Analysis of Celtics Games, '21-'22 Season

Van Everyman

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 30, 2009
21,268
Newton
My complaints on Ainge drafting mid to late 1st wasn’t so much about the misses but the lack of upside in those misses. Don’t miss on a Sullinger or a Pritchard when you are staring at their upside right in front of you. Miss on a freak athlete projection like a Begarin (or my beloved Gobert from prior years) to where you have a chance to a guy to grow into his length and athleticism (aka upside) on the cheap. Hopefully Brad’s choice of Begarin signals an end to the “safe” picks that are akin to kicking a FG on 4th and 3 when you’re down 5 in rhe 4Q.
So Pritchard is a miss now too? After a pretty solid rookie campaign?

The constant handwringing about one person’s role after another—Ainge’s drafting, Ime for always playing the wrong guys, the young guys who are now clear busts because they sat for a few games, Tatum for shooting poorly even as he’s passing out of double teams and playing exceptional defense—is exhausting. The list goes on – Marcus for shooting horribly while also trying to pass more, Brad for not blowing it all up by shipping the guys who are playing well out of town for Beale.

These guys aren’t puzzle pieces. This team is a work-in-progress with high upside. That’s because you have two Top 30 players who are still trying to figure out how to play complementary ball without losing what makes them Top 30 guys. Brad assembled a bunch of guys who may be able to help them figure it out. Ime is on board. There are going to be plenty of things to second-guess, because it’s a bit of a real-time experiment without having to create dramatic narratives about who failed this team more.

Enough with the miserablism already. This is a weird year bc of the pandemic and this team is more fun to watch as they try to coalesce than virtually anyone here is giving them credit for. Anything could happen.
 

benhogan

Granite Truther
SoSH Member
Nov 2, 2007
12,770
Santa Monica
The answer, at the moment, is to develop what you got. I completely understand the need for a rookie HC to win but UNLESS you're a top 8 (top 4 EC) contender your approach should be a hair different than what we have seen so far (especially during Oct/Nov/Dec regular season NBA hoops)

The delta between Grant, Langford, Nesmith + Pritchard getting consistent 10-15mpg isn't much different than overplaying the starter's THIBs style or using retreads like Parker, Hernangomez, Teague. I highly doubt you "lose" the team by playing high-energy 2nd/3rd yr players that almost always defer to the top 6-7 players. All four of them are very willing to dive on the floor, hustle, play with the right attitude.

PLUS those four aren't nearly complete. Nobody has one damn clue on how good/bad they will be. Game to game Grant looks like he can hit 3s, then the next game he can't guard a chair. Same with the other 3. The only way to know if they can develop is to give them small/defined bench roles and stagger them into games consistently with the starters. Then decide if they should stick or get moved at the trade deadline or at year-end.

DNP-CD guarantees ZERO value. If that's the philosophy deal your mid/late 1sts for proven veterans, especially if you don't have the stomach or wherewithal to draft/develop young players. OR use those picks on foreign players (Mader/Begarin) and let them ripen overseas until they are ready to contribute like an NBA vet. Either way, the coach and the front office need to be on the same page and have a definitive approach.
 

Jimbodandy

Well-Known Member
Gold Supporter
SoSH Member
Jan 31, 2006
6,222
around the way
The counterargument is that you are assuming Expected Value without showing your work.

Here's an article with a survey of several different draft value analysis methods: https://tonyelhabr.github.io/nba-decision_analysis/what-research-says-about-nba-draft-pick-value.html

Here's a second one with expected value from drafts until 2008: https://www.82games.com/nbadraftpicks.htm. According to this second one, the percent change of drafting a role player or worse with pick 14 is approximately 45%.

Since the JT draft, BOS has drafted one starter, two players who are seemingly in the rotation, and two more players who people have clamored to be in the rotation but at least one of them is probably no better than a role player. To me, that's probably expected value. Maybe a little more. Not a home run by any means but it just goes to show how much of a crap shoot it is picking outside of the top 5 in the NBA.
From a role/rotation player POV, that's perfectly fair.

Using the expected value link and my bad math, I have the accumulated picks for 2018-2020 as having 75% chance of a "star". We pretty clearly have none of those, which is probably what I'm complaining about.

You definitely make a good case that our expectations are unreasonable. It seems that we drafted at positions that generally produce rotation players or worse and shockingly got exactly that (TL is a starter if he stays on the court of course). My point is that enough of these picks--even at 25% or 5-10% rate of producing "stars"--should produce 1 star. But statistically, it's a ~75% chance...and that's IF you're shooting the moon. Which we haven't been, for the most part.
 

Cesar Crespo

79
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
17,712
DNP-CD guarantees ZERO value. If that's the philosophy deal your mid/late 1sts for proven veterans, especially if you don't have the stomach or wherewithal to draft/develop young players. OR use those picks on foreign players (Mader/Begarin) and let them ripen overseas until they are ready to contribute like an NBA vet. Either way, the coach and the front office need to be on the same page and have a definitive approach.
Or use them to dump players you sign a year later not to use. Oh wait, not that. I don't even have so much an issue with that if some of the other picks were looking better. Trade them for vets or use the players you selected.

Also Yam and Begarin were 2nd round picks. They have no real value in trade so using those picks are fine even if they never use the players.
 

HomeRunBaker

bet squelcher
SoSH Member
Jan 15, 2004
22,478
So Pritchard is a miss now too? After a pretty solid rookie campaign?

The constant handwringing about one person’s role after another—Ainge’s drafting, Ime for always playing the wrong guys, the young guys who are now clear busts because they sat for a few games, Tatum for shooting poorly even as he’s passing out of double teams and playing exceptional defense—is exhausting. The list goes on – Marcus for shooting horribly while also trying to pass more, Brad for not blowing it all up by shipping the guys who are playing well out of town for Beale.

These guys aren’t puzzle pieces. This team is a work-in-progress with high upside. That’s because you have two Top 30 players who are still trying to figure out how to play complementary ball without losing what makes them Top 30 guys. Brad assembled a bunch of guys who may be able to help them figure it out. Ime is on board. There are going to be plenty of things to second-guess, because it’s a bit of a real-time experiment without having to create dramatic narratives about who failed this team more.

Enough with the miserablism already. This is a weird year bc of the pandemic and this team is more fun to watch as they try to coalesce than virtually anyone here is giving them credit for. Anything could happen.
I didn’t mean it in that context like they were already misses (even though PP seems well on his way) but that even if they were hits they provide minimal value as a role player on a rookie deal…..so if you’re going to miss, miss with a chance of drafting an impact player. Hence, my reference to a FG that does little as opposed to going for a TD and the lead (impact). I said that Ainge was staring at what their upside was the day he drafted them as their ceilings were/are extremely low. Same with Olynyk.
 

Devizier

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 3, 2000
15,364
Somewhere
So Pritchard is a miss now too? After a pretty solid rookie campaign?
Pritchard is a hit in the sense that his performance is already above the median expected value for his draft position. I don't think that's what HRB is getting at though. A guy like Pritchard is a low-ceiling pick, which probably increases your hit rate but at the expense of finding potentially great players later in the draft. Maybe those guys are Bane or Tillman, quite possibly not. I'm not sure last year's draft is the right example to use anyways, since 1) it looks like kind of a mediocre draft overall, but 2) we don't know how a lot of these players will turn out.
 

HomeRunBaker

bet squelcher
SoSH Member
Jan 15, 2004
22,478
Pritchard is a hit in the sense that his performance is already above the median expected value for his draft position. I don't think that's what HRB is getting at though. A guy like Pritchard is a low-ceiling pick, which probably increases your hit rate but at the expense of finding potentially great players later in the draft. Maybe those guys are Bane or Tillman, quite possibly not. I'm not sure last year's draft is the right example to use anyways, since 1) it looks like kind of a mediocre draft overall, but 2) we don't know how a lot of these players will turn out.
Yeah I’m not opposed to drafting that type of player when you are competing for a Championship (although I’d prefer trading the pick and using salary on a vet-min ring chaser) and was fine with the Pritchard pick on its own as we were about to be in the mix has the right things fallen into place. The issue I have is that this has always been a part of Ainge’s draft philosophy even when rebuilding which to me is inexcusable and a poor strategy.
 

ManicCompression

Member
SoSH Member
May 14, 2015
502
My complaints on Ainge drafting mid to late 1st wasn’t so much about the misses but the lack of upside in those misses. Don’t miss on a Sullinger or a Pritchard when you are staring at their upside right in front of you. Miss on a freak athlete projection like a Begarin (or my beloved Gobert from prior years) to where you have a chance to a guy to grow into his length and athleticism (aka upside) on the cheap. Hopefully Brad’s choice of Begarin signals an end to the “safe” picks that are akin to kicking a FG on 4th and 3 when you’re down 5 in rhe 4Q.
I can't agree with this enough. There's nothing more disappointing to me than low-ceiling, high-floor players coming up short - I'd rather they take the gamble and if they lose, they lose. Tatum and Brown are really, really good basketball players, but they're not on the level of a Lebron or Durant obviously. The Celtics really needed to add variance to their portfolio the last couple of years to get additional young stars. I appreciate the swing at Romeo and I don't begrudge Ainge for that pick because if he could hit his upside, he'd be a great addition. He hasn't so far (still could, though increasingly unlikely), but at least they gave it a shot.

And it worked so well with TL! That's a guy who really improves this team's shot in the playoffs. You can get the skills of PP or even Grant on the FA market for really cheap. Scratch the lotto tickets when you have them.

EDIT: I'm a dummy
 
Last edited:

benhogan

Granite Truther
SoSH Member
Nov 2, 2007
12,770
Santa Monica
Pritchard is a hit in the sense that his performance is already above the median expected value for his draft position. I don't think that's what HRB is getting at though. A guy like Pritchard is a low-ceiling pick, which probably increases your hit rate but at the expense of finding potentially great players later in the draft. Maybe those guys are Bane or Tillman, quite possibly not. I'm not sure last year's draft is the right example to use anyways, since 1) it looks like kind of a mediocre draft overall, but 2) we don't know how a lot of these players will turn out.
I'm old enough to recall Luka Doncic being called an unathletic, low-ceiling prospect that should go outside the Top10

nobody knows nothing
-Bogle
 

ManicCompression

Member
SoSH Member
May 14, 2015
502
I'm old enough to recall Luka Doncic being called an unathletic, low-ceiling prospect that should go outside the Top10
Who had Luka outside the top 10? And who said he's low ceiling?

Luka's unathletic, but it's mitigated by the fact that he's huge and also super, super, super skilled. If PP was 6'8" and could create shots for others reliably, we'd feel much different about him. 6' shooting guards aren't incredibly useful when you're trying to contend.
 

Cesar Crespo

79
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
17,712
There's nothing more disappointing to me than high-ceiling, low-floor players coming up short -
You mean low ceiling, high floor players? I guess it depends on what kind of disappointment you are talking about. The former are disappointing because I really want them to work out because I can see their potential. They are fun to dream on, so when they don't work out, it is disappointing. But at the same time, I'm happy they took a chance on a guy who could actually make a real difference. There's also a chance they develop into a player just as useful as the high floor/low ceiling player.

I'd argue the low ceiling, high floor player is far more disappointing. There is nothing to dream on and if the slightest thing goes wrong, their high floor vanishes. I'm disappointed the team took them in the first place.

Now, if you are a contender playing around on the margins, I can see drafting PP. Take a safer chance on a player who might be able to contribute right off the bat rather than swing for the fences on a guy who won't be ready for 3-4 years. Maybe Ainge thought that's where the C"s were the last few years. The C's are different though because their Jay window isn't closing anytime soon.
 

Cesar Crespo

79
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
17,712
Who had Luka outside the top 10? And who said he's low ceiling?
HRB said he'd be a bust. I don't think he had him going outside the top 10 though. It was an outlier opinion.

Besides that, there are always going to be "hits" later in the draft. Those hits are outliers too, though. Maybe in one NBAverse, PP is FVV. I doubt it's this one. More often than not, he's what the scouting reports expect.

I bet that one guy is gloating about it now though. He was looking dead wrong last year and doubled and triple downed. The twitter poster.
 
Last edited:

sezwho

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 20, 2005
700
Brooklyn by way of Orono
HRB said he'd be a bust. I don't think he had him going outside the top 10 though. It was an outlier opinion.

Besides that, there are always going to be "hits" later in the draft. Those hits are outliers too, though. Maybe in one NBAverse, PP is FVV. I doubt it's this one. More often than not, he's what the scouting reports expect.

I bet that one guy is gloating about it now though. He was looking dead wrong last year and doubled and triple downed. The twitter poster.
I'm hard pressed to put much blame on Danny's drafts, and as a side note: I love watchin Luka. He's my favorite player to watch.

Back on track: this team plays solid D and is finding itself offensively as well. It needs a legit 3pt shooter and a less flawed primary ball handler. Seems like those are solvable problems over the next year or so.
 

benhogan

Granite Truther
SoSH Member
Nov 2, 2007
12,770
Santa Monica
HRB said he'd be a bust. I don't think he had him going outside the top 10 though. It was an outlier opinion.

Besides that, there are always going to be "hits" later in the draft. Those hits are outliers too, though. Maybe in one NBAverse, PP is FVV. I doubt it's this one. More often than not, he's what the scouting reports expect.

I bet that one guy is gloating about it now though. He was looking dead wrong last year and doubled and triple downed. The twitter poster.
HRB is one of my favorite posters and is very knowledgeable when it comes to hoops.

My bigger point is labeling early is tough. All these kids are extremely talented and minutes/roles help players develop to their potential

The ceiling/floor labels at draft time/early years is utter garbage
 

Cesar Crespo

79
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
17,712
HRB is one of my favorite posters and is very knowledgeable when it comes to hoops.

My bigger point is labeling early is tough. All these kids are extremely talented and minutes/roles help players develop to their potential

The ceiling/floor labels is utter garbage
To a point, but PP is older than Jayson Tatum. This stuff matters when determining how a player ends up, along with their length and athleticism.

How much longer is PP a "kid" who is extremely talented and has a ton of potential? He turns 24 in February. He might have another offseason of limited growth. It is what it is.

Doncic was 19.
 

HomeRunBaker

bet squelcher
SoSH Member
Jan 15, 2004
22,478
HRB said he'd be a bust. I don't think he had him going outside the top 10 though. It was an outlier opinion.

Besides that, there are always going to be "hits" later in the draft. Those hits are outliers too, though. Maybe in one NBAverse, PP is FVV. I doubt it's this one. More often than not, he's what the scouting reports expect.

I bet that one guy is gloating about it now though. He was looking dead wrong last year and doubled and triple downed. The twitter poster.
My memory isn’t the best but I’d have to had been drunk to say he’d be a bust since I was raving about his size and passing ability when he was 17. I did say the following year that I had questions about his shooting at ability to create space which I still do but from my recollection I had him right around where he was drafted maybe a slot or two lower.
 

HomeRunBaker

bet squelcher
SoSH Member
Jan 15, 2004
22,478
HRB is one of my favorite posters and is very knowledgeable when it comes to hoops.

My bigger point is labeling early is tough. All these kids are extremely talented and minutes/roles help players develop to their potential

The ceiling/floor labels at draft time/early years is utter garbage
Of course it’s an imperfect science that’s what is fun about attempting to forecast these things along with the reasoning. I feel the ceiling/floors are fairly predictable due to a players athletic traits but you are always going to have your outliers……these players shouldn’t deter from the larger sample however. You view a guys ceiling ike Pritchard, Olynyk, Sullinger and the like based on how such a large number of similarly size/athletic players have fared in the past. The counter is always the one-off like, “Look at Steve Nash though!” Those guys are always going to exist and they likely come with some outrageous trait such as a work ethic like Cole Anthony as an example. He’s a “low ceiling” guy in theory but he has a freakish quality that lengthens his ceiling.
 

Devizier

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 3, 2000
15,364
Somewhere
When it comes to relitigating the drafts, my general feeling is that you cant count on post-lottery guys. You can't even count on late lottery guys. Being in a position where you have to count on them is the problem.
 

DeJesus Built My Hotrod

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 24, 2002
36,740
I don't get the point of relitigating except to say "I was right, you was wrong lolz".

Its not like you can change the team's trajectory with the exercise and if Brad/Udoka are sitting around in Atlanta today lamenting the picks Danny didn't take, they should be removed from their positions. Their job is not to complain about what happened before or change history. Their job, like the Bucks, Lakers, Warriors, Cavs etc etc is to take what they have and make it better via whatever internal and external resources they can find.

I understand that the concern is that this roster, as currently constituted, cannot win and that the team has few obvious resources to improve. I have no interest in unearthing old takes from this forum or elsewhere but I recall some pretty firm views that the Bucks/Giannis weren't built to win in the playoffs. I seem to remember takes as well that some of their roster moves had crippled them. I know Giannis is the answer to all of that but if you go back to prior champions, they all were able to maneuver to add talent when needed - even up against cap limits or with little in draft capital.

Again, if Stevens cannot creatively round out the roster around Tatum/Brown (or one of the two) then he probably isn't well suited for this job.
 

benhogan

Granite Truther
SoSH Member
Nov 2, 2007
12,770
Santa Monica
To a point, but PP is older than Jayson Tatum. This stuff matters when determining how a player ends up, along with their length and athleticism.

How much longer is PP a "kid" who is extremely talented and has a ton of potential? He turns 24 in February. He might have another offseason of limited growth. It is what it is.

Doncic was 19.
that's fair on PP, in regards to age.

Unless he shoots well over 40% from 3 he's going to have trouble sticking. He did pull it off last season, so I'd be willing to stick it out after masked PP couldn't hit the broad side of a barn
 

shoelace

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 24, 2019
174
I don't get the point of relitigating except to say "I was right, you was wrong lolz".

I understand that the concern is that this roster, as currently constituted, cannot win and that the team has few obvious resources to improve. I have no interest in unearthing old takes from this forum or elsewhere but I recall some pretty firm views that the Bucks/Giannis weren't built to win in the playoffs. I seem to remember takes as well that some of their roster moves had crippled them. I know Giannis is the answer to all of that but if you go back to prior champions, they all were able to maneuver to add talent when needed - even up against cap limits or with little in draft capital.

Again, if Stevens cannot creatively round out the roster around Tatum/Brown (or one of the two) then he probably isn't well suited for this job.
Agreed, of the recurring topics that come up on this forum, this is one of the least interesting. At least no one is saying Ainge wanted to trade all the Brooklyn picks for Justise Winslow and is lucky to have Tatum and Brown or whatever. Maybe Ainge put too much emphasis on certain qualities or personality traits while drafting from time to time. I think there are legitimate criticisms to be made about the last few years of Ainge's tenure, benhogan nailed it with his skepticism of the Kemba signing from day one, but when you have Jayson Tatum, Jaylen Brown, and Robert Williams drafted in the recent memory, the draft doesn't seem like a huge issue to me.
 

Jimbodandy

Well-Known Member
Gold Supporter
SoSH Member
Jan 31, 2006
6,222
around the way
My memory isn’t the best but I’d have to had been drunk to say he’d be a bust since I was raving about his size and passing ability when he was 17. I did say the following year that I had questions about his shooting at ability to create space which I still do but from my recollection I had him right around where he was drafted maybe a slot or two lower.
The debate around here at that time was where Luka belonged in the top 5 or so. A couple of people thought that he was the best player in the draft, most had it between 2 and 4. Nobody called him a bust to my knowledge.

That said, many thought that athleticism might hold him back somewhat (as was sometimes said about Tatum). In neither case was that correct.
 

Cesar Crespo

79
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
17,712
The debate around here at that time was where Luka belonged in the top 5 or so. A couple of people thought that he was the best player in the draft, most had it between 2 and 4. Nobody called him a bust to my knowledge.

That said, many thought that athleticism might hold him back somewhat (as was sometimes said about Tatum). In neither case was that correct.

HRB had him 11th talent wise. It's where he projected them to be when they were end products, not where they'd go in the draft. At least how I read it.

There are a few caveats that none of us know anything about, such as Porter's medicals, Mitchell Robinson (and his promise), and teams trading up to select one particular player so I'm not necessarily "mocking" this draft based on team selection only posting my draft order without factoring in team needs, system or any of those other variables. Many picks I see as interchangeable based on system or where the team drafting is today, like Trae Young vs Collin Sexton or JJJ vs Wendell, and I will note them as such. Yes, I like some guys much more than the mocks or general public and aren't as high as some who I feel are overhyped based on what I project them to be so here goes...…..

1. Marvin Bagley
2. Mo Bamba
3. DeAndre Ayton
4. Kevin Knox (want to have him at 3 so bad here, it's close)
5a. Wendell Carter
5b. Jaren Jackson
7. Shai Gilgeous-Alexander (made for todays NBA)
8. Mikal Bridges
9a. Trae Young
9b. Collin Sexton
11. Luka Doncic
12. Michael Porter (I'd need clean meds to go higher and the new hip injury doesn't help me here)

My 1/2 have been rock solid for awhile with a gap to 3 but not an enormous one. I've been an Ayton guy forever but his stiffness and motor give me pause as to his ceiling. After 12 though is where I see the most significant dropoff.
 

Jimbodandy

Well-Known Member
Gold Supporter
SoSH Member
Jan 31, 2006
6,222
around the way
that's fair on PP, in regards to age.

Unless he shoots well over 40% from 3 he's going to have trouble sticking. He did pull it off last season, so I'd be willing to stick it out after masked PP couldn't hit the broad side of a barn
I'm afraid that even 42% PP has limited value on this team if he doesn't improve his ability to create separation and/or get guys on his hip. He flashed that, but it's gone. And the book is out on him that you don't have to leave your feet at the rim too. He's Carsen Edwards right now. Slightly taller but with less jump on his jumper.
 

nighthob

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
10,859
I've been fucking busy of late, so I apologize for not going back through the thread to find the Trade Jaylen!!! posts (or really making any attempt to catch up to the conversation, there's a point where you open a 19 page thread and find that you were last there at around page 15). But I would like to revisit the Brown trade scenarios. I've exited the Beal train because the Wiz have been really good so far and they'd be more likely to be looking to add Brown than trade Beal for him (and if that team wins 50 games this year and makes the second round I wager that Beal re-signs with them).

It would be ideal if Tatum's running mate were a better playmaker. Someone like Marcus, but a scorer. Someone like Malcolm Brogdon fits the bill, except that he's about to turn 29. High school Cam Reddish looked like he could turn in to that kind of guy, but NBA Cam Reddish is sort of a black hole on offense. Plus he's not nearly the shooter/scorer.

So it pretty much comes down to two possible trade partners that I can see. The first is the Kings with Haliburton and Barnes (Boston would need to include something else to make that palatable). That would close Boston's needs at two spots, with Barnes providing them a big wing to run with Tatum and Haliburton providing them with a versatile G that can fit with just about anyone.

The other is the guy that Boston would likely have picked had they not traded for the Demon Kyzuzu, Shae Gilgeous-Alexander. Usually guys that sign extensions are near impossible to trade before the new deal kicks in, but the Thunder can clear the cap space to absorb Brown's deal outright, so something could be constructed around Brown/whatever for SGA/whatever. SGA still needs to improve his shooting, but he fills every other need, switchability on D, scoring, playmaking, etc..
 

benhogan

Granite Truther
SoSH Member
Nov 2, 2007
12,770
Santa Monica
I'm afraid that even 42% PP has limited value on this team if he doesn't improve his ability to create separation and/or get guys on his hip. He flashed that, but it's gone. And the book is out on him that you don't have to leave your feet at the rim too. He's Carsen Edwards right now. Slightly taller but with less jump on his jumper.
This team came into the season in desperate need of ++3pt shooting w/DS, TL, MS & JRich playing major minutes/roles.

I'm sure we agree it's still a need. PP shooting deep 3s would help a ton
 

wade boggs chicken dinner

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 26, 2005
24,391
The answer, at the moment, is to develop what you got. I completely understand the need for a rookie HC to win but UNLESS you're a top 8 (top 4 EC) contender your approach should be a hair different than what we have seen so far (especially during Oct/Nov/Dec regular season NBA hoops)

The delta between Grant, Langford, Nesmith + Pritchard getting consistent 10-15mpg isn't much different than overplaying the starter's THIBs style or using retreads like Parker, Hernangomez, Teague. I highly doubt you "lose" the team by playing high-energy 2nd/3rd yr players that almost always defer to the top 6-7 players. All four of them are very willing to dive on the floor, hustle, play with the right attitude.

PLUS those four aren't nearly complete. Nobody has one damn clue on how good/bad they will be. Game to game Grant looks like he can hit 3s, then the next game he can't guard a chair. Same with the other 3. The only way to know if they can develop is to give them small/defined bench roles and stagger them into games consistently with the starters. Then decide if they should stick or get moved at the trade deadline or at year-end.

DNP-CD guarantees ZERO value. If that's the philosophy deal your mid/late 1sts for proven veterans, especially if you don't have the stomach or wherewithal to draft/develop young players. OR use those picks on foreign players (Mader/Begarin) and let them ripen overseas until they are ready to contribute like an NBA vet. Either way, the coach and the front office need to be on the same page and have a definitive approach.
Isn't Jabari worth some minutes to try to see what he's able to do? He's only 26+
 

benhogan

Granite Truther
SoSH Member
Nov 2, 2007
12,770
Santa Monica
I've been fucking busy of late, so I apologize for not going back through the thread to find the Trade Jaylen!!! posts (or really making any attempt to catch up to the conversation, there's a point where you open a 19 page thread and find that you were last there at around page 15). But I would like to revisit the Brown trade scenarios. I've exited the Beal train because the Wiz have been really good so far and they'd be more likely to be looking to add Brown than trade Beal for him (and if that team wins 50 games this year and makes the second round I wager that Beal re-signs with them).

It would be ideal if Tatum's running mate were a better playmaker. Someone like Marcus, but a scorer. Someone like Malcolm Brogdon fits the bill, except that he's about to turn 29. High school Cam Reddish looked like he could turn in to that kind of guy, but NBA Cam Reddish is sort of a black hole on offense. Plus he's not nearly the shooter/scorer.

So it pretty much comes down to two possible trade partners that I can see. The first is the Kings with Haliburton and Barnes (Boston would need to include something else to make that palatable). That would close Boston's needs at two spots, with Barnes providing them a big wing to run with Tatum and Haliburton providing them with a versatile G that can fit with just about anyone.

The other is the guy that Boston would likely have picked had they not traded for the Demon Kyzuzu, Shae Gilgeous-Alexander. Usually guys that sign extensions are near impossible to trade before the new deal kicks in, but the Thunder can clear the cap space to absorb Brown's deal outright, so something could be constructed around Brown/whatever for SGA/whatever. SGA still needs to improve his shooting, but he fills every other need, switchability on D, scoring, playmaking, etc..
Haiburton and SGA are catnip

How about DeJounte Murray/Vassel?
 

Cesar Crespo

79
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
17,712
Why would the Spurs? It doesn't really accelerate their window. I've been suggesting the Kings trade for awhile because I think it works for both teams.

Jaylen seems like a guy you trade for if you have the first star already in place.
 

wade boggs chicken dinner

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 26, 2005
24,391
Besides that, there are always going to be "hits" later in the draft. Those hits are outliers too, though. Maybe in one NBAverse, PP is FVV. I doubt it's this one. More often than not, he's what the scouting reports expect.
In one NBAverse, PP is Jerry West. Of course that requires him being bit by a radioactive spider or a werewolf, I forget which. And there are a billion zillion NBAverses. . . .
 

benhogan

Granite Truther
SoSH Member
Nov 2, 2007
12,770
Santa Monica
Why would the Spurs? It doesn't really accelerate their window. I've been suggesting the Kings trade for awhile because I think it works for both teams.

Jaylen seems like a guy you trade for if you have the first star already in place.
Just figure the Spurs need to do something, they have been sliding for years now.

You'd do it if you think Brown has top 10 ability, maybe Pop does? I recall GP selecting and starting JB for Team USA long before he was as well thought of around the league

Maybe Brown takes a large leap as the #1 option on a team (and not being Tatum's Robin)
 

nighthob

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
10,859
I mean the reason that San Antonio does it is that Brown’s an all star level talent and Murray and Vassell are not. Now they improve Boston’s defense, but they’re the roleplayers you put around stars, not stars in themselves. Brown might only be a sidekick, but Murray and Vassell are further down that ladder.

Murray is sort of like Marcus with more explosiveness. I like the 8/8/2 part of his 18/8/8/2 line, but the 18 comes on .510 TS% and a .496 eFG%, Add in the .333 3FG% on four per game and sidekick is an aspiration for him (put another way he averages 18 p/g because someone has to). He’s useful to be sure, but Jaylen he isn’t.
 

ManicCompression

Member
SoSH Member
May 14, 2015
502
The first is the Kings with Haliburton and Barnes (Boston would need to include something else to make that palatable).
Why would Boston need to include something there? As good as Barnes has been this year, I'd imagine Sac would have kick something back for an in his prime all-star who's on a team friendly deal for the next 2+ years. I might be overestimating his market, though.
 

Cesar Crespo

79
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
17,712
Why would Boston need to include something there? As good as Barnes has been this year, I'd imagine Sac would have kick something back for an in his prime all-star who's on a team friendly deal for the next 2+ years. I might be overestimating his market, though.
Because Barnes isn't far off Brown. It largely depends what you think of Haliburton's ceiling.

edit: I also think Barnes is one of the more underrated players in the league.
 

tbb345

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 23, 2010
1,918
Because Barnes isn't far off Brown. It largely depends what you think of Haliburton's ceiling.

edit: I also think Barnes is one of the more underrated players in the league.
I don’t want to go down the rabbit hole of arguing fake Jaylen trades…beauty is in the eye of the beholder and I think it’s kind of a pointless exercise honestly…

However, I can GUARANTEE one thing, and that’s that there’s no NBA team in the league that thinks that Harrison Barnes and Jaylen Brown have similar trade value
 

Cesar Crespo

79
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
17,712
I don’t want to go down the rabbit hole of arguing fake Jaylen trades…beauty is in the eye of the beholder and I think it’s kind of a pointless exercise honestly…

However, I can GUARANTEE one thing, and that’s that there’s no NBA team in the league that thinks that Harrison Barnes and Jaylen Brown have similar trade value
I meant on the floor, Barnes probably gives you 90-95% of what Brown does. That's where Haliburton comes in.
 

Cesar Crespo

79
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
17,712
Barnes is interesting too because he completely eliminated the mid range shot from his game over the last few seasons and his TS% has skyrocketed.
 

nighthob

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
10,859
Why would Boston need to include something there? As good as Barnes has been this year, I'd imagine Sac would have kick something back for an in his prime all-star who's on a team friendly deal for the next 2+ years. I might be overestimating his market, though.
I suppose it depends on where you see Haliburton’s ceiling. I think most people around the league would put it close to Brown’s. Barnes never really panned out as a defender, but he shoots threes well at volume and there’s always the hope that on a squad with Al & Marcus that he starts busting tail on that end of the floor.
 

PedroKsBambino

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
Gold Supporter
SoSH Member
Apr 17, 2003
26,145
I like Halliburton but pretty sure there’s no team who thinks his upside is equal to what Brown is today, much less what he might grow into. Which is why that deal doesn’t make sense for Celtics unless the goal is to win a playoff series this year or there are major chemistry issues we haven’t heard about (which I do not rule out)
 

Sprowl

mikey lowell of the sandbox
Dope
Jun 27, 2006
33,569
Haiku
I'll buy low on Pritchard. He has been pretty bad this season while trying to play with a broken nose. His vision, timing and confidence are all off right now, but he'll get some more chances at reserve point guard when Udoka's short rotations wear down Schroder, Smart and Richardson

I agree that Pritchard's ceiling isn't far overhead, but he was a lot better in his rookie year than now, and probably will be better again.
 

Euclis20

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 3, 2004
4,444
Imaginationland
I meant on the floor, Barnes probably gives you 90-95% of what Brown does. That's where Haliburton comes in.
21/22 Harrison Barnes might give you almost everything JB does, but I'm skeptical this continues. He's off to an incredible start, with career highs in points, rebounds, steals, free throws, 3s, fg% and 3p%. Maybe at age 29 he's finally hit his stride (he's never made an all-star team, not even close, but this year he'd deserve it), or maybe it's a flukey good start and he's still the same guy he's been since leaving GS - a moderately above average player with nice numbers playing for bad teams.
 

HomeRunBaker

bet squelcher
SoSH Member
Jan 15, 2004
22,478
HRB had him 11th talent wise. It's where he projected them to be when they were end products, not where they'd go in the draft. At least how I read it.
I really nailed that draft! I def didn’t foresee the game shifting to the degree it did. Knox hasn’t gotten it and I’m still blown away that Bagley never improved once he got to a more wide open NBA. You don’t miss any harder than I did that draft.
 

lexrageorge

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2007
13,537
Not interested in trading Brown for a couple of lower upside players. Those seldom work out and reeks of selling low on Brown without a whole lot of needle moving. Team’s ceiling would still be a 5 seed or less.
 

benhogan

Granite Truther
SoSH Member
Nov 2, 2007
12,770
Santa Monica
I like Halliburton but pretty sure there’s no team who thinks his upside is equal to what Brown is today, much less what he might grow into. Which is why that deal doesn’t make sense for Celtics unless the goal is to win a playoff series this year or there are major chemistry issues we haven’t heard about (which I do not rule out)
Haliburton's first season was better or equal to any of Jaylen's first 3 seasons. He shot better from all 3 spots and right now is a better distributor, and will grow into a much better defender. So it wouldn't shock me if Sac viewed his eventual upside to be greater

I really don't see the Kings moving him + Barnes for JB. Also don't see the Celtics trading Brown. Stalemate
 
Last edited:

Eddie Jurak

Go Leafs Go
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 12, 2002
33,274
Melrose, MA
Last night the Celtics struggled defensively against the Hawks, giving up 110 points, their worst points allowed in regulation since November 1.

Offensively, with a couple of exceptions, they struggled again. Numerous players are shooting well below their career average 3 point percentage. The Celtics as a team were 11-41 from three, which is bad, but 2 guys combined to go 8 for 20 which is good. The rest (3-21) could not shoot their way out of a wet paper bag.

This isn't just a a matter of "taking bad threes" which drives down the percentage. Per Karalis, the Celtics are shooting 32.8% on wide open threes, which is a terrible mark, 4th worst in the league, though they are better on "open threes", 35.1%, .

Al Horford, a career 36%, is shooting 28%. Marcus Smart, a career 32%, is shooting 26%. Richardson, a career 34.5%, is shooting 32%. Schroder, a career 34%, is shooting 33% (pretty close). Grant and Langford are shooting better than their career averages, but in Langford's case the sample is too small to read anything into it (9 for 20).

Getting Jaylen back should help, but they also need to start hitting at their career averages. Horford in particular.

Last night, the 2 bright spots were Tatum and Grant, who combined to go 8 for 20 from three.

Tatum looked like Tatum for the first time in a while, with a 12-22, 34 points, 9 rebounds, 5 assists line. He was able to drive effectively vs the Hawks, both to score and to dish to teammates. Grant's first 2 threes came off Tatum drives where he kicked to the corner.

Grant had his best game of the season, or at least his best half. He hit a couple of threes early on that kept the Celtics in the game, although his overall line from 3 after the game was meh (3-8). He was also 3-4 from the field and got himself to the line where he went 3-3. 18 points, 15 in the first half, which ended with the Celtics down 9. Didn't produce much int he second half though.

Marcus was 0 for his first 5 and finished 3 for 10. But he had 11 assists. Schroder had 15 points on decient shooting but ran his streak of not getting more assists than turnovers to 5 games. Josh Richardson went 1 for 4 from 3 but otherwise had a nice offensive game, shooting 5-10 overal for 11 points off the bench.

Langford, for a moment, I thought was going to have a good game but it was not to be. Early on he found an opening in the D and drove for what ended up as an open reverse layup attempt, and he simply missed it. Then he tied up Delon Wright on a drive to the basket... and "won" the ensuing tip but smacked the ball hard out of bounds. OK, adrenaline. Next time down he drove again, then turned it over trying to kick it out. Not his day.
 

PedroKsBambino

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
Gold Supporter
SoSH Member
Apr 17, 2003
26,145
Haliburton's first season was better or equal to any of Jaylen's first 3 seasons. He shot better from all 3 spots and right now is a better distributor, and will grow into a much better defender. So it wouldn't shock me if Sac viewed his eventual upside to be greater

I really don't see the Kings moving him + Barnes for JB. Also don't see the Celtics trading Brown. Stalemate
I don't see it that way at all. To me, NBA teams focus mostly on potential for guys in this age range and JB's potential---athletically in particular---has always been far above Halliburton's. Which is especially important because sitting here today his play is as well. Brown is a vastly better scorer, and has tools to be a much more versatile defender and has shown that in flashes (though, as we've all noted, not consistently). I agree Halliburton is a better distributor. That said, and agreeing there's a couple years of age difference, I think there's no way any team is valuing Halliburton above Brown even figuring in contract (a big benefit for Halliburton right now). One is an all-star now with the potential to possibly be a first team all-NBA talent (though I don't know Brown will quite get there) and one is a very good player who looks like he might make an all-star game in a good-case scenario. But you never trade the first for the second. Even if one thinks Halliburton is a better player today (which is a tough case to make, even with Halliburton's efficiency) I don't think teams will project them similarly going forward.

And to repeat---going back to the draft---I'm a big Halliburton fan. But I think people are focusing a bit too much on Brown's gaps and too little on Halliburton's. So, yes, I agree Celtics wouldn't do that as I think they recognize the difference between potential superstars and very good players. HRB often makes the point about athletic ability and sometimes I think people focus a little too much on efficiency stats and not enough on how players can project forward....