Celtics Plan, Summer 2021

nighthob

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
10,683
Boston could use a player like Richardson, as he's already the guy that Boston kinda/sorta hopes that Langford could be (quick enough to defend smaller guards, long enough to be switchable, and capable of getting the ball across the halfcourt line to hand it off to the JayCrew to initiate the offense). So I'd definitely take him into the remainder of the TPE. I mean Langford is potentially a better version, but he hasn't been able to stay on the court at all.
 

nighthob

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
10,683
I was under the impression that we were discussing a theoretical. Because Dallas isn't trading Richardson away. From their perspective they'd prefer to have Richardson and Fournier to use for big game hunting purposes (combined with their drafts from '25-'28). Those two salaries would get them in range of a max deal (given the reality that they're stuck with 'Zingas).
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
22,162
Perhaps an under the radar 3rd PG option.....

Dennis Smith Jr.

Yes, I know he was terrible with the Knicks, but he was much better with the Pistons, and his trends are interesting. He's gone from horrific on both ends to 2 straight years with good Defensive numbers, and improving offense. He's still only 23, he has ridiculous athleticism, his attitude is supposedly good (when the bubble happened he asked the team to send him to the G-League so he could get game time).... he's the kind of gamble I'd like to see the last roster spot used on, a guy with some skills and a chance to break out.
 

PedroKsBambino

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
Gold Supporter
SoSH Member
Apr 17, 2003
25,600
That’s an interesting idea—-and the right kind of guy to target. Also feel one learning from last year was you simply can’t go with all rookies/youngs on the bench and while DSJ isn’t that old he’s somewhat helpful there as well
 

Devizier

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 3, 2000
14,959
Somewhere
Count me in on DSJ. Seems like he could fill a niche as a defensive specialist/ballhandler. Would need shooters on the floor with him though.
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
22,162
Count me in on DSJ. Seems like he could fill a niche as a defensive specialist/ballhandler. Would need shooters on the floor with him though.
Honestly his profile kinda reminds me of Smart. He's a better athlete, Smart is bigger and even from the beginning was more polished, both have way more value if they hit their 3s.
 

HomeRunBaker

bet squelcher
SoSH Member
Jan 15, 2004
21,786
Count me in on DSJ. Seems like he could fill a niche as a defensive specialist/ballhandler. Would need shooters on the floor with him though.
DSJ would be the type of flier to take if you weren’t sold on Waters developing into a 2nd unit guy. I’d maybe lean Waters slightly but that’s the type of young non-rotation guy some may want......while others would like someone out of the draft/Undrafted pool.
 

nighthob

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
10,683
DSJ would be the type of flier to take if you weren’t sold on Waters developing into a 2nd unit guy. I’d maybe lean Waters slightly but that’s the type of young non-rotation guy some may want......while others would like someone out of the draft/Undrafted pool.
I mean DSJ isn't completely useless. Which means that he's three times as good as Tremont. Put another way, Smith's a perfectly acceptable third string PG, while third string PG is Waters's upside.
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
22,162
I mean DSJ isn't completely useless. Which means that he's three times as good as Tremont. Put another way, Smith's a perfectly acceptable third string PG, while third string PG is Waters's upside.
Yeah, the only reason to prefer Tremont is that he wouldn't take a real roster spot, but if the 2 way rules go back to how they were that's not a real benefit.
 

HomeRunBaker

bet squelcher
SoSH Member
Jan 15, 2004
21,786
I mean DSJ isn't completely useless. Which means that he's three times as good as Tremont. Put another way, Smith's a perfectly acceptable third string PG, while third string PG is Waters's upside.
I wouldn’t discount the game slowing down for Waters. He has a good enough skill level and athleticism to be a rotation player in time.
 

Jakarta

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 18, 2020
44
DSJ seems very much like an Ainge-type signing. Highly regarded at one point but where the shine has come off a bit (drafting AB, TL, and Romeo, signing Jabari Parker, etc.) and also a guard who has crazy athleticism and shoots poorly. Will be interesting to see if PBS similarly values these higher-upside types, or if he prefers guys who, for better or worse, are more likely to provide reliable, steady backup minutes.

I agree he’s likely to be better than Tremont this year and with the added bonus that he might continue to improve and find a way to be a lot better and capable of providing real value.so seems like limited downside.
 

bsj

Renegade Crazed Genius
SoSH Member
Dec 6, 2003
21,327
Central NJ SoSH Chapter
At this point, based on the names I am reading here and elsewhere, none of whom are going to get us anywhere close to title worthy IMO, my number one hope is that we don’t box ourselves in for future years. Let’s be strategic and build out a competitive roster but not at the expense of being able to add a 3rd star to the Jays, hopefully in a year or two max, that can actually help us win a title
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
22,162
At this point, based on the names I am reading here and elsewhere, none of whom are going to get us anywhere close to title worthy IMO, my number one hope is that we don’t box ourselves in for future years. Let’s be strategic and build out a competitive roster but not at the expense of being able to add a 3rd star to the Jays, hopefully in a year or two max, that can actually help us win a title
I think being flexible to trade for a 3rd star is a good strategy.... I also think the asusmption you NEED a 3rd star is a bad one. If Tatum is a perenial All-NBA guy that people think he is going forward, and Brown is a solid All-Star+, you can/should be able to build around that with non-stars. Honestly a healthy version of last year's closing team, with Horford in place of Kemba and adding some solid bench vets is a contender at this point, it's as good as MIL or PHI for example to me.

People get way too hung up on "3 stars". What you really need is 1 Superstar, 1 star and a very strong supporting cast.
I look at the last 10 years:
I see 4years that clearly had a champion with 3 STARS (Heatles x2, Durant Warriorsx2).
I see 4 years that had a champion clearly not build on 3 STARS (Mavs, Raps, Lakers, Spurs)
I see 2 years that are borderline: Warriors without Durant (is Green a STAR? certainly not anywhere but GS, he's Marcus Smart) Cavs (was Love still a star?).

So 3 STARS is a great approach, but you can be in the hunt and win without it if you build the roster well and your top guy is good enough.
 

bsj

Renegade Crazed Genius
SoSH Member
Dec 6, 2003
21,327
Central NJ SoSH Chapter
I think being flexible to trade for a 3rd star is a good strategy.... I also think the asusmption you NEED a 3rd star is a bad one. If Tatum is a perenial All-NBA guy that people think he is going forward, and Brown is a solid All-Star+, you can/should be able to build around that with non-stars. Honestly a healthy version of last year's closing team, with Horford in place of Kemba and adding some solid bench vets is a contender at this point, it's as good as MIL or PHI for example to me.

People get way too hung up on "3 stars". What you really need is 1 Superstar, 1 star and a very strong supporting cast.
I look at the last 10 years:
I see 4years that clearly had a champion with 3 STARS (Heatles x2, Durant Warriorsx2).
I see 4 years that had a champion clearly not build on 3 STARS (Mavs, Raps, Lakers, Spurs)
I see 2 years that are borderline: Warriors without Durant (is Green a STAR? certainly not anywhere but GS, he's Marcus Smart) Cavs (was Love still a star?).

So 3 STARS is a great approach, but you can be in the hunt and win without it if you build the roster well and your top guy is good enough.
And also, while Chris Bosh was a very good basketball player, he was more of a top 30 guy when he played for MIA than a true star
Not hung on 3 stars per se. I believe that in today's NBA a team can win with 2 stars and a strong top 40 player in the league NBA center. If you have a center who can at least match up ~80% of the production on O and D with the elite centers in the league, and then two other top 20 guys, I believe you can win a title. But thats the only solution, for me, short of 3 stars, that gets you there in today's NBA. If you don't have a top 40 center, and I am not nearly as bullish on Timelord as some of you, I do believe you need 3 stars to be able to compete for a title.

This is just my take. I know its possible (see Bucks) to compete with less, but thats almost always going to run through a truly elite center, one that plays the game in a way that is so beyond the norm that the act of trying to gameplan for it elevates the rest of the roster so much it almost doesnt matter. Beyond that, I just feel that 3 stars, or 2 stars and a top 6-7 or so league center, are the paths I have faith in.

@Cellar-Door- using your examples there : Dirk played the 4 but was a 7 footer so that counts as an elite C for me. Spurs were a bit of an anomaly (and probably the single best argument here against my theory), but still had a borderline elite C in Duncan and an elite Kawhi. And the Lakers have AD. I guess what im saying is, feels like a lot more wiggle room to fill out the roster with a truly top flight center.
 
Last edited:

Jimbodandy

Well-Known Member
Gold Supporter
SoSH Member
Jan 31, 2006
5,716
around the way
And also, while Chris Bosh was a very good basketball player, he was more of a top 30 guy when he played for MIA than a true star
Great example. All NBA 2nd team once. Twice got MVP votes (7th, and 12th). Never led the league in anything, but 9 ASG in 13 years.
 

Cesar Crespo

79
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
16,496
And also, while Chris Bosh was a very good basketball player, he was more of a top 30 guy when he played for MIA than a true star
He was a star in every sense of the word. What is the definition of a star now? Are Tatum or Jaylen even stars?

A top 30 guy is a star. No one is suggesting they need to add a top 5-10 player.
 

bsj

Renegade Crazed Genius
SoSH Member
Dec 6, 2003
21,327
Central NJ SoSH Chapter
He was a star in every sense of the word. What is the definition of a star now? Are Tatum or Jaylen even stars?
I didnt make the original post, but I tend to view the top 25-30 as stars (thinking in terms of the size of 2 full all star rosters) and then the rest of the top 50 or so as "borderline" stars. But that is arbitrary and just me own thought process.
 

Cesar Crespo

79
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
16,496
I didnt make the original post, but I tend to view the top 25-30 as stars (thinking in terms of the size of 2 full all star rosters) and then the rest of the top 50 or so as "borderline" stars. But that is arbitrary and just me own thought process.
A much better example than Chris Bosh would be John Collins. I think most of us would love to add John Collins who is probably on that borderline.
 

bsj

Renegade Crazed Genius
SoSH Member
Dec 6, 2003
21,327
Central NJ SoSH Chapter
A much better example than Chris Bosh would be John Collins. I think most of us would love to add John Collins who is probably on that borderline.
I think an argument can be made that Collins has an even higher ceiling tho with his difficulty to matchup with outside. Regardless, they are both in the 30-50 space for me, whatever you want to call em.
 

HomeRunBaker

bet squelcher
SoSH Member
Jan 15, 2004
21,786
He was a star in every sense of the word. What is the definition of a star now? Are Tatum or Jaylen even stars?

A top 30 guy is a star. No one is suggesting they need to add a top 5-10 player.
Yeah I mean if a first-ballot HOF isn’t a star than what is a star? I’d classify a “Super star” to be one of the top half dozen or so players in the league and a “Star” as someone in that next list of 20.
 

cheech13

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 5, 2006
1,458
Chris Bosh is a first ballot Hall of Famer. For a board as good as this one I am consistently shocked by how some players are talked about or evaluated. Bosh was a star. So was Kevin Love. Boston doesn’t have a third player in the stratosphere of those two players, and they don’t have a top guy as good as Lebron either.
 

lexrageorge

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2007
12,951
Chris Bosh is a first ballot Hall of Famer. For a board as good as this one I am consistently shocked by how some players are talked about or evaluated. Bosh was a star. So was Kevin Love. Boston doesn’t have a third player in the stratosphere of those two players, and they don’t have a top guy as good as Lebron either.
I think there are some factors that are contributing to folks judgment of those 2 players specifically:

Bosh is indeed a first ballot guy. Interestingly, he only made one All-NBA team (2nd team in 2007), so I can see why he gets overlooked by many. And then he was the only star on a bad Heat team for his final 2 seasons before blood clots cut his career short.

As for Love, when the Cavs won their title, he did not make the All Star team that season. But he arguably should have, as he did make the subsequent two. And at 32, Love is not anywhere close to being a 3rd star anymore.

If Tatum becomes a regular in the first time All-NBA (his likely ceiling at this point), then the Celtics can indeed win a title without a 3rd star. Really just need a 2nd star and really good supporting cast, and Brown may be sufficient in that 2nd star role in that case. If Tatum tops out as a perennial 2nd team All-NBA guy, then the need for a true 3rd star (Top 20/25/30 player) becomes more acute.
 

nighthob

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
10,683
Great example. All NBA 2nd team once. Twice got MVP votes (7th, and 12th). Never led the league in anything, but 9 ASG in 13 years.
Yeah, I’m not sure in which universe Bosh wasn’t a star, but it wasn’t this one. And while he only played in nine all star games, he was selected as an all star eleven times. Was he a top five player? No. But you don’t need three top five guys to win a title.
 

Jimbodandy

Well-Known Member
Gold Supporter
SoSH Member
Jan 31, 2006
5,716
around the way
Yeah, I’m not sure in which universe Bosh wasn’t a star, but it wasn’t this one. And while he only played in nine all star games, he was selected as an all star eleven times. Was he a top five player? No. But you don’t need three top five guys to win a title.
I think that's kinda the point that's being discussed. If folks want to get lost in the terminology of the word "star", that's fine.

Bosh was a great third banana while being second team all nba once in his career. If people view the "third banana project" through that lens, it doesn't seem so fucking impossible to imagine adding that guy. If people think that you need a guy like Kawhi or AD or fuck it, then it's a different conversation.

Btw, this first ballot HOF stuff is silly. Bosh was second team all NBA once. Only in hoop does a guy with a resume like that even sniff the HOF, nevermind on the first ballot.
 
Last edited:

JakeRae

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 21, 2005
6,887
New York, NY
Not hung on 3 stars per se. I believe that in today's NBA a team can win with 2 stars and a strong top 40 player in the league NBA center. If you have a center who can at least match up ~80% of the production on O and D with the elite centers in the league, and then two other top 20 guys, I believe you can win a title. But thats the only solution, for me, short of 3 stars, that gets you there in today's NBA. If you don't have a top 40 center, and I am not nearly as bullish on Timelord as some of you, I do believe you need 3 stars to be able to compete for a title.

This is just my take. I know its possible (see Bucks) to compete with less, but thats almost always going to run through a truly elite center, one that plays the game in a way that is so beyond the norm that the act of trying to gameplan for it elevates the rest of the roster so much it almost doesnt matter. Beyond that, I just feel that 3 stars, or 2 stars and a top 6-7 or so league center, are the paths I have faith in.

@Cellar-Door- using your examples there : Dirk played the 4 but was a 7 footer so that counts as an elite C for me. Spurs were a bit of an anomaly (and probably the single best argument here against my theory), but still had a borderline elite C in Duncan and an elite Kawhi. And the Lakers have AD. I guess what im saying is, feels like a lot more wiggle room to fill out the roster with a truly top flight center.
The Suns have neither 3 stars nor a top flight center. There is a case that the Bucks fit either of your categories, but the Suns definitely do not and are the favorites in the finals right now. The Suns are actually a pretty good model for the Celtics in a year. They have two top flight players and then a team built on quality depth and a strong team approach. This Celtics roster can check those boxes without a dramatic change, they just need to be reasonably healthy and revert to playing hard, team-first basketball.
 

bsj

Renegade Crazed Genius
SoSH Member
Dec 6, 2003
21,327
Central NJ SoSH Chapter
The Suns have neither 3 stars nor a top flight center. There is a case that the Bucks fit either of your categories, but the Suns definitely do not and are the favorites in the finals right now. The Suns are actually a pretty good model for the Celtics in a year. They have two top flight players and then a team built on quality depth and a strong team approach. This Celtics roster can check those boxes without a dramatic change, they just need to be reasonably healthy and revert to playing hard, team-first basketball.
While I wouldnt get call Ayton elite (yet), he is a dynamic young center who seems to finally be filling the shoes of a #1 pick, and is definitely in that borderline star category. HIs scoring is actually down this year but he is unquestionably a better player. Whatever you want to call him, adding a C of that caliber to the 2 stars we have would definitely be a massive upgrade at a critical position.
 

Dduncan6er

lurker
Apr 16, 2020
232
Springfield, MA
The Suns have neither 3 stars nor a top flight center. There is a case that the Bucks fit either of your categories, but the Suns definitely do not and are the favorites in the finals right now. The Suns are actually a pretty good model for the Celtics in a year. They have two top flight players and then a team built on quality depth and a strong team approach. This Celtics roster can check those boxes without a dramatic change, they just need to be reasonably healthy and revert to playing hard, team-first basketball.
I'm not sure the Suns are really a great example for how to build a championship roster. They've done a great job rebuilding but to me they're more of a team that was in the right place at the right time.

If AD and Lebron are 100% they probably lose that series, if Jamal Murray is 100% they probably lose that series, if Kawhi is 100% they probably lose that series (although they did deal with CP3 being out a few games here as well, so kudos to them), if a healthy Nets team makes the finals they definitely lose that series.

I'm probably lower on the Suns than the majority of the board but they've been extremely fortunate with their opponents' injuries. I think they're a solid playoff team but the injuries this post season have been unheard of, especially as it comes to star players. I don't want the Celtics to emulate a model that requires at least 1 of their opponents' top 2 players to be injured to win a championship.
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
22,162
I'm not sure the Suns are really a great example for how to build a championship roster. They've done a great job rebuilding but to me they're more of a team that was in the right place at the right time.

If AD and Lebron are 100% they probably lose that series, if Jamal Murray is 100% they probably lose that series, if Kawhi is 100% they probably lose that series (although they did deal with CP3 being out a few games here as well, so kudos to them), if a healthy Nets team makes the finals they definitely lose that series.

I'm probably lower on the Suns than the majority of the board but they've been extremely fortunate with their opponents' injuries. I think they're a solid playoff team but the injuries this post season have been unheard of, especially as it comes to star players. I don't want the Celtics to emulate a model that requires at least 1 of their opponents' top 2 players to be injured to win a championship.
I don't think that's clear at all on any of those. The Suns are really good, they were really good all season. I think they were arguably a better team than the Clips for example, who are a weird less than the sum team, Kawhi and PG13 seem to each play better without the other, I think they're better than DEN. The Lakers probably win because two top 7 guys trumps all, but that's hardly a knock that you're the 2nd best team in the West.
Every championship team needs injury luck, even loaded teams (see GSW) can't win if they are injured and their opponent is healthy.
 

bsj

Renegade Crazed Genius
SoSH Member
Dec 6, 2003
21,327
Central NJ SoSH Chapter
I don't think that's clear at all on any of those. The Suns are really good, they were really good all season. I think they were arguably a better team than the Clips for example, who are a weird less than the sum team, Kawhi and PG13 seem to each play better without the other, I think they're better than DEN. The Lakers probably win because two top 7 guys trumps all, but that's hardly a knock that you're the 2nd best team in the West.
Every championship team needs injury luck, even loaded teams (see GSW) can't win if they are injured and their opponent is healthy.
I think they are a very good young team well positioned to take advantage of the opportunities that fell their way. The only team in the NBA that I think fully healthy and loaded they would have def lost to is Brooklyn. They could have won the West even if other teams were healthy. Just my 2 opinion.
 

NoXInNixon

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 24, 2008
4,691
I think being flexible to trade for a 3rd star is a good strategy.... I also think the asusmption you NEED a 3rd star is a bad one. If Tatum is a perenial All-NBA guy that people think he is going forward, and Brown is a solid All-Star+, you can/should be able to build around that with non-stars. Honestly a healthy version of last year's closing team, with Horford in place of Kemba and adding some solid bench vets is a contender at this point, it's as good as MIL or PHI for example to me.

People get way too hung up on "3 stars". What you really need is 1 Superstar, 1 star and a very strong supporting cast.
I look at the last 10 years:
I see 4years that clearly had a champion with 3 STARS (Heatles x2, Durant Warriorsx2).
I see 4 years that had a champion clearly not build on 3 STARS (Mavs, Raps, Lakers, Spurs)
I see 2 years that are borderline: Warriors without Durant (is Green a STAR? certainly not anywhere but GS, he's Marcus Smart) Cavs (was Love still a star?).

So 3 STARS is a great approach, but you can be in the hunt and win without it if you build the roster well and your top guy is good enough.
Well, there are stars and then there are STARS. LeBron is one of the best players ever, and Curry was a unanimous MVP. If you have someone like that, you only need a second star. I don't think Tatum is quite on that trajectory. If we're very lucky, he will win an MVP or two and regularly make the All-NBA first team. That plus Brown gets the Celtics close, but they'll need a third star, or the lower-probability event of two or three young players growing into near-all stars.
 

lexrageorge

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2007
12,951
Well, there are stars and then there are STARS. LeBron is one of the best players ever, and Curry was a unanimous MVP. If you have someone like that, you only need a second star. I don't think Tatum is quite on that trajectory. If we're very lucky, he will win an MVP or two and regularly make the All-NBA first team. That plus Brown gets the Celtics close, but they'll need a third star, or the lower-probability event of two or three young players growing into near-all stars.
I would say if Tatum is an All-NBA first team player regular, the need for a 3rd star becomes a need for a "very good 3rd player that is an excellent fit" more so than a near perennial All Star player.
 

nighthob

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
10,683
I love Tatum unconditionally, but he is not on a top-10 players of all time trajectory.
He's on a top ten in the NBA trajectory. You don't need a top ten player of all time to win a title unless there are about a hundred top ten all time guys in NBA history.
 

tbb345

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 23, 2010
1,743
He's on a top ten in the NBA trajectory. You don't need a top ten player of all time to win a title unless there are about a hundred top ten all time guys in NBA history.
it was easily misconstrued because the post you were responding to specifically listed LBJ and Curry (Curry is probably more of a top 25 player ever than 10 but still) as the “trajectory” they didn’t think Tatum was on
 

wade boggs chicken dinner

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 26, 2005
23,781
While I wouldnt get call Ayton elite (yet), he is a dynamic young center who seems to finally be filling the shoes of a #1 pick, and is definitely in that borderline star category. HIs scoring is actually down this year but he is unquestionably a better player. Whatever you want to call him, adding a C of that caliber to the 2 stars we have would definitely be a massive upgrade at a critical position.
I would love to see what the Jays could do with one healthy year of TL. Just one!

Probably a pipe dream though.
 

Spelunker

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 17, 2005
7,710
it was easily misconstrued because the post you were responding to specifically listed LBJ and Curry (Curry is probably more of a top 25 player ever than 10 but still) as the “trajectory” they didn’t think Tatum was on
Exactly. Tatum is on a top-10 in the league trajectory. He is not on a Lebron/Curry trajectory.
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
22,162
Well, there are stars and then there are STARS. LeBron is one of the best players ever, and Curry was a unanimous MVP. If you have someone like that, you only need a second star. I don't think Tatum is quite on that trajectory. If we're very lucky, he will win an MVP or two and regularly make the All-NBA first team. That plus Brown gets the Celtics close, but they'll need a third star, or the lower-probability event of two or three young players growing into near-all stars.
I look at recent titles... Tatum has a real chance to be as good as the best player on:
DAL
TOR
SA
for sure, he probably won't make it to Curry level, definitely won't make it to LeBron level, but that still gives you a real shot at titles without 3 stars. Honestly it's tough to gauge this stuff because most of the 3 star teams were also teams with top 1-20 all time players on them. Could MIA have won with someone else in place of Bosh or Wade... probably. Could the Warriors have won without a 3rd star... yep they did. LeBron won without a 3rd star once, with a declining 3rd star another time.

Really if you look at recent history, 3 stars is far less a requirement then having one of the 5-7 best active players on your team. If Tatum gets to that level they don't need 3 stars.
 

nighthob

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
10,683
it was easily misconstrued because the post you were responding to specifically listed LBJ and Curry (Curry is probably more of a top 25 player ever than 10 but still) as the “trajectory” they didn’t think Tatum was on
We were discussing Tatum as a top ten player. If the poster above me thinks that Curry's top ten all time, he's bananas. (I agree with you that Curry on that.) Steph required injury luck (and a lot of it) to win a title without KD. Clearly the greatest shooter of all time, but that doesn't put you on LeBron's level (the fact that it took the Warriors six games to beat LeBron pretty much delineates the vast gulf between the two).

Tatum made his statement on the court after Brown's injury. He's headed for MVP level when you factor in that he provides you with killer D to go along with the monster offensive game. He got screwed out of all NBA this year because the team was mediocre and a lot of guys are still cruising on rep. (Plus the idiocy of demanding that three centers be all NBA when only two deserve to be there. In no universe is Gobert a top 15 player.)
 

the moops

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 19, 2016
3,189
Saint Paul, MN
I look at recent titles... Tatum has a real chance to be as good as the best player on:
DAL
TOR
SA
I can probably agree that Tatum has a chance to be as good as old Nowitzki and old Duncan, but calling it a real chance that he is as good as Kawhi from 3 years ago seems highly improbable
 

tbb345

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 23, 2010
1,743
I look at recent titles... Tatum has a real chance to be as good as the best player on:
DAL
TOR
SA
for sure, he probably won't make it to Curry level, definitely won't make it to LeBron level, but that still gives you a real shot at titles without 3 stars. Honestly it's tough to gauge this stuff because most of the 3 star teams were also teams with top 1-20 all time players on them. Could MIA have won with someone else in place of Bosh or Wade... probably. Could the Warriors have won without a 3rd star... yep they did. LeBron won without a 3rd star once, with a declining 3rd star another time.

Really if you look at recent history, 3 stars is far less a requirement then having one of the 5-7 best active players on your team. If Tatum gets to that level they don't need 3 stars.
So you’re essentially saying that Tatum has a real chance of becoming a top 5 player in the league (not of all time) since the TOR and SA examples are both Kawhi Leonard. I guess I agree with that.

However, Dirk Nowitzki is a top 25 player ever and was nails that year that they won. I’m much less optimistic than you are in Tatum reaching that stratosphere
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
22,162
I can probably agree that Tatum has a chance to be as good as old Nowitzki and old Duncan, but calling it a real chance that he is as good as Kawhi from 3 years ago seems highly improbable
I think it's pretty probable. He's 22 and he's already close to as good on offense as Kawhi was that year, and offense outweighs defense by a lot when you're talking stars. Tatum is way ahead of Kawhi on the growth curve, he can slow down a lot on year to year growth and still be better that Kawhi.
 

Jimbodandy

Well-Known Member
Gold Supporter
SoSH Member
Jan 31, 2006
5,716
around the way
Lot of talking past each other going on today.

The point is that if Tatum (and to a lesser extent, Brown) continues to develop, the quality of the people around them becomes less important. Healthy Lebron and AD won a title last year with a team of jags around them. Didn't need a third "star". Hell, Dirk's team (a classic 1-off, I know) didn’t either.

If at some point Tatum's clearly a top 10, pushing top 5, and Brown is top 20, I hope that PBS doesn't sit by the window pining for the third banana, because a bunch of 4th and 5th bananas are enough to do the job. It has been done.
 

the moops

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 19, 2016
3,189
Saint Paul, MN
I think it's pretty probable. He's 22 and he's already close to as good on offense as Kawhi was that year, and offense outweighs defense by a lot when you're talking stars. Tatum is way ahead of Kawhi on the growth curve, he can slow down a lot on year to year growth and still be better that Kawhi.
Pretty probable is a huge stretch, but I do like the optimism
 

benhogan

Granite Truther
SoSH Member
Nov 2, 2007
12,053
Santa Monica
I would love to see what the Jays could do with one healthy year of TL. Just one!

Probably a pipe dream though.
TL opened last season as the 3rd string Center. He is now a priority that will be load-managed. I believe the team has a better understanding of his physical limitations/endurance.

I doubt he'll ever be healthy for an entire season, but I'd be in favor of Brad signing him for 4yrs at ~$36MM.