Celtic off-court discussion

Cesar Crespo

79
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
17,762
I don’t think they will keep Tatum and Brown together for four more years, though, if they aren’t seriously contending. How often do teams in the salary cap era keep duos together for 7-8 years without significant winning, and how often does it pay off in year 7-8? And I am pretty sure that one or the other would want out in the interim. It’s a nice idea but doesn’t seem realistic.
Portland immediately comes to mind.
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
23,533
You know better than this. They didn't lose value without replacing it. They had max contracts guys walk out the door and replaced with other max contract guys. They went from three-ish All-Stars to 2 All-Stars.

Haybird and Irving were replaced by All-Stars JT and JB. Rookie years JB and JT were replaced by GW, RL, and AN. Frankly, everything the Cs have done personnel-wise with the exception of having Kyrie fall into their laps was more or less pre-ordained by the salary cap once it became clear that JB was a max or near-max player and JT was a max player. Yeah there was some tinkering they could have done but at the end of the day, we all knew the Cs were going to go as far as JB/JT would lead them.

We'll all wonder what could have been in 2017-18. I remember the super excited posts about pre-season games where the Cs looked like they could win 70 games. It sucks that it didn't work out but if GH hadn't gone up for that alley-oop, I doubt anyone would have been complaining about picking up Kyrie.
THis is a terrible way to look at this, and anyone who did this as a GM would be fired. The most important thing in the NBA is to lose as little value as possible. If you have rising stars who will need to get paid the max... you need to get value for your max guys. Even the cap thing isn't really accurate, the Celtics are under the tax, while paying $45M to Horford/Richardson/Hernangomez, they would much rather have better younger players in that $45M, and they'd like to trade some of the rest of what they have for a 3rd star... problem is they have little to trade in part because they step by step downgraded Horford/Kyrie/Hayward and a mid-1st to Horford on a bad contract and a trade exception, some of it was yes bad luck, but it doesn't change that this team would look very different if they hadn't gotten negative value out of those moves. Even just having a couple extra picks would be huge. And not being able to compete meant using another pick to dump a small salary.

Thinking of Tatum and Brown who were on the roster as the replacements for Kyrie/Horford/Hayward is IDIOTIC. They may have replaced some of the salary (though they make less of the cap since they are on 1st post-rookie contracts not 2nd or 3rd), but the TALENT wasn't replaced. This team was set up to add a bunch of talent to the Jays, instead they didn't add any talent they weren't already in line for. We are constantly talking about how hard it is to find a 3rd star, and how we'd get outbid... we'd get outbid because we burned a ton of assets to get and then lose top talent.

Edit- I should note, not all of this is the GMs fault, but it still happened. They chose not to trade Hayward because:
1. They probably overestimated their title chances
2. They thought they could re-sign him.

They were wrong on both.

They thought they could re-sign Al... they couldn't.
Kyrie... they let him walk to sign Kemba... okay, that one there was a plan... it ended up terribly though (bad luck? or perhaps they mis-evalutated how much time his knee had left.

The thing is though... those things still happened, they still got no real value out of having 3 very attractive assets.

In 4 years when both are reaching their peak? I'm not saying they should punt until then. But Jordan and Isiah were both 27 when they won their first title. Tatum is 23. Patience.
That's a problem.... neither guy is under contract that long, and keeping them both (or even one) gets tough if you burn 3 years not really competing.
 
Last edited:

shoelace

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 24, 2019
174
This is fair.

Failing to move Kyrie might be 20/20 hindsight-ish

Maybe Danny's plan was win big that season and Kyrie sticks
It was not impossible to imagine them winning a title with the Irving/Brown/Tatum/Hayward/Horford starting five they ran out in 2018-2019, with Smart, Rozier, Baynes, Theis and Larkin off the bench. I can't really fault Danny for a broken ankle and Kyrie's descent into an antivax celeb echo chamber.

The Tatum and Brown "core" doesn't have a long stretch of futility. They pivoted to that core in the 2019-2020 season, and that's charitable, it really was last season that those two were the clear focal points. We're talking about two seasons that were both significantly impacted by a global pandemic. Jaylen is entering his early prime. Jayson Tatum is 23. Other posters may not be convinced of this, but I think the burden of proof is on the people arguing that Jayson Tatum should be the best player on a championship team at a younger age than Jordan, LeBron, Giannis, etc.
 

lexrageorge

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2007
13,581
THis is a terrible way to look at this, and anyone who did this as a GM would be fired. The most important thing in the NBA is to lose as little value as possible. If you have rising stars who will need to get paid the max... you need to get value for your max guys. Even the cap thing isn't really accurate, the Celtics are under the tax, while paying $45M to Horford/Richardson/Hernangomez, they would much rather have better younger players in that $45M, and they'd like to trade some of the rest of what they have for a 3rd star... problem is they have little to trade in part because they step by step downgraded Horford/Kyrie/Hayward and a mid-1st to Horford on a bad contract and a trade exception, some of it was yes bad luck, but it doesn't change that this team would look very different if they hadn't gotten negative value out of those moves. Even just having a couple extra picks would be huge. And not being able to compete meant using another pick to dump a small salary.

Thinking of Tatum and Brown who were on the roster as the replacements for Kyrie/Horford/Hayward is IDIOTIC. They may have replaced some of the salary (though they make less of the cap since they are on 1st post-rookie contracts not 2nd or 3rd), but the TALENT wasn't replaced. This team was set up to add a bunch of talent to the Jays, instead they didn't add any talent they weren't already in line for. We are constantly talking about how hard it is to find a 3rd star, and how we'd get outbid... we'd get outbid because we burned a ton of assets to get and then lose top talent.
Horford left on his own accord when he declined his option and Philly overpaid him. Kyrie left on his own accord to "play" with Durant, and to be honest hasn't done a whole lot of anything since he has left. Hayward also left on his own accord; at least Danny was able to turn that into a trade exception.

There isn't much a GM can do about free agents opting out and leaving. Unless you tell me that Danny never should have signed Horford or Hayward in the first place, it's not clear what Ainge could have done, beyond retaining Rozier instead of signing Kemba.

The only asset the Celtics really "lost" was the first they traded for Kyrie; nobody was complaining then.

The depreciated draft capital is a bigger problem, IMO. But still time for Langford to be a complementary piece that could turn into a tradable asset.
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
23,533
Horford left on his own accord when he declined his option and Philly overpaid him. Kyrie left on his own accord to "play" with Durant, and to be honest hasn't done a whole lot of anything since he has left. Hayward also left on his own accord; at least Danny was able to turn that into a trade exception.

There isn't much a GM can do about free agents opting out and leaving. Unless you tell me that Danny never should have signed Horford or Hayward in the first place, it's not clear what Ainge could have done, beyond retaining Rozier instead of signing Kemba.

The only asset the Celtics really "lost" was the first they traded for Kyrie; nobody was complaining then.

The depreciated draft capital is a bigger problem, IMO. But still time for Langford to be a complementary piece that could turn into a tradable asset.
You can trade them. Hayward for sure you could trade, they had offers.

I edited my post upthread to make it more clear... Danny had reasons for not getting anything for each guy... the fact remains they turned a team with a lot of assets including 2 rising stars into a team with those 2 rising stars and not many assets. The article pointed that out and people got defensive. There is a lot to criticize about that article, but any take on the Celtics that doesn't recognize that they burned a lot of assets into nothing is not clearly assessing the past 3-4 years. It doesn't matter WHY they did it, it matters going forward that they did. The path to a title roster got a whole lot narrower when that loaded team with a ton of future picks turned into this roster with only their own picks.
 

lexrageorge

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2007
13,581
You can trade them. Hayward for sure you could trade, they had offers.

I edited my post upthread to make it more clear... Danny had reasons for not getting anything for each guy... the fact remains they turned a team with a lot of assets including 2 rising stars into a team with those 2 rising stars and not many assets. The article pointed that out and people got defensive. There is a lot to criticize about that article, but any take on the Celtics that doesn't recognize that they burned a lot of assets into nothing is not clearly assessing the past 3-4 years. It doesn't matter WHY they did it, it matters going forward that they did. The path to a title roster got a whole lot narrower when that loaded team with a ton of future picks turned into this roster with only their own picks.
Would they really have gotten a real asset for trading Hayward when he was potentially in the final year of his contract? The Celtics were indeed in the mix as EC contenders that season; they beat down Philly and Toronto quite convincingly in the bubble. With a healthy Hayward and Kemba they would have beaten Miami. Danny didn't plan for Hayward spraining his ankle or for Kemba's knee degrading as early as it did. The WHY matters 100%; agree to disagree there, because Wyc definitely analyzes how the team arrived at the junction they did. Doubtful he would have promoted Stevens otherwise.

As for assets, the team does now have Horford, JRich, DS, Rob and Grant Williams, and hopefully Langford. Team's have acquired talent with less.
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
23,533
Would they really have gotten a real asset for trading Hayward when he was potentially in the final year of his contract? The Celtics were indeed in the mix as EC contenders that season; they beat down Philly and Toronto quite convincingly in the bubble. With a healthy Hayward and Kemba they would have beaten Miami. Danny didn't plan for Hayward spraining his ankle or for Kemba's knee degrading as early as it did. The WHY matters 100%; agree to disagree there, because Wyc definitely analyzes how the team arrived at the junction they did. Doubtful he would have promoted Stevens otherwise.

As for assets, the team does now have Horford, JRich, DS, Rob and Grant Williams, and hopefully Langford. Team's have acquired talent with less.
Have they? Only if you throw in 2/3rds of a decade in picks and the guy puts you on his list of 1-2 teams. Smart should be in there, he's probably what gets you a 3rd guy.
The point was, noting the talent/asset drain was perfectly reasonable. This team lost talent without replacing it, and lost picks in the process, that' really bad.

The Celtics are far from screwed. They have 2 young stars. They are just in a worse place than they were 3 years ago by a significant margin, and it is fair for anyone analyzing the Celtics to note it. Almost every move they made outside of drafting Tatum/Brown went very poorly, regardless of whether we think the reasoning was sound.
 

Petagine in a Bottle

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 13, 2021
2,274
There have been a lot of teams that have had two really good players yet still been mediocre (look at the Wizards for most of the past decade). It’s great that the C’s have two good players but it’s hardly a guarantee of championships, never mind any kind of success.
 

Cesar Crespo

79
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
17,762
It was not impossible to imagine them winning a title with the Irving/Brown/Tatum/Hayward/Horford starting five they ran out in 2018-2019, with Smart, Rozier, Baynes, Theis and Larkin off the bench. I can't really fault Danny for a broken ankle and Kyrie's descent into an antivax celeb echo chamber.

The Tatum and Brown "core" doesn't have a long stretch of futility. They pivoted to that core in the 2019-2020 season, and that's charitable, it really was last season that those two were the clear focal points. We're talking about two seasons that were both significantly impacted by a global pandemic. Jaylen is entering his early prime. Jayson Tatum is 23. Other posters may not be convinced of this, but I think the burden of proof is on the people arguing that Jayson Tatum should be the best player on a championship team at a younger age than Jordan, LeBron, Giannis, etc.
I think posters want Jayson Tatum to be the best player on a team over .500. Or maybe even a 50+ win team. At least at this point in his career. Expecting a title may be a bit much but wanting a home seed isn't being greedy.
 

Petagine in a Bottle

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 13, 2021
2,274
We get it, they are young. But currently they are the core players of a team that has been under .500 with them as the core. It’s not terribly impressive. It’s Wall/Beal, Lillard/CJ, etc…a lot of hype but not much in the way of results.
 

Cesar Crespo

79
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
17,762
We get it, they are young. But currently they are the core players of a team that has been under .500 with them as the core. It’s not terribly impressive. It’s Wall/Beal, Lillard/CJ, etc…a lot of hype but not much in the way of results.
They are 2 games over .500 with them as the core but yeah. Not much better. When is your cut off?
 

Cesar Crespo

79
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
17,762
Bontemps feeling pretty good about his story tonite.
Right. Tonight the Jays were 9/31 from the field, 1/17 from 3, 9/11 from the line. 28 points, 13 rebounds, 3 assists, 3 steals, 1 block, 7 TO.

Focus on shutting down the Jays and give the rest of the C's theirs. Make the rest of the C's beat you.
 

Devizier

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 3, 2000
15,379
Somewhere
How is that “We want them to be playmakers” working out? Scorers score. When you try to change them into something there not it rarely works out.
Perhaps the biggest missed opportunity for the Celtics (and a whole bunch of other teams) was not taking a chance on Chris Paul when he was getting traded for table scraps.
 

luckiestman

Son of the Harpy
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
23,169
How is that “We want them to be playmakers” working out? Scorers score. When you try to change them into something there not it rarely works out.
i think Tatum is actually making some nice passes and he is going to have to continue because he is getting doubled a lot
 

HomeRunBaker

bet squelcher
SoSH Member
Jan 15, 2004
22,506
Scorers score isn't really working either.
You’re missing my point. Ime is messing with their heads by trying to change what they do best. In the past with Brad giving them freedom their scoring was fantastic. These two together aren’t the best fit. I’ve been saying this for awhile now…….but these two together in Ime’s system is an upcoming train wreck. It already is kinda.
 

HomeRunBaker

bet squelcher
SoSH Member
Jan 15, 2004
22,506
i think Tatum is actually making some nice passes and he is going to have to continue because he is getting doubled a lot
At what cost though? Turnovers and inferior scorers getting touches isn’t optimal. I agree that there are instances where Tatum must move the ball but he isn’t getting doubled every possession. Not even close to it.
 

Cesar Crespo

79
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
17,762
You’re missing my point. Ime is messing with their heads by trying to change what they do best. In the past with Brad giving them freedom their scoring was fantastic. These two together aren’t the best fit. I’ve been saying this for awhile now…….but these two together in Ime’s system is an upcoming train wreck. It already is kinda.
I dunno, they both made significant improvements in the area last year just to decline this year. Those improvements also lead to a 36-36 record, granted with lots of injuries, so who know show much help it did.

You won't get an argument from me that the 2 have 0 chemistry. I also think if you find the right player or two, the Jays are more than fine together.
 

luckiestman

Son of the Harpy
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
23,169
At what cost though? Turnovers and inferior scorers getting touches isn’t optimal. I agree that there are instances where Tatum must move the ball but he isn’t getting doubled every possession. Not even close to it.
Im hoping he will get better over time. He got tripled more than once tonight
 

Cesar Crespo

79
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
17,762
If people really want to run with the Jay thing

4-6 with Jaylen Brown
6-3 without Jaylen Brown.

+5.88 point differential w/o.
-2.40 point different with.

Net difference of +8.22 points per game without Jaylen Brown. This includes tonight's game.

These are not On/off numbers. These are played/did not play numbers.

edit: I personally think these numbers are purely entertainment value aka Hot take.
 

wade boggs chicken dinner

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 26, 2005
24,427
I edited my post upthread to make it more clear... Danny had reasons for not getting anything for each guy... the fact remains they turned a team with a lot of assets including 2 rising stars into a team with those 2 rising stars and not many assets.
They were a team with a lot of assets because (1) their two best assets were young and on rookie contracts; (2) because they were on rookie contracts, they had cap space to sign 2 max guys; and (3) DA managed to get teams to fork over 1st round draft picks.

They got unlucky with draft picks; they got unlucky with their free agents; and their young stars aren't top 10 players. Plus, they have flexibility to add a third star if one comes available. And we don't know how good this team really can be.

We'll likely never see eye-to-eye on this but I guess I don't see Al or Kyrie as assets. They are great players but no one's giving up anytging substantial to trade for Al and re-sign hin, and no team is giving KI when he says publically that he's going to BRK with Durant. And obviously Kemba has negative value when he was traded,

But mot of all BOS has been pretty unlucky sinve the JT pick,
 

Cesar Crespo

79
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
17,762
But mot of all BOS has been pretty unlucky sinve the JT pick,
That's incredibly unfair to Time Lord, literally the only pick in the following draft after Tatum. They've really been unlucky since the TL pick but it doesn't have quite the same impact. Once you remove TL from the equation, the last 3 years the team has added very little in the way of the draft. To have Jay at 3, Tatum at 3 and TL at 21 is a really good 3 year stretch. The only real argument against 2018 is giving up the 8th pick in the draft that has like a 90% chance to be SGA if Ainge uses it. If not SGA, Sexton, Miles or Mikal. I'd say MPJ but that changed quickly.
 

Cesar Crespo

79
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
17,762
The stretch after that, not so good
14. Romeo
22. Grant
14. Nesmith
26. PP
30. Traded to get rid of Kanter
16. Traded to get rid of Kemba
 

luckiestman

Son of the Harpy
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
23,169
The stretch after that, not so good
14. Romeo
22. Grant
14. Nesmith
26. PP
30. Traded to get rid of Kanter
16. Traded to get rid of Kemba
Grant seems like above average value for 22. Jury’s still out on Romeo but I like what I see.
 

Cesar Crespo

79
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
17,762
Just some more thought on the subject

Romeo might be a pretty valuable player if he can get the driving thing down. I'm guessing at worst, he's a below average (but passable) 3 point shooter. It's more passable if he can finish. I'm not sure that player moves the needle much.

If Aaron Nesmith could develop into a sharpshooter with passable D, it might move the needle some but only because it fills a desperate need. On their own, usually these players don't make much of a difference but improving 2 or more of them can. Whether that's done through development, buyouts or trades doesn't really matter to me. I'm not 100% convinced the Jays can't work without a 3rd star, I just think they need a very, very good supporting cast. One that offers more shooting than this lineup.

I'm going to keep beating the same old drum. The C's really, really need a shooter. The best shooter off the bench is Grant Williams. I don't mind Grant shooting the 3 at all, I'd just prefer he wasn't our best option off the bench to hit a 3. I don't even mind Grant playing 15-20 a night. Given the current roster, he's deserving of his minutes.

PP has been a huge disappointment, but if there's any solace to be had, he's 7/28 from 3. Not exactly a sample size. Last year, he was 102/248, .411. I'm going to go out on a limb and guess he's not a .250 3 point shooter and he'll bounce back to at least league average. For offensively minded players, PP offers a very different look than Parker and Kanter. He really hasn't deserved minutes though so I can't fault Ime for not playing him. Nesmith too. Langford and Grant have deserved minutes and are getting minutes. He will reward youth for playing well. I'm no longer too worried about that, as we now have more evidence. I still worry about usage and his lineups but he is using the right players. Just not the right combos.
 

Cesar Crespo

79
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
17,762
Grant seems like above average value for 22. Jury’s still out on Romeo but I like what I see.
I wont argue with this but I'm also not sure why that really matters. He doesn't change anything. I'd rather they swing for the fences and end up with someone who isn't easily replaceable. Starter quality or bust. How does Grant being above average at 22 really help the Celtics?

The bar is so low that being above average value at 22 isn't really saying anything.

On the other hand, there weren't any real big gets after him. Jordan Poole and Keldon Johnson may have something to say about that.

Plus I've said before, I don't think any of the picks or moves on their own are outrageous. When you combine them all together, it's pretty disappointing though. Above average value or not. How did it help the C's?
 

HomeRunBaker

bet squelcher
SoSH Member
Jan 15, 2004
22,506
Grant seems like above average value for 22. Jury’s still out on Romeo but I like what I see.
Yeah I was gonna say same thing. You have guys at 14 and 22 who appear as though they are going to make it long term in the league to varying degrees. Not an exact science but here are the 20 years of their draft slot prior to them being selected. Before Porter and Bam that was one craptastic list of the 14th picks. At 22, I think I counted 70% who weren’t in the league after 5 years. I’m a swing for the fences guy when you’re rebuilding but in 2019 we were trying to find a cheap rookie deal to play rotation minutes on a possible contender so I was good with taking Grant over say someone like Kevin Porter Jr.

14-
Michael Porter
Bam Adebayo
Denzel Valentine
Cameron Payne
TJ Warren
Shabazz Muhammed
John Henson
Marcus Morris
Patrick Patterson
Earl Clark
Anthony Randolph
Al Thornton
Ronnie Brewer
Rashad McCants
Kris Humphries
Luke Ridnour
Frederick Jones
Troy Murphy
Mateen Cleaves
William Avery


22-
Chandler Hutchison
Jarrett Allen
Malachi Richardson
Bobby Portis
Jordan Adams
Mason Plumlee
Fab Melo
Kenneth Faried
Elliott Williams
Victor Claver
Courtney Lee
Jared Dudley
Marcus Williams
Jarrett Jack
Viktor Khryapa
Zoran Planinic
Casey Jacobsen
Jerryl Sasser
Donnell Harvey
Kenny Thomas
 

Cesar Crespo

79
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
17,762
Not a TJ Warren fan? Assuming he ever plays again. Seems like forever. Outside of that, pretty good 14th pick. Supposed to return in December or January.

I thought KO was the 14th pick but he was 13th.

edit: Troy Murphy would be interesting in today's NBA.
 

Devizier

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 3, 2000
15,379
Somewhere
Yeah I was gonna say same thing.
Yeah, you can't count on non-lottery picks breaking out. Most of those guys don't get second contracts. Getting rotational pieces is a good outcome there.

Plenty of folks have written obituaries for contenders that traded a bunch of those picks for even competent veterans but that's exactly what you need to do, unless you want to dream on scratch tickets. I don't think the Bucks are complaining about a potential "negative value" from the Jrue Holiday trade, for example.
 

Imbricus

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 26, 2017
3,298
To have Jay at 3, Tatum at 3 and TL at 21 is a really good 3 year stretch.
TL was at 27. That was a great pick, and the Celts were surprised he fell in their lap.

Then you have the two #14s that didn't net much. Ironically, I think Begarin at #45 will turn out better than Langford or Nesmith.
 

Eddie Jurak

Go Leafs Go
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 12, 2002
33,348
Melrose, MA
THis is a terrible way to look at this, and anyone who did this as a GM would be fired. The most important thing in the NBA is to lose as little value as possible. If you have rising stars who will need to get paid the max... you need to get value for your max guys. Even the cap thing isn't really accurate, the Celtics are under the tax, while paying $45M to Horford/Richardson/Hernangomez, they would much rather have better younger players in that $45M, and they'd like to trade some of the rest of what they have for a 3rd star... problem is they have little to trade in part because they step by step downgraded Horford/Kyrie/Hayward and a mid-1st to Horford on a bad contract and a trade exception, some of it was yes bad luck, but it doesn't change that this team would look very different if they hadn't gotten negative value out of those moves. Even just having a couple extra picks would be huge. And not being able to compete meant using another pick to dump a small salary.

Thinking of Tatum and Brown who were on the roster as the replacements for Kyrie/Horford/Hayward is IDIOTIC. They may have replaced some of the salary (though they make less of the cap since they are on 1st post-rookie contracts not 2nd or 3rd), but the TALENT wasn't replaced. This team was set up to add a bunch of talent to the Jays, instead they didn't add any talent they weren't already in line for. We are constantly talking about how hard it is to find a 3rd star, and how we'd get outbid... we'd get outbid because we burned a ton of assets to get and then lose top talent.
This is a good argument but I think you are overstating it, and understaing the needed transition to Brown and Tatum, especially as it relates to this year's Celtic team.

They lost value on Horford and Hayward departures, no question. But they were never going to keep Horford AND Hayward AND a max PG AND near max Jaylen AND max Tatum. They just weren't. Fincially speaking, maybe they could take a "fuck the luxury tax" approach and spend all that money, but I've seen nothing from this ownership group to suggest that they would. Also, no realistic way they could keep everyone happy if they did that.

Arguably, pursuit of value as you suggest they do led to a mistake: choosing Kemba over a young better in house asset (Rozier). I loved this move at the time, because Rozier was coming off a down and disgruntled year and the alternative was to bring in a max All-Star as we lost a different one (Kyrie). Looking back, keep Horford, let Kyrie walk, sign Rozier would have worked better, then and now.
 

benhogan

Granite Truther
SoSH Member
Nov 2, 2007
12,827
Santa Monica
Don't look now but the Celtic's December horror schedule is coming up

15 games. All teams .500 or better

7 of our next 8 games are on the road. Tough West Cast swing mixed in there

Let's hope Jaylen gets healthy and quick

We'll have a pretty good idea on how good this team is by Jan 1, which should dictate what they do at the trade deadline.
 

sezwho

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 20, 2005
700
Brooklyn by way of Orono
Perhaps the biggest missed opportunity for the Celtics (and a whole bunch of other teams) was not taking a chance on Chris Paul when he was getting traded for table scraps.
As a card carrying member of the ‘Get the Js a grown up PG!’ club , this makes me both nod my head and grimace. DS has done his best, but man it’s hard not to daydream a little here.
 

wade boggs chicken dinner

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 26, 2005
24,427
That's incredibly unfair to Time Lord, literally the only pick in the following draft after Tatum. They've really been unlucky since the TL pick but it doesn't have quite the same impact. Once you remove TL from the equation, the last 3 years the team has added very little in the way of the draft. To have Jay at 3, Tatum at 3 and TL at 21 is a really good 3 year stretch. The only real argument against 2018 is giving up the 8th pick in the draft that has like a 90% chance to be SGA if Ainge uses it. If not SGA, Sexton, Miles or Mikal. I'd say MPJ but that changed quickly.
I meant the ones DA traded for - in particular SAC and then not getting Herro when DA clearly wanted him.

I think DA has done a lot with his drafts and the drafting position he was in.
 

dhellers

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 31, 2005
2,849
Silver Spring, Maryland
This is a good argument but I think you are overstating it, and understaing the needed transition to Brown and Tatum, especially as it relates to this year's Celtic team.

They lost value on Horford and Hayward departures, no question. But they were never going to keep Horford AND Hayward AND a max PG AND near max Jaylen AND max Tatum. They just weren't. Fincially speaking, maybe they could take a "fuck the luxury tax" approach and spend all that money, but I've seen nothing from this ownership group to suggest that they would. Also, no realistic way they could keep everyone happy if they did that.

Arguably, pursuit of value as you suggest they do led to a mistake: choosing Kemba over a young better in house asset (Rozier). I loved this move at the time, because Rozier was coming off a down and disgruntled year and the alternative was to bring in a max All-Star as we lost a different one (Kyrie). Looking back, keep Horford, let Kyrie walk, sign Rozier would have worked better, then and now.
Are you seriously sad that Hayward left? Do you have any faith that he would be healthy when it mattered. And even he stayed healthy, would provide more than a pretty good player (~16pts game).
For this you would pay ~28m?

IOW: it sucks but Ainge's gambits made sense, but failed (GH career altering catastrophic injury, Kemba career altering wear and tear decay , Kyrie career altering mood afflictions). Do you judge moves by how they turned out, or their apriori expected values?
 

Eddie Jurak

Go Leafs Go
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 12, 2002
33,348
Melrose, MA
Are you seriously sad that Hayward left? Do you have any faith that he would be healthy when it mattered. And even he stayed healthy, would provide more than a pretty good player (~16pts game).
For this you would pay ~28m?

IOW: it sucks but Ainge's gambits made sense, but failed (GH career altering catastrophic injury, Kemba career altering wear and tear decay , Kyrie career altering mood afflictions). Do you judge moves by how they turned out, or their apriori expected values?
I think it is a bit weird that that is what you took from my post. But, to answer, I don't think losing Hayward was the decision or the most costly one.
 

benhogan

Granite Truther
SoSH Member
Nov 2, 2007
12,827
Santa Monica
We are two weeks from Dec. 15, which marks the unofficial countdown to the Feb. 10 NBA trade deadline. The majority of free agents signed this past offseason become eligible to be traded, and although teams are still evaluating their rosters, internal dialogue has begun. Teams are discussing what works and what potential changes (some minor) they need.

There hasn't been a trade in the NBA since Oct. 6, but at the moment, the big focus is in Philadelphia, where the future of disgruntled guard Ben Simmons could lead to a domino effect across the league if the former No. 1 overall pick is indeed traded.

To get a better sense of the 2021-22 trade market, we have broken down the entire player pool into three categories below: expiring contracts, long-term deals and players still carrying trade restrictions.

We've organized these tables by player role (franchise centerpiece, All-Star, starter, reserve, etc.), salary and years remaining on their contracts. You can use these tables when attempting to determine which trades are possible across the league -- especially because 29 out of the 30 teams don't have salary-cap space (only Oklahoma City has room) and will need to trade salaries that match within 125%, 175% or $5 million.

Teams such as the Celtics ($17.2, $9.8 and $5 million), Magic ($17.2 million), Pelicans ($17.1 million), Nets ($11.5 and $6.3 million), Thunder ($11.3 million and $9.6 million), Mavericks ($10.9 million), Clippers ($8.3 million) and Jazz ($8.5 million) have large trade exceptions and can can acquire a player without sending back salary because of a previously created trade exception.


https://www.espn.com/nba/insider/story/_/id/32753924/every-nba-player-becomes-eligible-traded-dec-15-ahead-nba-trade-deadline
 

luckiestman

Son of the Harpy
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
23,169
Should we sell high on Schroder? We can’t have him next year and he is balling right now. I love having him on the team but I would like to know what we can get for him. Or what type of package he could be an addition to.
 

RorschachsMask

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 23, 2011
2,079
Lynn
Should we sell high on Schroder? We can’t have him next year and he is balling right now. I love having him on the team but I would like to know what we can get for him. Or what type of package he could be an addition to.
It’s tempting, but I think it could send the wrong message to the team. I don’t envy front office guys with decisions like that.

Also depends on where we are after December, because the schedule really eases up then.
 

bankshot1

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 12, 2003
21,745
where I was last at
Can someone explain what quirky NBA accounting convention precludes the Celtics from resigning Schroeder next year?

Is there some salary max the Celts are held to (ie a 20% increase) over the $5.8M DS is currently earning, that he would never accept versus a free-market 4/100 type deal?

Thanks in advance.

And unless there is a pass-first PG out there, and clear upgrade, I would not trade the guy mid-season. He may not be perfect but he's been a pretty effective spark plug on offense when it can't get started. This team has had chemistry issues for the past few years, and this team seems to be gelling. Don't fuck it up if you don't have to.
 

benhogan

Granite Truther
SoSH Member
Nov 2, 2007
12,827
Santa Monica
Should we sell high on Schroder? We can’t have him next year and he is balling right now. I love having him on the team but I would like to know what we can get for him. Or what type of package he could be an addition to.
After a brutal December schedule, the Jan 1 record will probably dictate the DS situation.

IMO if the Celtics' are outside the top 4 in the EC, move him. His contract is easily tradeable to a contender.

A DS/Coby White swap works on several levels if the Bulls keep this up
 

Cesar Crespo

79
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
17,762
Should we sell high on Schroder? We can’t have him next year and he is balling right now. I love having him on the team but I would like to know what we can get for him. Or what type of package he could be an addition to.
Selling high on DS will net us what? 2 2nd round picks?

Coby White would be great and all but it's not happening and it's fantasy cellar talk.
 

Cesar Crespo

79
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
17,762
I’m asking, idk. I hope he stays but see the reality of the situation.
I don't think this team has any real chance at a title but I'd guess Tatum and Brown feel differently. Trading DS for an underwhelming asset that might pan out in 2-3-4 years doesn't really seem worth it.

If they could get Coby White for DS, of course. I don't see that type of deal for DS though. Maybe he lands a very late first round pick.