and maybe one of the young guys

makes some sense for both teams. Celtics get a younger defense first big who can stretch some, and save money this year to get under the tax, and a bench PG for next year.
Indy gets a 1st and gets off McConnel's deal, plus they can trade or cut Al in their offseason maneuverings.

I think Indy thinks they can get more for Turner, but I don't agree.
 

bakahump

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jan 8, 2001
7,522
Maine
Yea add mcconnell and in a Seperate deal ditch Schroder.

I think the finances (for the Celts....as of today) would be about the same and I think you would be the same or better as a team with longer certainty.

But yea.....Indys management sucks.

Too bad Stevens couldnt speak "Midwestern" to them and add in Indy hero Langford.
 

nighthob

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
12,680
It seems less about needing to trade Horford for a C and more about needing to get a C back if you trade Horford.
Bingo. If you trade Horford and commit to Time Lord as the starter you need a C option better than Eno Freenando for all the games that Williams misses.
 

Cesar Crespo

79
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
21,588
Yea add mcconnell and in a Seperate deal ditch Schroder.

I think the finances (for the Celts....as of today) would be about the same and I think you would be the same or better as a team with longer certainty.

But yea.....Indys management sucks.

Too bad Stevens couldnt speak "Midwestern" to them and add in Indy hero Langford.
Yeah, damn Indy's management for not taking a trade that would benefit the Celtics.

They can save a lot more than $4 million trading Turner, if that's what their objective is. Al for Tuner is not a good deal for Indy.
 

nighthob

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
12,680
Turner is pretty heavily overrated by people here due to the block numbers. But his durability issues continue to mount. You can find competent backup Cs for a lot less money than Turner’s making.
 

DeJesus Built My Hotrod

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 24, 2002
48,214
Bingo. If you trade Horford and commit to Time Lord as the starter you need a C option better than Eno Freenando for all the games that Williams misses.
I am stealing this. Its amongst your best work.

I know that everyone is focused on Turner but Portland's cap situation is ungood and everyone knows that they are essentially at their limit with that roster. Is Nurkic possible?

Edit: Nurk isn't really a fit but Turner comes with lots of figurative hair as well. The pursuit of a C seems like going for what is out there versus what they actually need.
 
Last edited:

chilidawg

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 22, 2015
5,934
Cultural hub of the universe
Jared Weiss with a number of insider tidbits this morning:

"After spending the 16th pick in the 2021 NBA Draft to acquire Al Horford in the offseason, the Boston Celtics are exploring trading him as they pursue another center, league sources told The Athletic."

"
The shortcomings of connectedness and intensity seem to stem from leadership continuity. There continues to be a lack of responsiveness to Marcus Smart’s approach, though multiple team sources have commended his growing maturity over the past few years. However, his offensive style has not grown, he is having a poor shooting season, and his penchant for inaccurate flair passes often mitigates his improvements as a playmaker.
Jaylen Brown and Grant Williams have been the most vocal players this year, with Brown trying to often push the team to play with pace and Williams trying to fill the young energy role player slot. But Celtics sources in the locker room said Brown’s defensive inconsistencies and Williams’ youth will often lead to rallying cries being tuned out."

"Stevens played it conservatively when he first came on board this summer, passing on proposals within his front office to make bolder moves, according to team sources. While the time to jump all-in on change isn’t necessarily approaching in February, he needs to start setting the table for that in the offseason."

https://theathletic.com/3078848/2022/01/19/whats-the-latest-on-the-celtics-as-trade-deadline-approaches/
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
34,464
Yea add mcconnell and in a Seperate deal ditch Schroder.

I think the finances (for the Celts....as of today) would be about the same and I think you would be the same or better as a team with longer certainty.

But yea.....Indys management sucks.

Too bad Stevens couldnt speak "Midwestern" to them and add in Indy hero Langford.
As an aside, one of the reasons IND should consider it, is that McConnell is out for the year, so if the Celtics move Schroder they need to find a placeholder PG.
 

benhogan

Granite Truther
SoSH Member
Nov 2, 2007
20,125
Santa Monica
Turner is pretty heavily overrated by people here due to the block numbers. But his durability issues continue to mount. You can find competent backup Cs for a lot less money than Turner’s making.
Bingo. Cheap, fungible bigs are easy to find. On a completely shitty team like the Pacers and Turner can't even put up some big #s. There are always the Sacramento's out there doing dumb things but paying Pritchards' demands + swallowing Turners' contract is bad business.

I can see the C's moving Horford since 2BIGz hasn't worked. Paying Al $27MM + $14MM in June to play back-up Center for the next 40 games stings. KEMBA or KyrEXIT, the gifts that keep on giving.

Warts and all but I'm still intrigued with Christian Wood. The Rockets must be motivated on getting him out of their locker room. I could see Houston giving Green/Sengun/Tate/rest of kids more minutes/shots/bigger roles, while dealing Wood/Gordon (and save Tilman $$$). Fertitta could use those future savings by finally addressing the John Wall buyout in the offseason.

Horford/Langford/Bol+ for
Wood/Gordon

In order to add potential stars, the Celtics need to roll the dice on talented/flawed cusp stars. It would be a gamble on a young(26), immature Christian Wood. Worse comes to worst, he's on a moveable 1-yr contract. Gordon is an expensive, veteran bench microwave that makes moving Horford's contract possible and saves Fertitta $$$.
 

benhogan

Granite Truther
SoSH Member
Nov 2, 2007
20,125
Santa Monica
Unless the + in this deal is like 3 first round picks this is nowhere close to appropriate value for positive values players in Wood and Gordon
we'll probably see what they get, Houston is motivated to move both

33yr old Eric Gordon's 3yr/$59MM contract is nothing to get excited about. Negative asset IMO

Wood's indifference this season has been less than inspiring
 

nighthob

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
12,680
Unless the + in this deal is like 3 first round picks this is nowhere close to appropriate value for positive values players in Wood and Gordon
Gordon isn’t so positive. Houston’s been trying to deal him for a while now and hasn’t found a lot of interest. Next trade deadline he probably has value as an expiring deal. But he’s an undersized SG entering his mid 30s with a metric slagpile of injuries. He’s been mostly healthy this season, but he’s going to suffer an injury sooner or later. He always does.
 

shoelace

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 24, 2019
268
we'll probably see what they get, Houston is motivated to move both

33yr old Eric Gordon's 3yr/$59MM contract is nothing to get excited about. Negative asset IMO

Wood's indifference this season has been less than inspiring
Gordon's 2023-2024 is non-guaranteed, so he's essentially on a two year deal.
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
34,464
Gordon's 2/38 isn't attractive, but neither is Horford's 2/42, the Celtics are giving up the worse contract in that deal and getting the only good player. They would have to add multiple 1sts, probably 3 minimum.
 

benhogan

Granite Truther
SoSH Member
Nov 2, 2007
20,125
Santa Monica
Gordon's 2/38 isn't attractive, but neither is Horford's 2/42, the Celtics are giving up the worse contract in that deal and getting the only good player. They would have to add multiple 1sts, probably 3 minimum.
yea Romeo + 3 firsts to gamble on Wood is something Brad would pass on.

Wood probably ends up on one of the Center hungry teams recently kicked around like Charlotte (PJ?) or Dallas
 

NomarsFool

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 21, 2001
8,160
It's really unfortunate that Langford's potential is still so theoretical at this point. Sending him to Indiana would be great as part of a package for Sabonis.
 

nighthob

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
12,680
Gordon's 2/38 isn't attractive, but neither is Horford's 2/42, the Celtics are giving up the worse contract in that deal and getting the only good player. They would have to add multiple 1sts, probably 3 minimum.
I'd call the Horford and Gordon deals a wash. If Wood were really good that would be one thing. Unfortunately he's a gamble. Albeit a short term one. He's probably going to someone like Charlotte or New York.
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
34,464
I'd call the Horford and Gordon deals a wash. If Wood were really good that would be one thing. Unfortunately he's a gamble. Albeit a short term one. He's probably going to someone like Charlotte or New York.
The thing is, even if they're a wash, what is the incentive to trade Wood for nothing?
Sure he's sometimes a pain in the ass, but even in this lazy year on a losing team he puts up numbers that make him a good value for his contract, with the upside of the previous two years, where he was really good. 6'10" guys who can play across the front line, rebound, defend some and knock down 3s are valuable. He'll have much better offers coming into HOU than "we'll take him for basically nothing"

Wood isn't a gamble, he's a player who is either properly compensated, or a big time value depending on his effort/attitude. The downside on him isn't that low.
 

benhogan

Granite Truther
SoSH Member
Nov 2, 2007
20,125
Santa Monica
The thing is, even if they're a wash, what is the incentive to trade Wood for nothing?
Sure he's sometimes a pain in the ass, but even in this lazy year on a losing team he puts up numbers that make him a good value for his contract, with the upside of the previous two years, where he was really good. 6'10" guys who can play across the front line, rebound, defend some and knock down 3s are valuable. He'll have much better offers coming into HOU than "we'll take him for basically nothing"

Wood isn't a gamble, he's a player who is either properly compensated, or a big time value depending on his effort/attitude. The downside on him isn't that low.
yea I got Gordon's contract wrong. So the initial fake trade is off mark. It was mostly driven by Fertitta's cheapness, which I personally like taking a shot at whenever I can (fucker screwed over the HY market/investors numerous times)

BUT 3 Firsts as a minimum + Romeo for Christian Wood isn't close to being fair for a guy that quit on the team this season
I've seen Houston scribes speculate on one young player + 1 first being the market for Wood. @nighthob and @Apisith usually have a great read on the Rockets.
 
Last edited:

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
34,464
yea I got Gordon's contract wrong. So the initial fake trade is off mark. It was mostly driven by Fertitta's cheapness

BUT 3 Firsts as a minimum + Romeo for Christian Wood isn't close to being fair for a guy that quit on the team this season
Probably not, but it's all I can think of that would beat other offers. Someone will offer two 1sts and a rookie deal guy who is either more accomplished than, or has more cheap years left than Romeo.
 

nighthob

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
12,680
The thing is, even if they're a wash, what is the incentive to trade Wood for nothing?
Sure he's sometimes a pain in the ass, but even in this lazy year on a losing team he puts up numbers that make him a good value for his contract, with the upside of the previous two years, where he was really good. 6'10" guys who can play across the front line, rebound, defend some and knock down 3s are valuable. He'll have much better offers coming into HOU than "we'll take him for basically nothing"

Wood isn't a gamble, he's a player who is either properly compensated, or a big time value depending on his effort/attitude. The downside on him isn't that low.
I mean the odds are that some other team bites the bullet and in five years time their fans are posting on a board called Christian Wood's Man Cave. I do agree that some team is going to be desperate enough to trade for him, I just don't see it being Boston. And the price isn't going to be three firsts, either.
 

HomeRunBaker

bet squelcher
SoSH Member
Jan 15, 2004
30,096
Mid-afternoon ramble…….

Running a few errands figured I’d see what Rich Kamla and Mitch Lawrence had to talk about on Sirius NBA Radio. They are discussing the Kings and how this management team has drafted Halliburton and Mitchell while not having anything to do with the prior leaders who took Bagley, hired Joerger; was part of the George Karl fiasco, etc. while pointing toward analytics………

Then Mitch Lawrence chimed in while raising his voice with these exact words, “You know what the most important part of analytics is? WINNING AND LOSING and this team is 18-28!!!……”

Anyone here want to do a podcast? These listens are so painful.

The cherry on top was when Kamla discussed the Celtics trade and said he was a BIG Bol Bol guy…..like he knew I was listening. Sigh.
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
34,464
Mid-afternoon ramble…….

Running a few errands figured I’d see what Rich Kamla and Mitch Lawrence had to talk about on Sirius NBA Radio. They are discussing the Kings and how this management team has drafted Halliburton and Mitchell while not having anything to do with the prior leaders who took Bagley, hired Joerger; was part of the George Karl fiasco, etc. while pointing toward analytics………

Then Mitch Lawrence chimed in while raising his voice with these exact words, “You know what the most important part of analytics is? WINNING AND LOSING and this team is 18-28!!!……”

Anyone here want to do a podcast? These listens are so painful.

The cherry on top was when Kamla discussed the Celtics trade and said he was a BIG Bol Bol guy…..like he knew I was listening. Sigh.
The number one rule of radio is to play to your audience
The number two rule of radio is to always remember that the vast majority of your audience are morons

plenty of podcasts have smart basketball people, that's what podcasts are for, Radio is for getting the dumbest racist you knew in high school excited.
 

Sam Ray Not

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
8,849
NYC
Is drafting Haliburton and Mitchell really evidence of some keen draft insight? Haliburton’s great, but was a consensus #5-8 guy who had slipped to #12. File under “no-brainer.” Mitchell meanwhile is a 23 y.o., 6’-2” short-armed combo guard who was billed as “NBA ready” but somehow can’t hit threes, shoot FTs, or rebound the ball (all things that were evident from his college resumé). By all accounts he has the high character and work ethic to improve the shooting, but if I were a nowheresville team like the Kings, I would have taken a bigger swing at #9 (Ziaire Williams, Sengun, Moody, Primo, Jalen Johnson, e.g.)
 

DeJesus Built My Hotrod

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 24, 2002
48,214
No need to link to all of them because this is rumor season but there are pieces out there from NBA beat writers linking the C's to the Jerami Grant sweepstakes and there are rumors that Bogdan Bogdanovic is available along with Collins from Atlanta. Grant and maybe even a Bogdanovic make more sense than a big but again, these are just rumors. Trader Brad appears to be a stealthy operator if this quote from a Matt Moore piece is any indication. Maybe the Weiss article was a bit of subterfuge or is just not accurate.

For example, two different executives I asked about the chances of the Boston Celtics making a deal at the deadline were skeptical:

“They’re not so off track that they need to just give up and trade Jaylen Brown and blow the whole thing up. They’re where they usually are, with a team good enough to compete but not good enough to scare you. They’ll look for a big upgrade without having to give up anything,” one said.