Fast forward to legitimate title contention...

smastroyin

simpering whimperer
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2002
20,684
Let's cut down some of the one liner pile on please.

I do think that the Horford signing would be a mistake in a hard cap league like the NFL, and maybe a bit of a premature waste of money in a no cap league like MLB. The way the NBA is stuctured, though, you have windows, usually very limited, to add top FA, and the Celtics happened to have that last year. That said, that is much more about the team's chance in the immediate future than it is about Al Horford's abilities. The point being, if signing Al Horford would preclude you from doing other moves you would rather do in the next couple years, there might be a point to the complaint. But, this is the NBA, where the cap only really matters for signing other team's FA, and the top ones don't come free very often, and the Celtics still have a chance at one this year. If you don't like this year's crop and are thinking about next year, the C's were going to blow up the cap anyway with Bradley, Smart, and IT all due for raises. Signing Horford matters almost zero other than to Wyc's bottom line.

As for Horford the player, we have this discussion all the time, but his shortcomings are enhanced by the system that the Celtics play...just as his strengths are. That you think Robin Lopez would be a better choice than Horford for this team shows that you don't really understand the way Stevens is running the offense. That Bradley and IT stepped up this year (when healthy) isn't just their own ability. Horford makes the starting unit better.

As for the draft comment, the Celtics did take Zizic. A lot of people thought they should have done so with 16 instead of 23 but they still did it The only big man drafted between Guerschon and Ante was Henry Ellenson, who only managed to get into 19 games this year for the Pistons, and is basically tops out as a shorter Olynyk. I guess you could argue they should have gone for Chriss instead of Brown, or that they should have packaged 16 and 23 to try and get up to draft Maker, Sabonis or Papagiannis?
 
Last edited:

Imbricus

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 26, 2017
4,937
I thought the genius of Horford came out in the Washington game when they started running the offense through him. He was brilliant: knocking down three-pointers, moving the ball around, making assists. To me he's a Swiss Army knife of a player with his skill set for a big man, and that's pretty valuable. Plus he's unselfish, sometimes to a fault. That's the kind of player you can fit into almost any kind of system. There are games when he comes up small, but in the end I think he deserved his contract. He's a very good player.
 

sox311

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 30, 2004
1,753
That's what she said.
The Celtics play at their highest level when Al is involved. No question about it.

His statistics mirror the style of his play. This coaching staff and front office do not value the rebound highly, it may be because of the players skill, or game plan and roster construction.

Larry Bird didn't hit many three point FGs because he didn't take many. The game, the NBA, his game, and the Celtics game plan at the time, didn't dictate it. So they won't show up in the box score.

Put me in the Al Horford corner and the corner of Brad, Danny, and team did a great job with what they had this year and I believe Al can continue this production for two to three more years.
 

Big John

New Member
Dec 9, 2016
2,086
Once again, Horford is what he is. Cowens was a "Swiss Army knife" player too, but Cowens was ferocious. Someone has to control the defensive glass (as Cowens did against bigger players) without having both guards stay in to rebound. Once again, I don't think Horford will ever make the NBA finals in Boston unless at least one of two things happen: (1) Ainge makes a blockbuster deal for a player like AD or Towns, or (2) Zizic turns out to be the second coming of Steven Adams.

Also, Horford will be on the downside of his career by the time players like Jaylen Brown, Zizic, Yabusele , Fultz (plus whoever they take with the 2018 Brooklyn pick) have sufficiently matured to contend for a championship. By the time this team (hopefully) becomes very, very good, Horford won't be.

Hope I'm wrong.
 

Cesar Crespo

79
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
21,588
I don't think anyone here believes the Celtics can win a title with Al Horford as their best player. That doesn't mean he isn't good. And this team is more than a Steven Adams away from the finals. Do you think Al Horford is not a good basketball player or he won't be a good basketball player when this team is ready to compete? You are moving goalposts.
 

Big John

New Member
Dec 9, 2016
2,086
In fairness to my critics here, I'm saying they will never reach the finals if Horford is their best big man.
 

NoXInNixon

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 24, 2008
5,394
In fairness to my critics here, I'm saying they will never reach the finals if Horford is their best big man.
But that's only because of how good the Cavaliers are. Even still, if they lost one of their Big 3 to a season ending injury, the Celtics would have a great chance in a seven game series.
 

wade boggs chicken dinner

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 26, 2005
31,726
Once again, Horford is what he is. Cowens was a "Swiss Army knife" player too, but Cowens was ferocious. Someone has to control the defensive glass (as Cowens did against bigger players) without having both guards stay in to rebound.
I loved Dave Cowens. He's a HOF. AlmHorford probably isn't. Yes, the Cs would be ipgraded if they could replace Al with Cowens in his prime. Every team in the NBA would be upgraded if they could add Dave Cowens in his prime. The only problem is finding him.
In fairness to my critics here, I'm saying they will never reach the finals if Horford is their best big man.
What does that even mean? If JB and Fultz turn into multiple time All-Stars and they pick Porter and he pans out and the Cs have three unstoppable slashers with Al playing the 5 - you don't think that the Cs could get to the finals?

The Cs are putting the best 5 guys on the floor. As Smastroyin explained above, the NBA isn't like the NFL, and, signing Al didn't mean that they were prevented from signing someone else who could be more help. They got the 2nd best guy on the market (and they tried to get #1) who was a clear upgrade over what they had. Danny will keep upgrading talent.

No one said Al was a great player - even DA said the Cs need great players. But contract notwithstanding, Al is a talent who adds to the team. While he won't play in the Finals if he's a team's best player, he's certainly capable of being an integral part of a championship team.
 

Sam Ray Not

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
8,919
NYC
Fwiw, I feel pretty confident that if you replaced Zaza or DWest with Horford the Warriors would be better than they are now. And I think the Cavs would be a bit better with Horford in place of Tristan Thompson (worse rebounder, much better at everything else). So it's obviously not impossible to build a championship contender around Horford at C.

Less hypothetically: it's important to remember that the Horford signing was done as a potential first step in a shoot-the-moon strategy aimed at snagging Durant. We can't know Durant's final decision criteria (much as we like to conjecture about it), but I think it's reasonable to assume having another respected all-star of KD's generation already in place sweetened the pot for him in Boston considerably. It's an epic home run of a signing if KD signs; but even with just Horford it's a solid base hit, and I don't see how you can fault Ainge for taking a swing for the fences, when the only real "downside" is doling out a max contract to a very good and versatile 30 year-old player.
 

Marceline

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Sep 9, 2002
6,474
Canton, MA
The Celtics won a championship with Kendrick Perkins as their best big man.

Would you trade Horford for 2007-08 Perkins? I wouldn't.
 

Koufax

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
5,966
People say that the team needs a high energy banger/ rebounder/ rim protector. I say they already have one: Zizic.
 

NoXInNixon

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 24, 2008
5,394
Yeah. I don't think it's out of the question that by the end of next season they might be competitive with Cleveland.
 

smastroyin

simpering whimperer
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2002
20,684
Yeah but kind of to the point on KG - people spent the first two rounds of the '08 playoffs complaining that KG was too soft and passive and they were super disappointed...because of his rebound numbers and a game or two where he didn't shoot well from the elbow.
 

Big John

New Member
Dec 9, 2016
2,086
If Zizic pans out he may indeed be the savior, if he can stay out of foul trouble.

So would anyone here trade Horford for DeAndre Jordan-- exchanging the Swiss Army knife for a pair of brass knuckles? The salaries work if you throw in the retiring Pierce. Jordan can't shoot threes (or free throws) but he does average 12 and 14, plus he's two years younger than Horford.
 
Last edited:

Big John

New Member
Dec 9, 2016
2,086
You you don't think Stevens coaches well enough to make the necessary adjustments to Jordans' weaknesses (and strengths)? Would you feel the same way about a deal next year for Rudy Gobert?
 

chilidawg

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 22, 2015
6,399
Cultural hub of the universe
Pairing Gobert or Jordan with Zizic doesn't make much sense. Pairing them with Horford makes much more sense in today's NBA, where you can't get by with more than one guy who can't play on the perimeter. A Gobert Horford front court would be dynamic.
 

Sam Ray Not

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
8,919
NYC
The Clips aren't making that trade so it's pointless to conjecture, but even hypothetically: Horford straight up for DJ risks killing the Cs' offense. Barring other moves, you'd be down to one above-average NBA playmaker (IT), and that's way too much burden to put on him, great as he is. (Assuming Fultz is not a stud right out of the box, which is a safe assumption.)

In tandem with a Hayward signing, I kinda like that trade for the Cs ... but again, it's almost certainly not happening.
 

nighthob

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
12,785
If Zizic pans out he may indeed be the savior, if he can stay out of foul trouble.

So would anyone here trade Horford for DeAndre Jordan-- exchanging the Swiss Army knife for a pair of brass knuckles? The salaries work if you throw in the retiring Pierce. Jordan can't shoot threes (or free throws) but he does average 12 and 14, plus he's two years younger than Horford.
Clearly Jordan and Gobert led the Clippers and Jazz much deeper into the playoffs than Horford led their Celtics.
 

Big John

New Member
Dec 9, 2016
2,086
Clearly Jordan and Gobert led the Clippers and Jazz much deeper into the playoffs than Horford led their Celtics.
So would the Celtics as presently constituted have made the finals in the WC, beating out the Spurs or the Warriors?
 

RedOctober3829

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
55,873
deep inside Guido territory
If Zizic pans out he may indeed be the savior, if he can stay out of foul trouble.

So would anyone here trade Horford for DeAndre Jordan-- exchanging the Swiss Army knife for a pair of brass knuckles? The salaries work if you throw in the retiring Pierce. Jordan can't shoot threes (or free throws) but he does average 12 and 14, plus he's two years younger than Horford.
You really want to trade for a guy and pay him over $20 million/yr who you can't have on the floor in late game situations?
 

tbrown_01923

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 29, 2006
802
I am just confused. I didn't love horford, but he is a far better player than jordan - and he really opened my eyes this post-season. He won games by making his teammates so much better...

Wouldn't the clippers love that trade, how great would horford/griffin be together? Sure there is nobody at the swing, but the looks blake would get would make him look like the all star people think he is.
 

DannyDarwinism

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 7, 2007
4,985
You really want to trade for a guy and pay him over $20 million/yr who you can't have on the floor in late game situations?
Plus, with the opposing big never having to stray more than 12 feet from the basket, Isaiah's gonna find a lot less room to do his thing in the lane.
 

nighthob

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
12,785
So would the Celtics as presently constituted have made the finals in the WC, beating out the Spurs or the Warriors?
That's my point, having a traditional center doesn't make you a contender and the lack of one doesn't eliminate you from contention.

Yes, if the Celtics had sufficient perimeter talent they could win a title. Swap out Horford for Jordan and Boston not only doesn't beat the Cavs in the postseason, but if they made it at all they likely face the Cavs in the first round and get an early vacation.
 

moly99

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 28, 2007
939
Seattle
The Clips aren't making that trade so it's pointless to conjecture, but even hypothetically: Horford straight up for DJ risks killing the Cs' offense. Barring other moves, you'd be down to one above-average NBA playmaker (IT), and that's way too much burden to put on him, great as he is. (Assuming Fultz is not a stud right out of the box, which is a safe assumption.)
It is not just playmaking, but also floor spacing. Even when Horford never touches the ball he pulls a big man out of the paint and creates lanes for our guards to attack the rim.

Horford's numbers are merely good rather than great, but he makes everyone else on the team better. DeAndre Jordan is the opposite.
 

PedroKsBambino

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 17, 2003
32,438
Less hypothetically: it's important to remember that the Horford signing was done as a potential first step in a shoot-the-moon strategy aimed at snagging Durant. We can't know Durant's final decision criteria (much as we like to conjecture about it), but I think it's reasonable to assume having another respected all-star of KD's generation already in place sweetened the pot for him in Boston considerably. It's an epic home run of a signing if KD signs; but even with just Horford it's a solid base hit, and I don't see how you can fault Ainge for taking a swing for the fences, when the only real "downside" is doling out a max contract to a very good and versatile 30 year-old player.
This cannot be repeated often enough, as it seems to have slipped out of the discussion somehow.

The NBA is an apex-star league. The Celtics were in a serious discussion with the rarest of things---an apex-star free agent in his prime. Even if Horford were an albatross this year, he still was a worthwhile signing unless you believe Durant was never serious (and no one seems to be suggesting this). If he improved the chances Durant came, say, 10%...I'd take it.

That Horford was a very good player this year and projects to be for another couple makes it a pretty easy signing in my mind, and that's warts and all. I wish he was a better rebounder, wish he was more aggressive in looking for his own offense...and it's hard to get guys as good as he is at his size.
 

HomeRunBaker

bet squelcher
SoSH Member
Jan 15, 2004
31,094
Ainge said he wants to keep Isaiah Thomas:



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?
This wasn't really the context of what Ainge was saying in response to the question. What he said was that he had some very very hard decisions coming up and then when asked specifically about Isaiah he responded with standard GM-speak about naturally wanting Isaiah on the team after doing a little song and dance act asking why people care about the size of the contract. Had the question been whether he wanted Isaiah on the team on a brand spanking new 5/$150m deal I would have been interested to hear how he spun it.....but it was a vague question and Ainge gave a vague answer.
 

sezwho

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 20, 2005
2,094
Isle of Plum
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...)
Thank you for the recommendation, I listened to the last couple podcasts and subscribe to Dunc'd On now. I'm not a huge fan of too many NBA podcasts but I do like The Lowe Post as well.
 

JakeRae

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 21, 2005
8,303
New York, NY
I think people are being way too negative about DeAndre Jordan. By most advanced metrics, he's the clear #2 center in the game (assuming you do not consider Davis a center). I would easily trade Horford for DeAndre Jordan or Rudy Gobert, because both are both better and younger than Al Horford. That's not a knock on Horford. Horford is a really good player who is worth a max contract and has made the Celtics a lot better. He's also probably not a player that a championship team has on a max contract unless they have a generational talent also on the roster. With Durant, we'd be in that position, and would absolutely be a contender right now alongside GSW and CLE. Without Hayward, we're probably just hoping to get lucky one year while the young guys develop, but that's not so bad either. But, none of that is because Horford is a bad center or because his game is flawed, it's entirely because you can't build a championship team with average max players (what Horford is).

Going back to DeAndre Jordan, he has been a top 2 center in the league by RPM for each of the past 4 seasons. For all his flaws and the fit questions, there is really little debate that he's a better player than Horford and I think Stevens would figure out how to make that roster work just as he makes our current undersized roster work. Gobert is, hands-down, the best center in the game who isn't really a forward (this category excludes, among others, Draymond, Lebron, and Davis, all of whom dabble at the 5 but play at least as often at a smaller position). I'd easily take either of those players over Horford and I highly doubt Ainge would do anything differently.

That said, for the sake of the original idea that the team just needs a banger, someone like Gortat, Robin Lopez, or Drummond would just as clearly make this team significantly worse. If we are lucky, Zivic will be as good as those guys this next year, meaning much worse than Al Horford. As Ainge said, what we need, and what we don't currently have, are great players. Horford is a very good player, but he is not a great player (in the way Ainge was speaking). DeAndre Jordan isn't a great player either, but he's a marginal step closer. Gobert is almost a great player and very well could be one soon. (Incidentally, if you want to talk reasons why Hayward should stay in Utah, the conversation begins and ends with the fact that Rudy Gobert is the single best player on any team he is likely to have an opportunity to play for.)

All that is a long way of saying that while the idea that Horford is the problem with this team betrays a fundamental lack of understanding of the modern NBA and, more generally, basketball, the idea that trading him for DeAndre Jordan would improve the Celtics is correct. On the other hand, to complete that trade, the Celtics probably would need to include the 2018 Brooklyn pick. That's obviously too much for the Celtics to give up for a marginal upgrade to a position of strength on the current roster.
 

mcpickl

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 23, 2007
4,564
The beauty of Horford is his versatility.

If you swapped him out for Jordan, you'd be capping the minutes for Zizic since I can't see how he and Jordan can be on the floor together.

Having Horford and his ability to play the 4 is a much better fit, even before getting into the shooting/playmaking/spacing aspects.

I'd much rather have my 4/5 minutes rotation as

Horford 32 mins, Zizic 22 mins, fill out the other 42 mins among guys who can play 4/5 including small lineups

over

Jordan 32 mins, Zizic 16 mins, fill out the other 48 mins among guys who play the 4 including small lineups.

Also, Jordan can opt out after next season, when he'll be a ten year vet eligible for 35% of the cap. He'll likely cost as much, and likely more, as Horford does to sign. He'll also be on the books for longer.

If they made that move, we'll be back here in 18 months whining about Jordan as overpaid and wanting to trade him for a guy who can play 4 and space the floor.
 

nighthob

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
12,785
the idea that trading him for DeAndre Jordan would improve the Celtics is correct. On the other hand, to complete that trade, the Celtics probably would need to include the 2018 Brooklyn pick. That's obviously too much for the Celtics to give up for a marginal upgrade to a position of strength on the current roster.
No and HELL NO. DeAndre Jordan shows well on all the magic number formulae because he does three things (if you do nothing but rebound, block shots, and score garbage buckets, you'll look like a top 10 player by the magic numbers, it's a known weakness), but he is an outright offensive liability that can't be on the floor when games matter.

If the Clippers demanded a top five pick in a stacked draft for Jordan, you'd hear guffaws from the league's GMs. If they wanted a better player as a throw in, more than one GM would be hospitalized for laugh induced hernia.

Jordan isn't a marginal upgrade on Horford because he isn't the screener, the playmaker, shooter, or even defensive captain that Horford is (Horford is a great deal like Garnett in his ability to see where plays are going and directing the other guys on the floor). And there's no shame in not being better than one of the best two way bigs in the NBA.

Boston's weakness is on the perimeter where they have a 6'5" workaday SF, and a backcourt starting two guys under 6'3". The upgrades would be Marcus Smart learning to shoot all game long (he does have a penchant for drilling those jumpers at key moments) or Jaylen Brown being able to take over the SG spot next year. Or maybe Fultz being good enough to take over the 2 spot from day one. A starting level PF wouldn't hurt either.
 

Eddie Jurak

canderson-lite
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 12, 2002
45,363
Melrose, MA
He's also probably not a player that a championship team has on a max contract unless they have a generational talent also on the roster.
Having a generational talent on the roster is pretty much a prerequisite for a championship team anyway, though.
 

Eddie Jurak

canderson-lite
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 12, 2002
45,363
Melrose, MA
I stole this @HomeRunBaker quote from the 2018 draft thread because it is interesting but the discussion is more appropriate for this thread.

Side note: I give us a 15% chance at Hayward anyway (my opinion if I had to guess) and the way Ainge spoke this week without once mentioning Fultz by name there is a VERY good chance that neither are Celtics this summer.
Only 15% chance of landing Hayward? That seems low to me. The money difference has been exaggerated (ie, he doesn't have a strong financial incentive to stay). What is your reasoning? That the Celtics won't go all in for him, that he is likely to stay in Utah, or that other suitors will emerge. I think I'd put the odds at closer to (but still less than) 50/50.

As to not mentioning Fultz, I'm not sure how much (or what) to read into it. If Fultz was the next coming of Kevin Durant or comparable, I'm sure Danny would have mentioned him. Beyond that, this just seems like Danny's standard, keeping-the-options-open approach to most situations. I think it's entirely possible that Fultz is not #1 on Danny's draft board or that he will look to deal the pick but I still kind of expect Fultz to be here (better odds than Hayward).
 

Imbricus

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 26, 2017
4,937
This wasn't really the context of what Ainge was saying in response to the question. What he said was that he had some very very hard decisions coming up and then when asked specifically about Isaiah he responded with standard GM-speak about naturally wanting Isaiah on the team after doing a little song and dance act asking why people care about the size of the contract.
Right, according to the Herald's Steve Bulpett he also said:
All I’m saying is those are things I have to worry about that even I don’t like to think about. And I know that those are going to be difficult decisions at some point. But we want to keep Isaiah.
You're right he gave a vague answer, and a more interesting one would have been to "Would you keep him at five years and $150 million?" I was probably unclear in original post, but what I liked was (1) He said "We want to keep Isaiah." It's a nice thing to say about someone who actively recruited Horford (who they got) and Durant (who they unfortunately didn't). Isaiah's has been a very good ambassador for the team and has played his butt off. (2) He gushed about what a great year Isaiah had instead of choosing more muted wording like, "He had a really good year for us, and we like him, but we'll have to see what happens, because we have a lot of tough decisions."

Anyway, I liked the strong vote of support for Isaiah. I don't think he makes sense at all on a max contract, and I doubt Ainge thinks so either. I'm sure Ainge would like to keep him though -- at the right price. That's where negotiations will probably founder. But until that day comes, I think Ainge's comments will help make Isaiah feel appreciated and motivated as a Celtic.
 

wade boggs chicken dinner

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 26, 2005
31,726
(Incidentally, if you want to talk reasons why Hayward should stay in Utah, the conversation begins and ends with the fact that Rudy Gobert is the single best player on any team he is likely to have an opportunity to play for.)
Other people have discussed the rest of your post, but let's think about this comment for a second.

Is Rudy Gobert a top-10 player? I know most stats love him, but it seems to me that these guys are clearly better than him

Lebron
KD
Steph
Kawhi
Harden
Westbrook
Giannis
Davis
CP3

To me, he has no argument above any of the ones I listed. Then there are players like:

Cousins
Green
Wall
Kyrie
PG13
KAT
Butler
Klay
Lillard

that you'd probably take over him but may depend on situation and that's not even including

Heywhatruworth, who's probably the best player on the Jazz
Embiid
Conley
Griffin
Milsap
Lowry
Derozan
IT4
Simmons

Point being let's suppose that Gobert is a 15-25 player. Your post makes it sound that none of JB, Fultz, or whomever the Cs get to draft next year can become a top 15-25 player. I think you are very likely to be wrong about that. Even if you limited it the next four years, I think there's a good chance that the Cs have a top 15-25 player within that time period, and if they don't, we are going to be very very disappointed.

BTW, post #74 in this realgm thread does a good job IMO of breaking down some of the advanced stistics and why Gobert may be top 10 player that is worth reading.
 

HomeRunBaker

bet squelcher
SoSH Member
Jan 15, 2004
31,094
I stole this @HomeRunBaker quote from the 2018 draft thread because it is interesting but the discussion is more appropriate for this thread.


Only 15% chance of landing Hayward? That seems low to me. The money difference has been exaggerated (ie, he doesn't have a strong financial incentive to stay). What is your reasoning? That the Celtics won't go all in for him, that he is likely to stay in Utah, or that other suitors will emerge. I think I'd put the odds at closer to (but still less than) 50/50.

As to not mentioning Fultz, I'm not sure how much (or what) to read into it. If Fultz was the next coming of Kevin Durant or comparable, I'm sure Danny would have mentioned him. Beyond that, this just seems like Danny's standard, keeping-the-options-open approach to most situations. I think it's entirely possible that Fultz is not #1 on Danny's draft board or that he will look to deal the pick but I still kind of expect Fultz to be here (better odds than Hayward).
I agree there is a much better chance at Fultz over Hayward for the simple fact that we essentially hold the rights to Fultz as all we have to do is draft him 1st.

15% sounds about right to me on Hayward. He's an Indiana boy with an Indiana wife living in Utah who once signed a FA deal to relocate to Charlotte. None of us know his feelings on city life or the experiences on his Boston visits so really placing any percentage on him coming here is largely speculation but it doesn't "feel" like a place for a non-city kid to want to move his young family or a place where his wife would want to raise their young family......that is my opinion based solely on living outside of large metropolitan areas for many years and knowing how many people view city life.

The other thing about Hayward signing in Boston due to having a better chance of winning or how someone like Rudy Gobert could influence his decision (I've loved Gobert since draft night but I'm guessing his influence is about 0.01%). Hayward signed a max offer sheet from the Charlotte Freakin Bobcats who returned Al Jefferson as their leading scorer and rebounder while starting Josh McRoberts next to him along with Gerald Henderson at the 2. If nothing else this points to winning taking a backseat to both financial incentives as well as the pace of lifestyle.
 

Big John

New Member
Dec 9, 2016
2,086
All that is a long way of saying that while the idea that Horford is the problem with this team betrays a fundamental lack of understanding of the modern NBA and, more generally, basketball, the idea that trading him for DeAndre Jordan would improve the Celtics is correct. On the other hand, to complete that trade, the Celtics probably would need to include the 2018 Brooklyn pick. That's obviously too much for the Celtics to give up for a marginal upgrade to a position of strength on the current roster.
They'll be lucky to get Horford for him. If Chris Paul bolts for San Antonio (as is being rumored) the Clips will have great difficulty keeping both Griffin (player option this year) and Jordan (player option in 2018). The Clips could lose all three of those players for nothing. The length of Horford's contract is a plus for them, and so is his ability as a secondary playmaker with CP3 out the door. If you threw in Rozier they'd be overjoyed.

Also, as several others have pointed out, Jordan is a significantly flawed player. But he does two things really, really well: rebound at both ends and protect the rim, and those are the two major weaknesses of this current Celtics team. Zizic will help some, but he's 20 years old.
 

DJnVa

Dorito Dawg
SoSH Member
Dec 16, 2010
54,486
But rebounding is a weakness the Celtics don't seem too concerned about.

You can agree or disagree with that, but it appears to be real. That needs to be factored in.
 

JCizzle

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 11, 2006
21,626
15% sounds about right to me on Hayward. He's an Indiana boy with an Indiana wife living in Utah who once signed a FA deal to relocate to Charlotte. None of us know his feelings on city life or the experiences on his Boston visits so really placing any percentage on him coming here is largely speculation but it doesn't "feel" like a place for a non-city kid to want to move his young family or a place where his wife would want to raise their young family......that is my opinion based solely on living outside of large metropolitan areas for many years and knowing how many people view city life.
So basically Brad Stevens and why he was definitely going back to coach IU once they fired Crean....or at least that's what alum told themselves for years ;)

I agree with your overall point though, the whole thing is a crapshot and who knows what he really values. I think that he's closer to Brad than some random coach/player relationship like some people have implied, but like everything else it's impossible to know what that means to him today.
 

ALiveH

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 23, 2010
1,120
One can choose to deny or be ignorant of reality, but it has been discussed 100+ times in various threads that the rebounding weakness is largely attributable to scheme (bigs play away from the basket on O and on D).

I also want to point out that Horford is technically not a max player as he is earnings about 26% of the cap (this is part of why danny was ready to sign him to a max at the time knowing that it was about to escalate), versus a true max at 30% or supermax at 35%. That ~$4M savings is material.
 

nighthob

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
12,785
The other thing about Hayward signing in Boston due to having a better chance of winning or how someone like Rudy Gobert could influence his decision (I've loved Gobert since draft night but I'm guessing his influence is about 0.01%). Hayward signed a max offer sheet from the Charlotte Freakin Bobcats who returned Al Jefferson as their leading scorer and rebounder while starting Josh McRoberts next to him along with Gerald Henderson at the 2. If nothing else this points to winning taking a backseat to both financial incentives as well as the pace of lifestyle.
In fairness I'm pretty sure that Boston didn't have max space that summer, and therefor no ability to offer him a contract that his agent would have let him sign.
 

JakeRae

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 21, 2005
8,303
New York, NY
Other people have discussed the rest of your post, but let's think about this comment for a second.

Is Rudy Gobert a top-10 player? I know most stats love him, but it seems to me that these guys are clearly better than him

Lebron
KD
Steph
Kawhi
Harden
Westbrook
Giannis
Davis
CP3

To me, he has no argument above any of the ones I listed. Then there are players like:

Cousins
Green
Wall
Kyrie
PG13
KAT
Butler
Klay
Lillard

that you'd probably take over him but may depend on situation and that's not even including

Heywhatruworth, who's probably the best player on the Jazz
Embiid
Conley
Griffin
Milsap
Lowry
Derozan
IT4
Simmons

Point being let's suppose that Gobert is a 15-25 player. Your post makes it sound that none of JB, Fultz, or whomever the Cs get to draft next year can become a top 15-25 player. I think you are very likely to be wrong about that. Even if you limited it the next four years, I think there's a good chance that the Cs have a top 15-25 player within that time period, and if they don't, we are going to be very very disappointed.

BTW, post #74 in this realgm thread does a good job IMO of breaking down some of the advanced stistics and why Gobert may be top 10 player that is worth reading.
Using the last 14 seasons of individual player RPM data, there are 14 individual players who have had seasons superior to the one Gobert just had. Of those, there is a clear upper tier group of Lebron, Paul, Curry, Kawhi, and Draymond. (Like with Gobert, I suspect your underrating of Draymond is about not fully recognizing how incredible his defensive contribution actually is.) Out of the rest of your top tier list, the only name that never appears is Giannis, which I think is fair, he looks close to breaking through to elite status, but I don't think he has quite gotten there yet. I'd easily take his future over Gobert's, though, so I'm not gonna quibble about his being on your list. On the other hand, your second tier only contains 2 players who met that bar, Draymond and Butler.

Once again, there is a theme here and it is that you are valuing scoring contributions ahead of other forms of contribution.

Lowry is the only guy on your lower list that has made the cut. He's a great player who is consistently underrated too, but I wouldn't take him over Gobert. The rest of your third tier, with the Exception of Hayward, who rightfully belongs with your second tier (as does Lowry) is strange. Conley, Blake, DeRozan, and Thomas simply are not as good as Gobert was this past year. They are established players who have no real hope to become better too. On the other hand, Millsap is a really good player who is likely to decline soon. Gobert was a bit better this past year, but Millsap is super consistent, but he's also getting old. Then there is the two Sixers, one of whom has yet to play in the league and is a laughable inclusion, the other who cannot stay healthy. Either may be better players than Gobert on a few years, but neither is there right now or, really, very close.

Somehow you also leave Jokic off your list. I don't understand why.

To address your latter paragraph, that was not my point. My point is that no player on a team that Hayward is likely to have the opportunity to sign with this off-season has a player on their roster who is as good as Rudy Gobert is. That's a present tense statement. Put differently, if Hayward signs in Boston, he'd be the best player on the team. Maybe not in 3 years, we can hope, but almost certainly for next year and the year after. If he stays in Utah, he probably isn't because Rudy Gobert is better.
 

Big John

New Member
Dec 9, 2016
2,086
15% sounds about right to me on Hayward.
That seems right to me as well. His wife reportedly loves Utah.

So what's the next option (barring a big trade that eats up the cap space)? Gallinari? Otto Porter (restricted)? Greg Monroe? Do nothing and wait for 2018?
 

wade boggs chicken dinner

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 26, 2005
31,726
To address your latter paragraph, that was not my point. My point is that no player on a team that Hayward is likely to have the opportunity to sign with this off-season has a player on their roster who is as good as Rudy Gobert is. That's a present tense statement. Put differently, if Hayward signs in Boston, he'd be the best player on the team. Maybe not in 3 years, we can hope, but almost certainly for next year and the year after. If he stays in Utah, he probably isn't because Rudy Gobert is better.
As for the bolded, my first reaction is, "Oh."

Obviously I didn't take your post the way you intended or I would have skipped the rest of my response (I'm glad I didn't spend a lot of time on my response) since it's obviously not germane to what you intended.

But I'm curious to see why you think it matters that the Cs don't have a player who is better than Gobert right now? You're basically saying that Gobert is better than IT4 - and while I'm not going to necessarily argue with you with that point but I just don't see how it matters. Why would Heywoodie care about who the best player is on a team right now? I would guess that most free agents care about money, coach, organization, location, and chance to win - in varying degrees. If Haymarket cares about chance to win, he's going to be looking beyond who the next best player is and I think it's pretty clear that HeyWardCleaver's chance to win is higher with the Cs than the Jazz.

If the he signs with the Cs, the odds of that SayHayward plays with a player better than Gobert over the life of his next contract is pretty high, and if I were a free agent, that's what I would be looking at.