2019 Off season -- Add a superstar, or subtract one?

HomeRunBaker

bet squelcher
SoSH Member
Jan 15, 2004
17,845
The Shane Larkin love around here is exactly what I was getting at with TJ McConnell. He plays hard, seems like a good team guy but each is essentially unplayable except vs opposing benches during the regular season and during garbage time. Its amusing that people pine for what amounts to the last spot on the bench.
I haven’t doubted since Larkin’s year in Brooklyn that he’s a quality 2nd unit rotation player and not end of the bench material. Unless he absolutely loves it over there he’s going to be playing in the NBA again real soon.
 

DeJesus Built My Hotrod

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 24, 2002
28,409
I haven’t doubted since Larkin’s year in Brooklyn that he’s a quality 2nd unit rotation player and not end of the bench material. Unless he absolutely loves it over there he’s going to be playing in the NBA again real soon.
I want to be clear. Larkin is a fine backup guard during the regular season and maybe a third guard during the playoffs to do mop up work. But the guy is the definition of league average with his offensive production being cancelled out by his defensive shortcomings. He is listed at 5'11" and while he plays with energy, his smaller stature makes him a target for opposing offenses (not unlike IT4 when he was in Boston).

In short (pun intended) he's fine but doesn't move the needle positively for this team. Yet he seems to be perceived as a difference maker of sorts.
 

Big John

lurker
Dec 9, 2016
1,677
Larkin is a better player now than when he left the Celtics. If he were the same player now as he was two years ago, I would agree with you.
 

Sprowl

mikey lowell of the sandbox
Dope
Jun 27, 2006
31,394
Haiku
I would not be opposed to the Clippers pursuing the Durant/Irving pairing, as at least Boston can work a sign & trade there and come out in not horrible shape afterwards.

Within the context of the Nets having to quickly generate $71 million in cap space, yes. Then they would likely have to pay a premium to lose the Crabbe and Dunwiddie contracts so that they can use Russell in trade without tying him to one of those deals. Being able to move Russell to Indiana for Sabonis and picks or Atlanta for Prince and picks has some real value for them.
If Kyrexit and the Celtics re-sign Rozier at a good price, Dinwiddie would make an excellent backup guard for the Celtics: he takes good care of the ball, distributes well, and is a pass-first PG who doesn't need shots to keep him happy. He would be a Rozier antidote.

After Jerry West's deals and their surprise performance this year, the Clippers have some quality assets in Williams, Harrell, Gilgeous-Alexander, Shamet and the Heat pick.
 

benhogan

Baynes Hogan (pending trade)
SoSH Member
Nov 2, 2007
6,558
Santa Monica
Larkin wasn't a bad 3rd string PG, was cheap at $1.5MM, would have helped in Game 7 EC Finals last season when Rozier/Smart/Brown went 3 for 26 from three.

But I'd expect the C's to draft a PG and/or sign one to vet min / MLE.

Also, like Brad Wanamaker better. But Larkin wouldn't be a bad option for our 3rd string/super small PG (Smart wasn't very good at guarding mites)
 

bigq

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
2,706
Larkin wasn't a bad 3rd string PG, was cheap at $1.5MM, would have helped in Game 7 EC Finals last season when Rozier/Smart/Brown went 3 for 26 from three.
Larkin never would have seen the floor in that game but I agree with your point that he is not a terrible third option for the regular season.

Even if Kyrie stays, it feels like the Celtics will try to do something via trade or draft with the PG position.
 
Last edited:

DrewDawg

Dorito Dink
SoSH Member
Dec 16, 2010
34,982
If Kyrexit and the Celtics re-sign Rozier at a good price, Dinwiddie would make an excellent backup guard for the Celtics: he takes good care of the ball, distributes well, and is a pass-first PG who doesn't need shots to keep him happy. He would be a Rozier antidote.
I am not doubting you, but because I'm not overly familiar with Dinwiddie's game...but per 36 minutes he takes more shots than Rozier, 15.6 to 13.4. His assists are slightly higher as well, 5.8 to 4.6. His DRtg is not good.

Sell me.
 

wade boggs chicken dinner

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 26, 2005
16,564
I am not doubting you, but because I'm not overly familiar with Dinwiddie's game...but per 36 minutes he takes more shots than Rozier, 15.6 to 13.4. His assists are slightly higher as well, 5.8 to 4.6. His DRtg is not good.

Sell me.
If you go to NBA.stats and sort on players who have over 3.0 iso possessions per game, Dinwiddie was 4th in the league at 48.6% efficiency. 1-3 were DeRozen (51.3%); Kawhi (49.4%); and KD (48.8%). Kyrie was 5th (45.7%); Giannis was 6th (45.4%). Booker, Harden, LaVine, and LBJ round out the top 10.
 

mcpickl

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 23, 2007
3,206
You’re missing the point. Rozier doesn’t need to go to New Orleans. He can go anywhere with cap space as long as it’s done via sign and trade in a simultaneous trade. They probably cannot do this along with signing and trading draft picks for timing reasons, but where Rozier ends up doesn’t matter as long as he’s willing to let Boston use his salary to match in exchange for Boston letting him shop himself without the risks of RFA status weighing down his offers.
I didn't say he did. I was matching up the money.

The Pacers have been rumored to have interest in Russell, so a Russell/Crabbe deal fits into their available cap space. Brooklyn gets back someone like Sabonis and possibly a first, while the Pacers get the secondary scorer to pair with Oladipo.

Chicago drafts someone like Coby White with their #1, they'd like a capable backup/emergency starter to smooth White's transition, they get Dinwiddie and a first for a second rounder.

If Brooklyn wanted to maintain their caphold on RHJ that would cause a squeeze as they'd have an active payroll around $32-$33 million including D-Will's dead money charge and assuming they pick up Napier and Graham. but without them they're around $24 million. Add in three draft picks (≈ $3.5 million for 16 & 27, plus whatever they pay #31), Sabonis at around $3.5 million and four empty roster slot charges. That puts them at around $36 million. Plenty of space.

If they can get Golden State to accept Crabbe and picks in a sign & trade, leaving them free to deal Russell with RHJ, they can take back some roleplayers and draft picks that fit their timeline better. It's not that hard for them to do.
Hold up, so Indiana who has the space to just fire a big offer at Russell that the Nets can't match if they want to get KD/Kyrie under the cap, are going to take on Crabbe and give up a 1st and Sabonis as well?

Holy smokes that's bad business.

If they're getting Crabbe off the books, bundling him with an RFA isn't getting them two good assets. They're still going to have to add assets to that package to move Crabbe off. They'd probably be subtracting from that good supporting cast they have in Brooklyn, not adding.
 

Sprowl

mikey lowell of the sandbox
Dope
Jun 27, 2006
31,394
Haiku
I am not doubting you, but because I'm not overly familiar with Dinwiddie's game...but per 36 minutes he takes more shots than Rozier, 15.6 to 13.4. His assists are slightly higher as well, 5.8 to 4.6. His DRtg is not good.

Sell me.
I confess that I'm thinking of Dinwiddie from 2018, when he was one of the Nets' over-achievers, with an excellent assist-to-turnover ratio (IMO still one of the key indicators for a backup point guard). Dinwiddie 2019 looks like quite a different player -- shooting for a higher percentage (52.8% from 2pt), passing less, and turning the ball over more. Part of that can be attributed to his role as backup to Russell, where the Nets' drive-and-kick offense called on Dinwiddie to create more.

I suspect (without much backup) that Dinwiddie would be a better player on a more talented team like the Celtics.
 

nighthob

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
7,709
Hold up, so Indiana who has the space to just fire a big offer at Russell that the Nets can't match if they want to get KD/Kyrie under the cap, are going to take on Crabbe and give up a 1st and Sabonis as well?
Sure they can tie up their cap space, be forced to wait until all the big name free agents are off the market, and end up with nothing if Brooklyn can’t make the Irving/Durant plan work. Or they can just make a deal and get the guy they want.
 

mcpickl

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 23, 2007
3,206
Sure they can tie up their cap space, be forced to wait until all the big name free agents are off the market, and end up with nothing if Brooklyn can’t make the Irving/Durant plan work. Or they can just make a deal and get the guy they want.
This isn't a thing. I don't know why anyone ever brings it up. It's media driven nonsense.

Cap space isn't tied up.

You're allowed to continue to negotiate with your contingency plans in the whopping 48 hours that the team with the RFA has to match.

There isn't a player alive that, if he wanted to go to the team with the "tied up" cap space, wouldn't wait 48 hours to get to his preferred destination.

And there isn't a GM alive that would think, rather than have our cap space "tied up" for 48 hours, lets hand over a good player, a first round pick, and eat a trash contract because we just can't wait that long.

Not even Billy King.

We just did this two summers ago when Brooklyn gave Otto Porter and offer sheet and people were freaking out. Oh, their cap space is tied up! Oh my God, Washington is mad and they're going to make Otto take a physical and tie Brooklyn up even longer! Before the waiting period was even over it leaked Brooklyn had a deal to use the space Otto Porter was tying up to acquire Demarre Carroll from Toronto. Somehow they were able to negotiate while in a salary cap straight jacket.

It's not a thing.
 

nighthob

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
7,709
This isn't a thing. I don't know why anyone ever brings it up. It's media driven nonsense.

Cap space isn't tied up.

You're allowed to continue to negotiate with your contingency plans in the whopping 48 hours that the team with the RFA has to match.
“We don’t really want your guy, we want this other guy, but he’s an RFA. But, hey, we might not get him, so do you mind withholding other offers from your client until we know whether or not we’re getting the guy we want?”

“But we can get a max offer anywhere, why should we blow off the other teams that actually want my client to play for them?”

“But can they offer you the prestige of playing in Indiana?”

Yeah, clearly that’s a thing. Happens all the time.
 

nighthob

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
7,709
Not sure what that has to do with the thought experiment, but to disagree with me mcpickl will undoubtedly write a long, impassioned, post about how the Pacers would infinitely prefer to trade even more for Conley than deal a roleplayer for Russell. Because not even Billy King is stupid enough to deal a roleplayer for a restricted free agent that looks like a decent secondary scorer.
 

DeJesus Built My Hotrod

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 24, 2002
28,409
Maybe I missed something but the only roster decisions Billy King makes these days is for his fantasy squad. That said, I bet he gets taken advantage of in that league as well.
 

nighthob

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
7,709
Maybe I missed something but the only roster decisions Billy King makes these days is for his fantasy squad. That said, I bet he gets taken advantage of in that league as well.
I have it on good authority that in a three team deal last year he landed Victor Oladipo and he only had to give up Giannis Antetokounmpo, Montrezl Harrell, and Klay Thompson.
 
Last edited:

HomeRunBaker

bet squelcher
SoSH Member
Jan 15, 2004
17,845
Maybe I missed something but the only roster decisions Billy King makes these days is for his fantasy squad. That said, I bet he gets taken advantage of in that league as well.
I don't blame King for the Pierce/KG deal at all. He was given orders by the billionaire Russian to make a splash without giving consideration to the future (since he was looking to sell before that time ever came). If you're boss gives you instructions to get a job done you're probably best off getting it done rather than being terminated. King isn't the only GM who was a Yes-man.....many are. Look how long Grunfeld looked like a doofus for following Leonsis' calls. This board posterized Chris Wallace for "bad moves" for many years even though he was making tremendous financial deals for his owners which earned him a reputation around the league and got him the Grizzlies gig where he did the same for a long time.
 

lexrageorge

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2007
7,424
I don't blame King for the Pierce/KG deal at all. He was given orders by the billionaire Russian to make a splash without giving consideration to the future (since he was looking to sell before that time ever came). If you're boss gives you instructions to get a job done you're probably best off getting it done rather than being terminated. King isn't the only GM who was a Yes-man.....many are. Look how long Grunfeld looked like a doofus for following Leonsis' calls. This board posterized Chris Wallace for "bad moves" for many years even though he was making tremendous financial deals for his owners which earned him a reputation around the league and got him the Grizzlies gig where he did the same for a long time.
You have a point on King. But Chris Wallace's terrible drafting had nothing to do with the saving the owners money. Neither did his trade of Joe Johnson or his acquisition of Vin Baker. So, yes, Wallace deserved the scorn heaped on him.
 

nighthob

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
7,709
Yeah, the Suns wanted Brown and were willing to eat Forte in the exchange, Wallace demanded they take Joe Johnson instead.

The Vin Baker trade was on Thanks, Dad!, however. Wallace was ordered to get Boston under the luxury tax line, and as bad as the contract was, it reduced Boston's payroll that year and got them a share of the first disbursement (back in those days there were two luxury tax disbursements, the pool was divided by 29, and each team under or at the line given a full share, after that the remainder was divided by 29 and a second disbursement given to everyone). I think at the time we calculated that the Baker deal produced around $6 million for the soon-to-be-sold Celtics.
 

mcpickl

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 23, 2007
3,206
Not sure what that has to do with the thought experiment, but to disagree with me mcpickl will undoubtedly write a long, impassioned, post about how the Pacers would infinitely prefer to trade even more for Conley than deal a roleplayer for Russell. Because not even Billy King is stupid enough to deal a roleplayer for a restricted free agent that looks like a decent secondary scorer.
Dude, if you don't want to have your ideas challenged, maybe don't post them in a public forum.

I'll help you out for getting any response from me if you don't want it, I'll just ignore you and have discussions with people who aren't just looking for Mazzes to agree with their takes.

Peace.
 

nighthob

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
7,709
You have it backwards, even when I agree with you you change your mind for the sake of arguing with me. It’s why I mostly ignore you.
 

DeJesus Built My Hotrod

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 24, 2002
28,409
I hate to say this because we still have the ECF and the actual finals however its pretty evident that if this year's version of the Celtics was somewhat toxic, it has leaked into the fanbase and this board in particular. We really need to get to the NBA new year so we can discuss actual transactions etc.


I don't blame King for the Pierce/KG deal at all. He was given orders by the billionaire Russian to make a splash without giving consideration to the future (since he was looking to sell before that time ever came). If you're boss gives you instructions to get a job done you're probably best off getting it done rather than being terminated. King isn't the only GM who was a Yes-man.....many are. Look how long Grunfeld looked like a doofus for following Leonsis' calls. This board posterized Chris Wallace for "bad moves" for many years even though he was making tremendous financial deals for his owners which earned him a reputation around the league and got him the Grizzlies gig where he did the same for a long time.
I don't blame King for that either - its just a lazy but funny way of showing how bad deals got done. That said, I think that most NBA teams are far more rational than they were even back just six years ago. The Nets are now really well run, you can argue that, ownership aside, the Knicks are better too. There are clearly franchises that still cannot get out of their own way but it seems like the analytics wave has really taken hold. Hopefully that means that the days of a GMs making deals that are heavily weighted towards near-term results are over. As much as we have enjoyed the benefits of this dynamic, its ultimately bad for the sport.
 

HomeRunBaker

bet squelcher
SoSH Member
Jan 15, 2004
17,845
I hate to say this because we still have the ECF and the actual finals however its pretty evident that if this year's version of the Celtics was somewhat toxic, it has leaked into the fanbase and this board in particular. We really need to get to the NBA new year so we can discuss actual transactions etc.
Was this really unexpected here though? We’ve got posters only caring about there individual stats looking to put up numbers with the hopes Jeff Clark comes over from C-Blog with a multi-year offer. Posters know he has the cap space and this is part of where the divide is.
 

Smokey Joe

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 9, 2001
459
Was this really unexpected here though? We’ve got posters only caring about there individual stats looking to put up numbers with the hopes Jeff Clark comes over from C-Blog with a multi-year offer. Posters know he has the cap space and this is part of where the divide is.
Nobody in their right mind would contract with C-Blog. They're all looking out for themselves vying to attract the attention of Lord Simmons so they can be the next Kevin O'Conner. It's worse the CelticsHub back in the Zach Lowe days.
 

Smokey Joe

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 9, 2001
459
The TimeLord saying "I don't get enough minutes" and Rozier going "Tell me about it." cracks me up.
 

benhogan

Baynes Hogan (pending trade)
SoSH Member
Nov 2, 2007
6,558
Santa Monica
Was this really unexpected here though? We’ve got posters only caring about there individual stats looking to put up numbers with the hopes Jeff Clark comes over from C-Blog with a multi-year offer. Posters know he has the cap space and this is part of where the divide is.
well played...:drums:

Buckle up, pinnacle saltiness in the Port Cellar will hit when Kyrie re-ups with Lebron. The feathers, from the pillow fights around here, will be flying.
 

lexrageorge

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2007
7,424
The TimeLord saying "I don't get enough minutes" and Rozier going "Tell me about it." cracks me up.
The full article is here:

https://www.bostonherald.com/2019/05/21/celtics-robert-williams-has-a-summer-plan/

Some quotes:

“I have to work on everything. There’s no limit. Everything.”

And as for what he felt he did well in his rookie year that he can polish into a key skill that will net him more playing time in 2019-20, he was similarly zeroed in.

“It’s everything,” the 6-10 inside force said, shaking his head and adding a quick laugh. “I need to work on everything. Simple as that. Everything.”
When given minutes, Williams often proved worthy. He played 25:30 against New Orleans in December and had seven points, 11 rebounds and three blocks. He was a plus-13. (Anthony Davis had 41 points that night but was a minus-18 in the Celtics’ 113-110 win.)

He felt like he could have done more.

“Yeah, I obviously felt like that, but like I said, it’s a league full of great players,” he said. “So if you want to stay in this league, you’ve got to grind.”
I'm sure Felger & Mazz will interpret the interview as Williams' complaining about minutes, but I certainly didn't see it that way.
 

HomeRunBaker

bet squelcher
SoSH Member
Jan 15, 2004
17,845
I'm sure Felger & Mazz will interpret the interview as Williams' complaining about minutes, but I certainly didn't see it that way.
It's high comedy over there. Yesterday, Mazz replayed the Chavis post-game presser where he comes across as confident and dynamic......Mazz twists this into being cocky and someone who should go sit in the corner because he's a rookie like this is 1973. The Celtics aren't really a topic right now but you're correct he would be making a mockery of this as well.