Fast forward to legitimate title contention...

[nighthob]

Just curious why we're only talking about Hayward, which is pure speculation and he's not even a great roster fit.

He's first on the list because he's the one free agent that Boston has the best chance to sign. Free agents rarely move for a lot of reasons, amongst them:

1. Pure inertia. They've been in one situation for a long time and its familiarity provides a certain comfort factor, Their history with the coaching staff and organization makes it easier to stay.
2. Money. The home team can usually offer a lot more than other teams can, and it can be tough to turn down those millions.
3. Lifestyle factors. Sometimes the community factors play a real role. For example I can tell you for a fact that one thing NBA players like about LA is that there are so many celebrities that live there their presence isn't a big deal. Sometimes players are young and like the nightlife of places like New York, LA, or Miami. Sometimes the careers of spouses play a role (Carmelo Anthony). Sometimes players like living quiet suburban lives where they're playing (Garnett fit in this category).

Thanks to the All-NBA results #2 just got flushed for the Jazz. In order to maximize his career earnings Hayward needs to go free agent in three years to get his 10 year max deal, and the three year difference between what the Jazz can pay and what he makes elsewhere is just over two million dollars. In other words, it's mostly a wash.

#1 doesn't help the Jazz as much given that Hayward is already familiar with Boston's coaching staff, having known Stevens half his life. He also has a somewhat rocky history with the Jazz. Worse still, they look like they've peaked, given how average the rest of their draftees outside Gobert have been.

The Jazz are also about to get a lot more expensive, making it harder to add talent around him. So much like Horford, he may well decide that the time has come to move on if he hopes to compete for a title. Boston already has two star level players, two more high draft picks to add more talent, and the ability to trade for someone like Paul George to add a fourth star. These are things the Jazz can't really match.

#3 is an advantage for the Jazz as Hayward is married with children and unlikely to value nightlife factors, but then again neither Hayward nor his wife have any lasting connection to Salt Lake City and it's just as easy to find quiet suburban homes in eastern Mass as anywhere else. So #3 might not be a big enough advantage for the Jazz to hang on.

It's a lot harder to overcome those factors with the other available free agents, but with Hayward Boston has its optimal chance.

 

[nighthob]

I think JaMychal Green is going to be this year's winner of the Allen Crabbe/Tyler Johnson Memorial and earn a huge contract from Brooklyn. I think he gets something like 20 mil per year

I don't disagree in a vacuum, but after last year I think they're going to refocus a bit. I expect them to make a max offer to Caldwell-Pope and dare Detroit to match, but I don't expect them to go after Green because I expect Memphis does match without thinking given Randolph's aging.

But, do you want to know what floor spacing PF I do expect them to make a huge offer to? Kelly Olynyk. Because Boston would be the one team hard pressed to match given their free agency plans.

 

[Kenny F'ing Powers]

He's first on the list because he's the one free agent that Boston has the best chance to sign. Free agents rarely move for a lot of reasons, amongst them:

1. Pure inertia. They've been in one situation for a long time and its familiarity provides a certain comfort factor, Their history with the coaching staff and organization makes it easier to stay.
2. Money. The home team can usually offer a lot more than other teams can, and it can be tough to turn down those millions.
3. Lifestyle factors. Sometimes the community factors play a real role. For example I can tell you for a fact that one thing NBA players like about LA is that there are so many celebrities that live there their presence isn't a big deal.

1. 
   
   Alright I'll bite. I've heard that shit before - Miami, LA, NYC nightlife brings in players - but I'm interested hoe you know this for a fact.

 

[nighthob]

What I said that I knew for sure was that NBA players appreciate LA's celebrity culture because they get less undue atttention when going about everyday affairs. And I know that because one of my friends used to work for Nike as a scout (he scouted west coast high school/AAU players). So he rubbed elbows with a lot of NBA players and one thing he heard from them regularly is that they liked LA because there they were just one more celebrity amidst a shitpile of them. So they never worried about getting mobbed, for example, when they went out for coffee in the morning.

 

[Devizier]

This list is wrong. Houston, for example, can easily create sufficient cap room by renouncing it's cap hold for Nene and a few others that really don't matter.

Fair enough. But they also have 63 million riding on three players, two of whom are guards. They also have a team option on Beverly. They make about as much sense as the Knicks.

 

[Vegas Sox Fan]

I can't remember where or who but somebody floated the idea of Vucevic from Orlando. Would Bradley,Crowder,BOS 18 #1 pick be enough? If I'm doing the maths right, that trade plus renouncing Olynyk should be enough to offer the max to Hayward, right? That leaves this lineup:

Vucevic/Zizic
Horford/Yabusele
Hayward/Brown
Smart/Rozier
Thomas/Fultz

Is that team significantly better than this years version?

 

[Cesar Crespo]

Why would you give all that up for Vucevic?

 

[Vegas Sox Fan]

Well I was trying to make the dollars work and with Brown and Fultz on board we need to clear minutes as well. I guess maybe the pick was overkill.

 

[nighthob]

The players are overkill. You're downgrading the defense at the center spot to move Horford to his second best spot on the floor. Why?

 

[Vegas Sox Fan]

Just hoping to clear some salary for the max offer and address the hole at PF.

 

[nighthob]

So then deal Bradley and Crowder to a young team in need of vet leadership for draft picks. Then you've cleared millions off the books and you're not stuck with a defensively challenged big man that doesn't produce sufficient offense to patch over the hole. Because Vuvecic is a shitty center and I have more faith in Zizic making a positive contribution to winning next year.

Alternatively you could trade for an actual power forward rather than a crappy center.

 

[Reggie's Racquet]

1. Alright I'll bite. I've heard that shit before - Miami, LA, NYC nightlife brings in players - but I'm interested hoe you know this for a fact.

"hoe you know indeed"

 

[cheech13]

How in the world would you play Horford and Vucevic together? They're both centers. You're just giving up assets to make your team worse.

 

[JakeRae]

How in the world would you play Horford and Vucevic together? They're both centers. You're just giving up assets to make your team worse.

It's important to remember that a vocal minority of posters here believe that rebounding is the most important skill in the game of basketball.

 

[sezwho]

You're downgrading the defense at the center spot to move Horford to his second best spot on the floor. Why?

I've been hung up on this topic for a bit, and not sure if this is something covered in another thread, but why are you so confident of the bolded? If anything, I'm on the opposite side of this argument. I perceive the offensive requirements of 4/5 being quite similar in today's NBA (stretch or otherwise), and this is no exception for the Celtic's sets. To me, the separation in roles begins to show on the defensive side and this is why I prefer Al as PF. Horford is less mobile than some of the more athletic fours, but he is smart positionally and decision wise so you aren't going to just blow by him.

We've just seen what 'real' centers like Gortat and Lopez can do to him down low and when rebounding even though he gets the odd block from time to time.

If I had my druthers, I'd get whichever the best stretch 4/5 is available using my guard/pick-stravaganza, add Fultz and season to taste with whatever else I can add for FA/trades. Al can play off whomever the other big is, but I'm giving a slight preference to 5s.

So, could you spell out the Horford as Center and not PF case, or direct me to where its been made already?

 

[smastroyin]

I agree, if you could add a big time traditional center who's a good two-way player and can also stretch the floor, then you can move Al to the 4 no problem. When you've figured out how that's going to happen to the Boston Celtics, I'd love to hear it. The stretch bigs better than Al Horford are All-NBA types. None of them are on the block (except I guess Boogie but we've gone through that). None of them are free agents.

Moving Horford to the 4 to bring in guys with big flaws who don't necessarily work within what the Celtics do offensively or defensively just to get an upgrade on the glass is what people are questioning.

 

[Devizier]

The list of centers better than Horford is a short one: Gobert, certainly. Cousins and Jordan, maybe.

Depending on who you call the center in Minnesota, one of those guys will probably be better in the coming seasons.

The commonality is that none of these players are available nor will they be.

I am warming up to the idea of Blake Griffin in free agency; it's a huge gamble that has "Grant Hill in Orlando" potential all over it, though.

 

[Cesar Crespo]

Who is the 2nd center in Minnesota? KAT and?

 

[Eddie Jurak]

I am warming up to the idea of Blake Griffin in free agency; it's a huge gamble that has "Grant Hill in Orlando" potential all over it, though.

I think the Clippers, where the offense was (appropriately) run by Chris Paul, may not have been the best environment to maximize Griffin's value. On a Celtic team that relies more on ball movement and less on traditional PG running the show, he could potentially have greater value/impact.

 

[Devizier]

Who is the 2nd center in Minnesota? KAT and?

sad that you forgot about me

 

[Cesar Crespo]

Horford would have to age a bit unless you think Dieng is still going to improve. He is 27.

 

[Devizier]

Horford would have to age a bit unless you think Dieng is still going to improve. He is 27.

Dieng is who is he is, but Horford is going to age a bit. I love the contract simply because of opportunity cost but I'm under no illusions that we're going to see the same level of play on the back end of his contract.

 

[luckiestman]

I agree, if you could add a big time traditional center who's a good two-way player and can also stretch the floor, then you can move Al to the 4 no problem. When you've figured out how that's going to happen to the Boston Celtics, I'd love to hear it. The stretch bigs better than Al Horford are All-NBA types. None of them are on the block (except I guess Boogie but we've gone through that). None of them are free agents.

Moving Horford to the 4 to bring in guys with big flaws who don't necessarily work within what the Celtics do offensively or defensively just to get an upgrade on the glass is what people are questioning.

I'm looking forward to see how Zizic plays the 5 with Al at the 4

 

[DJnVa]

Kevin O'Connor on the Celtics moving forward: https://theringer.com/2017-nba-playoffs-boston-celtics-rebuild-isaiah-thomas-markelle-fultz-gordon-hayward-85101ee9212b

Down 2–1 to Cleveland, is Boston one player away from competing for the title, or should it be building for a post-LeBron world? These are the questions Danny Ainge will have to answer as he considers what to do with his no. 1 pick in the draft and possible pursuit of Gordon Hayward.

 

[sezwho]

One of the things I've been wondering is how much of the next several months activity will be driven by a specific plan rather than a set of market driven decisions.

For example, let's assume that Ainge is able to get what he would consider market value for each of JB, IT, Smart, AB, crowder and pick 1-aka Fultz. What does he actually want to do? Who would he keep?

Now, compare that to what the other GMs want. If DA really loves the two way nature of ABs game, but so do the other GMs and nobody wants Smart, does he stick to his guns and get the best deal available for Smart (I know they aren't mutually exclusive players, it's just an example) or take the better overall AB deal even if it doesn't put the best team on the court in the near term?

Maybe another way of asking is whether DA has a very strong preference for any of the point and shooting guards on his roster already, or is just going to let the market speak and build from there?

 

[moly99]

Personally I think all of the questions about Bradley, Smart, etc are less important that the big question of what exactly the team's long term objectives are.

The NBA is currently rigged towards teams with top 10 players thanks to the idiotic max contract structure. LeBron, Curry and Durant are getting about a third of their market values. The teams that have those guys have an insurmountable advantage.

If you look at the other 28 teams in the league and ignore the two juggernauts, marginal improvements like trading Bradley + Crowder and signing Gordon Hayward make sense. But it is extremely unlikely that a Thomas-Horford-Hayward trio beats out a James-Love-Irving trio in a seven game series. Especially when the latter gets "superstar treatment" from the referees.

So what is the team's strategy? Are they willing to take risks to maximize the chances of a title? In example trying to trade Thomas to Orlando. Or do we accept a Clippers level team for the next four years and hope for some major luck?

 

[Imbricus]

Just saw this quote this morning:

“We have a lot of good players,” Ainge noted, “but we need some great ones.”

Not exactly a revelation, but it shows his thinking going into the summer, and it echoes Grousbeck's comment when asked about trading the #1 pick. Hayward was mentioned in the article, but is he really a great player -- he's certainly very good. So is Ainge talking about acquiring an Anthony Davis-level talent, which would be horribly expensive? My guess is Ainge goes one of two ways: (1) This becomes an incredibly active summer, as he swings the Hayward signing and makes at least two big deals, and the current incarnation of the Celtics pretty much ceases to exist. (2) This becomes a rather quiet summer, as he realizes he'll have to pay too much for talent, and he unloads maybe Bradley and another Celtic for decent draft picks, and rolls the dice on the Celtics growing into their talent in 3 to 5 years. #1 scares me a bit; #2 could be fun.

 

[DJnVa]

Landing a "great" player would scare you?

 

[wade boggs chicken dinner]

Just saw this quote this morning:



Not exactly a revelation, but it shows his thinking going into the summer, and it echoes Grousbeck's comment when asked about trading the #1 pick. Hayward was mentioned in the article, but is he really a great player -- he's certainly very good. So is Ainge talking about acquiring an Anthony Davis-level talent, which would be horribly expensive? My guess is Ainge goes one of two ways: (1) This becomes an incredibly active summer, as he swings the Hayward signing and makes at least two big deals, and the current incarnation of the Celtics pretty much ceases to exist. (2) This becomes a rather quiet summer, as he realizes he'll have to pay too much for talent, and he unloads maybe Bradley and another Celtic for decent draft picks, and rolls the dice on the Celtics growing into their talent in 3 to 5 years. #1 scares me a bit; #2 could be fun.

From the Herald article, Ainge had this to say:

“We’re all on the same page,” he said. “We see things in pretty much the same way right now, and it’s unanimously not doing certain deals and being patient. That does make it easier that we don’t have a coach freaking out that we’ve got to get better this second or we’ve got to make this trade that could hamstring us. I mean, I think as we discuss the deals that are out there, we are one in our goals and our objectives and our plan.”​

Sounds like they are drafting Fultz and hoping him or JB or whoever they get next year turns out to be great players. Also sounds like they aren't going to give up the house for someone like George or Butler. All of which I am in favor of.

 

[JCizzle]

http://www.celticshub.com/2017/05/26/looking-forward-celtics-future/

Good read that shows why landing George or Butler would cause big problems in the near future unless we gutted the team. I still think that praying for Hayward and another good pick next year is our best path moving forward.

 

[Imbricus]

Landing a "great" player would scare you?

What we'd have to give up for a great player -- that's the part that scares me. Look at the packages that were being suggested for George or Butler at the trade deadline. It'd be all that, plus Zizic and Rozier and who knows what else for a great player like Davis.

I agree with boggs chicken dinner. Draft Fultz, hope Jaylen turns into the best-case scenario, and pray the Nets suck again. Then you've got cost-controlled long-term talent. But here's the problem: how do you sign a guy like Hayward if you tell him we're trying to peak in 4 or 5 years? He's not going to want to hear that. And what about Horford? What did Danny tell him last year? Is Horford going to be on board with the long-term peaking plan? That's why I think it's not beyond the pale that Danny blows it all up in some mega trades. The trouble is, if he signs Hayward at a max contract, then he's got two very good but not great players on max contracts. So then you have to start playing cap games, to build around them if you're in GFIN mode. Hmmm ... I think we're at a very interesting juncture.

 

[JCizzle]

What we'd have to give up for a great player -- that's the part that scares me. Look at the packages that were being suggested for George or Butler at the trade deadline. It'd be all that, plus Zizic and Rozier and who knows what else for a great player like Davis.

I agree with boggs chicken dinner. Draft Fultz, hope Jaylen turns into the best-case scenario, and pray the Nets suck again. Then you've got cost-controlled long-term talent. But here's the problem: how do you sign a guy like Hayward if you tell him we're trying to peak in 4 or 5 years? He's not going to want to hear that. And what about Horford? What did Danny tell him last year? Is Horford going to be on board with the long-term peaking plan? That's why I think it's not beyond the pale that Danny blows it all up in some mega trades. The trouble is, if he signs Hayward at a max contract, then he's got two very good but not great players on max contracts. So then you have to start playing cap games, to build around them if you're in GFIN mode. Hmmm ... I think we're at a very interesting juncture.

I think we're in the perfect position to overpay for max guys like Hayward and Horford simply because we're going to have so much cost controlled young talent behind them. I mean shit, we have a top 3 pick as like the 8th guy in our rotation. I think you can sell Hayward by largely bringing back this team (minus one or two of KO, AB, and Marcus). Unless he takes no money to go to Cleveland or the Warriors, then we're probably in an equally good position as any other team in the league over the next 4-5 years to win it all. Plus Brad.

 

[nighthob]

And Boston, unlike Utah, is still up and coming whereas the Jazz have peaked with one of their big 3 on the back 9 of his career. Boston is going to continue adding young talent to two established all stars, which is a better spot to be in for Hayward.

 

[Sam Ray Not]

The latest edition of the Dunc'd On podcast (Nate Duncan and Danny Leroux) has a great ~40 minute deep dive into a bunch of potential Celtics future scenarios with and without IT, Hayward, Griffin et al: http://www.blogtalkradio.com/duncdon/2017/05/26/boscle-game-5-bos-offseason-preview

(To me, Duncan and Leroux are the best hoops podcasters around in terms of their depth of knowledge of x and os, stats, and capology. I put them ahead of Zach Lowe, and I really like Lowe...)

 

[Imbricus]

Ainge said he wants to keep Isaiah Thomas:

All I know is that he's had an amazing year, and who doesn't want Isaiah Thomas on their team? Like, you've got to be kidding me.

I love that Ainge said this. To be clear: Maybe he wants to keep Isaiah, maybe he doesn't. But this is a really nice endorsement of the guy, who has been a great ambassador for the team, and seems like a terrific individual. I'm sure there won't be a spot for him if he wants megabucks, but if he were flexible and took some kind of hometown discount? It still might not work, but I think Isaiah really wants to stay here, so who knows?

 

[Big John]

The elephant in the room is Horford. Bad signing. We hear about his passing ability and his "intangibles" , but I don't believe a word of it. You want your $30M big guy to do three things: score, rebound and protect the rim. Horford does none of those things consistently. In the last loss to the Cavs he had 8 points and 3 rebounds. He was -30. That's simply not acceptable.

The path to title contention starts with facing reality and either trading Horford or finding a replacement. Maybe he could be a useful 20-minute player off the bench, but he's no starting center on a legitimate contender.

 

[BigSoxFan]

The elephant in the room is Horford. Bad signing. We hear about his passing ability and his "intangibles" , but I don't believe a word of it. You want your $30M big guy to do three things: score, rebound and protect the rim. Horford does none of those things consistently. In the last loss to the Cavs he had 8 points and 3 rebounds. He was -30. That's simply not acceptable.

The path to title contention starts with facing reality and either trading Horford or finding a replacement. Maybe he could be a useful 20-minute player off the bench, but he's no starting center on a legitimate contender.

Bad signing, eh? Who would you have preferred?

 

[DannyDarwinism]

The elephant in the room is Horford. Bad signing. We hear about his passing ability and his "intangibles" , but I don't believe a word of it. You want your $30M big guy to do three things: score, rebound and protect the rim. Horford does none of those things consistently. In the last loss to the Cavs he had 8 points and 3 rebounds. He was -30. That's simply not acceptable.

The path to title contention starts with facing reality and either trading Horford or finding a replacement. Maybe he could be a useful 20-minute player off the bench, but he's no starting center on a legitimate contender.

15/6.6/5.4 with a 66.8 TS%, 4.6 BPM in the playoffs. I get that there's a subset of fans who want Horford to be something he isn't, but to have watched the Celtics in the playoffs and come to the conclusion that he's anything but an asset, even at his contract... get the fuck outta here with this nonsense.

 

[Big John]

15/6.6/5.4 with a 66.8 TS%, 4.6 BPM in the playoffs. I get that there's a subset of fans who want Horford to be something he isn't, but to have watched the Celtics in the playoffs and come to the conclusion that he's anything but an asset, even at his contract... get the fuck outta here with this nonsense.

Sure, Horford is what he is. But this team will never win a championship with Horford playing 30+ minutes at the center position. He isn't good enough. We're talking about legitimate contention in this thread, right?

 

[BigSoxFan]

Sure, Horford is what he is. But this team will never win a championship with Horford playing 30+ minutes at the center position. He isn't good enough. We're talking about legitimate contention in this thread, right?

This isn't even remotely true.

 

[Big John]

Let's defer this discussion until the Celtics make the NBA finals with Horford as one of their starting big men. Then I'll be happy to eat crow, cooked however you like.

 

[Smokey Joe]

Jeremiah 5:21

 

[scottyno]

The elephant in the room is Horford. Bad signing. We hear about his passing ability and his "intangibles" , but I don't believe a word of it. You want your $30M big guy to do three things: score, rebound and protect the rim. Horford does none of those things consistently. In the last loss to the Cavs he had 8 points and 3 rebounds. He was -30. That's simply not acceptable.

The path to title contention starts with facing reality and either trading Horford or finding a replacement. Maybe he could be a useful 20-minute player off the bench, but he's no starting center on a legitimate contender.

So they should have signed Dwight Howard? The big time rebounding rim protecting center who the Hawks are already considering trading after a year.

 

[Big John]

So they should have signed Dwight Howard? The big time rebounding rim protecting center who the Hawks are already considering trading after a year.

I have no idea what options were available, and at what cost. Trade for a guy like Robin Lopez or Tyson Chandler? Draft a center at #16 instead of Yabusele and try to develop him? Who knows?

 

[moly99]

I have no idea what options were available, and at what cost. Trade for a guy like Robin Lopez or Tyson Chandler? Draft a center at #16 instead of Yabusele and try to develop him? Who knows?

Horford has weaknesses, but the simple fact of the matter is that Anthony Davis is the only clear upgrade over Horford. Stretch fives are really hard to find.

Moreover floor spacing and offensive rebounding are contradictory traits: a player can't be in two places (the three point line and near the rim) at once. Kevin Love averaged 4.1 offensive rebounds/36 minutes in Minnesota and just 2.3 with Cleveland as his play style has drifted to the perimeter. Horford does not score often out of the post or grab many offensive boards, but part of that comes from simply not giving him many chances. And his rebounding numbers were a lot better before his coaches asked him to start shooting 3's.

Our rebounding and shot blocking woes are more a function of having an undersized roster overall than Horford's fault particularly. Horford is a much better rim protector than Blake Griffin, for example, and Horford's rebounding numbers with Atlanta are the same Griffin's numbers with the Clippers. (9.6 total rebounds/36 minutes for each player)

 

[Cesar Crespo]

I have no idea what options were available, and at what cost. Trade for a guy like Robin Lopez or Tyson Chandler? Draft a center at #16 instead of Yabusele and try to develop him? Who knows?

Yes, because if you take this current Celtics team and replace Horford with Robin Lopez or Tyson Chandler they easily win the title. If Kevin Durant opts out for FA and signs with the Celtics, clearly the Celtics can't win because Al Horford. Get the fuck out.

 

[Eddie Jurak]

I wish Big John were an NBA GM.

 

[chilidawg]

I wish Big John were an NBA GM.

Of the Brooklyn Nets.

 

[Eddie Jurak]

Of the Brooklyn Nets.

Of any team holding an asset the Celtics might want to acquire.

 

[DannyDarwinism]

Draft a center at #16 instead of Yabusele and try to develop him? Who knows?

Were you really impressed by Henry Ellenson's 146 minutes for a non-playoff team this year? Because he was the only big taken between Yabusele and Zizic.

Horford was the Celtic's best player in the playoffs, by a good margin. Gobert and Jordan are the only throw-back bigs that fit what you're looking for who I'd consider over him given current roster construction. Throw in Marc Gasol, KAT and Draymond if we include guys who can stretch the floor. Myles Turner might get there soon. Embiid if health was no concern.

Would you swap Horford for, say, Hassan Whiteside? Gortat? Drummond?