Smart Move: Keep or Say Goodbye to Marcus?

Swedgin

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 27, 2013
446
Jones was kind of forgotten during the playoffs. Ja, Melton, Dillion Brooks, Grayson Allen all handled the ball and played more playoff minutes than Tyus.

He's not cheap and if they want a veteran 2nd string Center, voila Tristan Thompson++
Jones should be available. Not sure Memphis would want a big back though, they have as many of those as they do ball handling guards: Clarke, Tillman, Jackson, Valanciunas. That team needs wings in the worst way, which seems like it has always been the case.
 

wade boggs chicken dinner

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 26, 2005
23,781
From where he was drafted, absolutely right. Nobody should expect #51 to be great, or he wouldn't be #51.

But his early days showed a guy who got the ball-handler job description, but he just never developed even a little bit. Had wiggle to get to the rim, but seemed content to launch 30% shots. Had hands, feet, and BBIQ to bother guys defensively, but just never did. Maybe I was just suckered by good summer league and exhibition play.
Yeah, he showed the physical skills to play in the NBA (remember the, "He's better than a lot of back-up PGs" quote from his rookie year?) but what never got better was his decision-making. He worked so hard on his skills maybe he never learned the game.
 

HomeRunBaker

bet squelcher
SoSH Member
Jan 15, 2004
21,786
Yeah, he showed the physical skills to play in the NBA (remember the, "He's better than a lot of back-up PGs" quote from his rookie year?) but what never got better was his decision-making. He worked so hard on his skills maybe he never learned the game.
Waters is still only 23. When my comp for him, Ish Smith, was 23 he was on his 3rd team and had to get to 4 more before becoming a starter/rotation guard in this league. I have no problem keeping Waters around behind the PG we are about to add, Romeo, Smart and Pritchard. I still see no reason why he can’t mature as a decision maker similarly to how Smith did, allow the game to slow down for him.....and don’t forget that Ish was beyond AWFUL when he first entered the league.
 

Fishy1

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 10, 2006
3,868
Waters is still only 23. When my comp for him, Ish Smith, was 23 he was on his 3rd team and had to get to 4 more before becoming a starter/rotation guard in this league. I have no problem keeping Waters around behind the PG we are about to add, Romeo, Smart and Pritchard. I still see no reason why he can’t mature as a decision maker similarly to how Smith did, allow the game to slow down for him.....and don’t forget that Ish was beyond AWFUL when he first entered the league.
Yeah, I still like Tremont's skills too. The turnover rate remains atrocious but it seems in part to be a product of his overconfidence as a facilitator.

And he's got just incredible hands. Every stop since college he's been an absolute steals machine. I think bringing in a vet point guard to compete with him and Pritchard for backup minutes is the move.
 

Cesar Crespo

79
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
16,496
Waters is still only 23. When my comp for him, Ish Smith, was 23 he was on his 3rd team and had to get to 4 more before becoming a starter/rotation guard in this league. I have no problem keeping Waters around behind the PG we are about to add, Romeo, Smart and Pritchard. I still see no reason why he can’t mature as a decision maker similarly to how Smith did, allow the game to slow down for him.....and don’t forget that Ish was beyond AWFUL when he first entered the league.
Yeah, lets waste another 3 years developing him so he turns into Ish Smith.

Who cares if he turns into Ish Smith 3-4 years from now? They aren't giving him a multi year deal and won't see any of the returns.
 

Eddie Jurak

Go Leafs Go
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 12, 2002
31,862
Melrose, MA
Yeah, lets waste another 3 years developing him so he turns into Ish Smith.

Who cares if he turns into Ish Smith 3-4 years from now? They aren't giving him a multi year deal and won't see any of the returns.
Waters is a guy whose place in the roster will be determined in large part by whatever other moves the Celtics make. They aren't holding a spot for him and his fastest path to being Ish Smith might be a couple of years in Europe. But if there is a roster slot for a deep bench PG, he's be fine for that.
 

wade boggs chicken dinner

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 26, 2005
23,781
Yeah, lets waste another 3 years developing him so he turns into Ish Smith.

Who cares if he turns into Ish Smith 3-4 years from now? They aren't giving him a multi year deal and won't see any of the returns.
Isn't that what we used to say about Abdel Nader? Kind of funny he made it to the finals before the Jays did. :cool:
 

lexrageorge

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2007
12,951
Hard to get stressed out about the 15th spot on the roster. If Waters is the best fit for that spot, he may indeed be back. I would expect he will get a summer league invite unless he has already decided to play overseas, and the team will go from there.
 

Cesar Crespo

79
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
16,496
Isn't that what we used to say about Abdel Nader? Kind of funny he made it to the finals before the Jays did. :cool:
PJ Dozier worked out ok too. These are the guys you should sign after they've been in the league for 3-5 years, not waste time developing. Even then, they are end of the bench fodder and easily replaceable.
 

reggiecleveland

sublime
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Mar 5, 2004
24,937
Saskatoon Canada
The answer is "Romeo" in the case of the smaller guys, and probably for a lot of the bigger ones too.

I'm not going to give Smart away, but the Celtics should absolutely be looking for whether there's an upgrade.
Was the question "who did the Celtics draft instead of Brandon Clarke?"

Good old Sosh. A guy like TT who does his job is trash while a guy with 50 games (over two years) is so good it justifies trading Smart.
 

pjheff

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 4, 2003
857
These are the guys you should sign after they've been in the league for 3-5 years, not waste time developing. Even then, they are end of the bench fodder and easily replaceable.
I wonder if this position is how Stevens feels about non-lottery picks in general.
 

PedroKsBambino

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
Gold Supporter
SoSH Member
Apr 17, 2003
25,600
PJ Dozier worked out ok too. These are the guys you should sign after they've been in the league for 3-5 years, not waste time developing. Even then, they are end of the bench fodder and easily replaceable.
The real world NBA requires depth. There is a mindset demonstrated by the above that unless someone fits a pre-defined picture of their role AND produces quickly they are replacement level and should be cycled out. It just isn’t how real teams build depth and develop guys. Patience, and accepting not everyone is great—but still can useful—is important
 

Jimbodandy

Well-Known Member
Gold Supporter
SoSH Member
Jan 31, 2006
5,716
around the way
The real world NBA requires depth. There is a mindset demonstrated by the above that unless someone fits a pre-defined picture of their role AND produces quickly they are replacement level and should be cycled out. It just isn’t how real teams build depth and develop guys. Patience, and accepting not everyone is great—but still can useful—is important
I just want to say that you have one interesting life when your phone autocorrects "should" to "Shizuoka".
 

PedroKsBambino

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
Gold Supporter
SoSH Member
Apr 17, 2003
25,600
Right? Wish that were because I had climbed Mt Fuji…but sadly not
 

HomeRunBaker

bet squelcher
SoSH Member
Jan 15, 2004
21,786
Yeah, lets waste another 3 years developing him so he turns into Ish Smith.

Who cares if he turns into Ish Smith 3-4 years from now? They aren't giving him a multi year deal and won't see any of the returns.
That’s what end of roster spots are for in hoping he develops into Ish Smith in 1-2 years. This is why rotation spots on a contender should be filled with veterans who have a greater chance to contribute. Waters roster spot at the end of the bench will either be his or that of a younger Waters to begin this process over again. I’m not understanding what you want or expect out of your 12th-15th man.....every team has young projects in these roster slots even the top tier contenders like the Lakers and Nets.
 

Cesar Crespo

79
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
16,496
That’s what end of roster spots are for in hoping he develops into Ish Smith in 1-2 years. This is why rotation spots on a contender should be filled with veterans who have a greater chance to contribute. Waters roster spot at the end of the bench will either be his or that of a younger Waters to begin this process over again. I’m not understanding what you want or expect out of your 12th-15th man.
If he's on the team because they need bodies, whatever. Keeping a guy around because he might develop into Ish Smith 3-5 years from now when he's not even under contract for that long seems pretty silly to me. He was the 51st pick in the draft that has shown nothing in the NBA in 2 years. He's not a lottery pick. He's fodder. Waters can easily be replaced by the next Larkin or Wanamaker.

There is pretty much 0 upside in keeping Waters and 0 downside in losing him.
 

Cesar Crespo

79
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
16,496
The real world NBA requires depth. There is a mindset demonstrated by the above that unless someone fits a pre-defined picture of their role AND produces quickly they are replacement level and should be cycled out. It just isn’t how real teams build depth and develop guys. Patience, and accepting not everyone is great—but still can useful—is important
Yeah, because replacing Tremont Waters on the depth chart would take a lot of work.
 

benhogan

Granite Truther
SoSH Member
Nov 2, 2007
12,053
Santa Monica
That’s what end of roster spots are for in hoping he develops into Ish Smith in 1-2 years. This is why rotation spots on a contender should be filled with veterans who have a greater chance to contribute. Waters roster spot at the end of the bench will either be his or that of a younger Waters to begin this process over again. I’m not understanding what you want or expect out of your 12th-15th man.
He's probably looking for a Larkin, Wannamaker, Theis (cheap but older/exp) instead of Waters as 12-15. I'd like the team to decide between Carsen and Waters (or jettison both). I'd choose Edwards FWIW

Agree with your development mindset for 12-15. BUT can see why fans are getting itchy/frustrated about the large number of young players (even our pillars have been developing) over recent seasons. TL, Romeo, Nesmith, Semi, Grant, Waters, Tacko, Carsen has been a lot to bite off. In hindsight, I can see the Ainge criticism for not combining picks and for using picks to move off bad strategic signings. Also believe Brad was better at developing flawed, experienced NBA players than he is with rookies.

While we shouldn't be terribly worried about 12-15 yet (but that's what we/I do around here). I still think the Celtics are 18 mths from our pillars starting their peak cycle. I'd trade 1yr flexibility over GFIN for all roster moves this summer.

Every roster move is about the JAYs 5 peak seasons (if they stick around).
 

HomeRunBaker

bet squelcher
SoSH Member
Jan 15, 2004
21,786
If he's on the team because they need bodies, whatever. Keeping a guy around because he might develop into Ish Smith 3-5 years from now when he's not even under contract for that long seems pretty silly to me. He was the 51st pick in the draft that has shown nothing in the NBA in 2 years. He's not a lottery pick. He's fodder. Waters can easily be replaced by the next Larkin or Wanamaker.

There is pretty much 0 upside in keeping Waters and 0 downside in losing him.
You aren’t understanding roster construction in today’s 15 man roster. Waters presence has zero to do with Brad looking to fill the roster with veteran rotation pieces. He’s going to be doing this whether Waters retains his spot or is replaced by a rookie FA from William & Mary. The young players that will (very likely) be replaced are the ones who were actually getting some minutes and playing craptastically......Grant, Semi, Nesmith, along with Thompson and Jabari. Waters isn’t in the same conversation as a player not yet competing for rotation minutes.
 

Cesar Crespo

79
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
16,496
You aren’t understanding roster construction in today’s 15 man roster. Waters presence has zero to do with Brad looking to fill the roster with veteran rotation pieces. He’s going to be doing this whether Waters retains his spot or is replaced by a rookie FA from William & Mary.
If they keep Evan Fournier and sign Waters to an actual NBA contract, the roster is full. How are they going to add these vets without getting rid of some of these young players? I'm assuming Waters will not be back on a 2 way deal, if he is... none of it matters anyway.

I understand just fine. Some young players will have to go to make room for vets. Since Waters isn't even under contract, it makes a lot of sense for it to be Waters that is gone.

Trades will happen so roster spots may open up... but some of the youth is on its way out regardless. Or at least it should be.
 

wade boggs chicken dinner

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 26, 2005
23,781
He's probably looking for a Larkin, Wannamaker, Theis (cheap but older/exp) instead of Waters as 12-15. I'd like the team to decide between Carsen and Waters (or jettison both). I'd choose Edwards FWIW
Yes, but how many of these guys are out there? How many guys are willing to give up large salaries to come over and be the back of the bench guys in the NBA?

Yes the team was super young for a contender last year. But DA did try to sign vets to come play key roles and that didn't quite work out (for whatever reason). Now the Cs have to do it again. It would be a heck of lot better if one or more of AN, RL, or GW took steps forward to be consistent contributors but if Brad relies on that happening and they don't take steps foward, this team isn't going to be a contender. Will be interesting to see how Brad works this.
 

Cesar Crespo

79
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
16,496
He's probably looking for a Larkin, Wannamaker, Theis (cheap but older/exp) instead of Waters as 12-15. I'd like the team to decide between Carsen and Waters (or jettison both). I'd choose Edwards FWIW

Agree with your development mindset for 12-15. BUT can see why fans are getting itchy/frustrated about the large number of young players (even our pillars have been developing) over recent seasons. TL, Romeo, Nesmith, Semi, Grant, Waters, Tacko, Carsen has been a lot to bite off. In hindsight, I can see the Ainge criticism for not combining picks and for using picks to move off bad strategic signings. Also believe Brad was better at developing flawed, experienced NBA players than he is with rookies.

While we shouldn't be terribly worried about 12-15 yet (but that's what we/I do around here). I still think the Celtics are 18 mths from our pillars starting their peak cycle. I'd trade 1yr flexibility over GFIN for all roster moves this summer.

Every roster move is about the JAYs 5 peak seasons (if they stick around).
That's the problem. It's not the 12-15. It's the 8-15 (Or whatever Jabari is). TL has graduated but there's still Nesmith, RL, Edwards, Grant, PP, Moses Brown under contract.

It's not necessarily even about Waters. I won't care if he's on the team next year. I will care if he's one of 7 young players on the actual roster not including the 2 2 way deals. I think he's worse than the 6 players above, so he'd be my first casualty.

In order I'd rank them as: Nesmith, Langford, PP, Edwards, Moses, Grant, Waters
 

pjheff

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 4, 2003
857
BUT can see why fans are getting itchy/frustrated about the large number of young players (even our pillars have been developing) over recent seasons.
Not just fans. I’m wondering if Stevens’ view of roster management will be colored by his experience of coaching such personnel.

The young players that will (very likely) be replaced are the ones who were actually getting some minutes and playing craptastically......Grant, Semi, Nesmith, along with Thompson and Jabari. Waters isn’t in the same conversation as a player not yet competing for rotation minutes.
I don’t see how Nesmith belongs on this list as a higher draft selection and younger prospect than Waters.
 

Cesar Crespo

79
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
16,496
Yes, but how many of these guys are out there? How many guys are willing to give up large salaries to come over and be the back of the bench guys in the NBA?
There seem to be a few every year, though not always PGs.

I don't think it would be hard to find a better PG to give an NBA contract to than Tremont Waters. A 2 way deal? Maybe. It would actually make some sense to have a Big and a PG on 2 way deals... the irony.
 

HomeRunBaker

bet squelcher
SoSH Member
Jan 15, 2004
21,786
If they keep Evan Fournier and sign Waters to an actual NBA contract, the roster is full. How are they going to add these vets without getting rid of some of these young players? I'm assuming Waters will not be back on a 2 way deal, if he is... none of it matters anyway.

I understand just fine. Some young players will have to go to make room for vets. Since Waters isn't even under contract, it makes a lot of sense for it to be Waters that is gone.

Trades will happen so roster spots may open up... but some of the youth is on its way out regardless. Or at least it should be.
The draft isn’t even here yet. Free agency isn’t even here yet. Trade season isn’t even here yet. Half of our rotation will be different from last year. Waters may or may not be here.....but his spot at the end of the bench isn’t going to be filled with a contributor.....it will be filled by our 2nd round project or another young player who isn’t going to play next season.
 

Cesar Crespo

79
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
16,496
The draft isn’t even here yet. Free agency isn’t even here yet. Trade season isn’t even here yet. Half of our rotation will be different from last year. Waters may or may not be here.....but his spot at the end of the bench isn’t going to be filled with a contributor.....it will be filled by our 2nd round project or another young player who isn’t going to play next season.
Cool. If the 15 spot comes down to Carsen Edwards or Waters, I want Edwards. There's nothing wrong with wanting a better young player who doesn't play.
 

benhogan

Granite Truther
SoSH Member
Nov 2, 2007
12,053
Santa Monica
Yes, but how many of these guys are out there? How many guys are willing to give up large salaries to come over and be the back of the bench guys in the NBA?

Will be interesting to see how Brad works this.
maybe Europe/Intl vets provide some sort of deep depth value (is Campazzo > Carsen + Teague)?

Agree I'm really interested in seeing how Brad shapes the roster over the next 12months. The almost immediate Kemba trade was loud/clear on several fronts (unload Kemba, financial flex, adding 2 Centers).
 

HomeRunBaker

bet squelcher
SoSH Member
Jan 15, 2004
21,786
Cool. If the 15 spot comes down to Carsen Edwards or Waters, I want Edwards. There's nothing wrong with wanting a better young player who doesn't play.
And that’s fine. My point is that this roster spot isn’t preventing us from adding veterans via trade or FA who would come here to play rotation minutes. I don’t expect “both” of them to be here and there is a decent chance neither will be. It could even be Madar.
 

lovegtm

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 30, 2013
8,404
Kiev, Ukraine
Was the question "who did the Celtics draft instead of Brandon Clarke?"

Good old Sosh. A guy like TT who does his job is trash while a guy with 50 games (over two years) is so good it justifies trading Smart.
I've been positive on TT all year, specifically because he did his job well, so quit it with the "I'm so much more sophisticated than these plebs" posturing.

Smart is a far, far superior offensive player to Romeo right now, but if they were trading Smart, the idea would be to get a good 2-way player in return. I was merely pointing out that, defensively, Romeo is pretty obviously better right now in that 1-3 stopper role. Brad also thought this, which is why Romeo saw a ton of time on the tougher Nets assignments as that series went on.
 

tbb345

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 23, 2010
1,743
You aren’t understanding roster construction in today’s 15 man roster. Waters presence has zero to do with Brad looking to fill the roster with veteran rotation pieces. He’s going to be doing this whether Waters retains his spot or is replaced by a rookie FA from William & Mary. The young players that will (very likely) be replaced are the ones who were actually getting some minutes and playing craptastically......Grant, Semi, Nesmith, along with Thompson and Jabari. Waters isn’t in the same conversation as a player not yet competing for rotation minutes.
Nesmith doesn’t belong on that list.Hell, I’m completely on Team Trade TT and he doesn’t belong on that list either.

The problem (along with all of the injuries) was that the 8th man in the rotation was consistently Grant or Semi (in addition to Grant playing out of position at the 4). They both aren’t very good NBA players and are more suited to be 10th or 11th men.

Basically, I agree with your overall point but think that the only players that should be mentioned within it are Grant/Semi/Jabari
 

benhogan

Granite Truther
SoSH Member
Nov 2, 2007
12,053
Santa Monica
The disparity between the anger over TT missing a jump hook, vs unbridled optimism of the guy guarded by Romeo missing a jump hook will never cease to amaze me.
I get the disparity

Romeo altering Harden or Durant's shot (without fouling) is greater than,

TT going with the jump hook instead of kicking out from the paint for a step in 3

regardless of the outcome
 
Last edited:

reggiecleveland

sublime
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Mar 5, 2004
24,937
Saskatoon Canada
I get the disparity

Romeo altering Harden or Durant's shot (without fouling) is greater than,

TT going with the jump hook instead of kicking out from the paint for a step in 3

regardless of the outcome
Yup just as irrational as this.

How the fuck did Durant get into this example? A guy misses a shot, he just missed. Even in hypotheticals Romeo gets credit, and somehow it's the best player in the game. Also everyone has a wide open 3.

Holy fuck

If i had contact info for Romea I would tell him to sign some shot and auction it off here. What would people pay for the autograph of the first guy to get into the HOF while still playing, which seems agreed upon floor around here.
 
Last edited:

benhogan

Granite Truther
SoSH Member
Nov 2, 2007
12,053
Santa Monica
Yup just as irrational as this.

How the fuck did Durant get into this example? A guy misses a shot, he just missed. Even in hypotheticals Romeo gets credit, and somehow it's the best player in the game.

Holy fuck
it was fukn used because Romeo's defense was mentioned in regards to the Nets series 5 posts above (post #331). And you immediately posted that inane Romeo vs TT comp (post #333)

But to be perfectly clear, I'd take Romeo's on-ball defense over Tristan's jump hook 100 out of 100X, regardless of the opposing players or the outcome.

I was merely pointing out that, defensively, Romeo is pretty obviously better right now in that 1-3 stopper role. Brad also thought this, which is why Romeo saw a ton of time on the tougher Nets assignments as that series went on.
 

reggiecleveland

sublime
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Mar 5, 2004
24,937
Saskatoon Canada
But to be perfectly clear, I'd take Romeo's on-ball defense over Tristan's jump hook 100 out of 100X, regardless of the opposing players or the outcome.
That's not rational.
Romeo is an open book, hasn't done anything yet to deserve that type of confidence. I understand wish casting but he hasn't, mostly due to injuries, done anything yet. I still think good Canadian kid Brandon Clarke would have been a better pick, I get that's based on what has happened and not we are pretty sure is going to happen.
 

reggiecleveland

sublime
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Mar 5, 2004
24,937
Saskatoon Canada
Also my desire to draft Clarke on draft night was almost entirely based on him being one of the few players I knew anything about, since he is Canadian, so it wasn't like obvious to everyone in a "time to pull Pedro" type of obvious. So I am not claiming any special insight there.
 
Last edited:

HomeRunBaker

bet squelcher
SoSH Member
Jan 15, 2004
21,786
Clarke is 3 years older, and regressed last year after an excellent rookie year. It wouldn't be surprising if Langford is a better player in 2 years.
I’ve never been a Clarke guy. Limited upside as he doesn’t possess much in terms of creating his own offense, has alligator arms (for his size), and seems fully developed physically. If there is an expansion draft today I’m snap-taking Romeo.
 

radsoxfan

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 9, 2009
10,871
I’ve never been a Clarke guy. Limited upside as he doesn’t possess much in terms of creating his own offense, has alligator arms (for his size), and seems fully developed physically. If there is an expansion draft today I’m snap-taking Romeo.
There is a very good chance Clarke's rookie season is better than the best year of Romeo's career.

Year 2 for Clarke was less promising, somewhat concerning.
 

lovegtm

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 30, 2013
8,404
Kiev, Ukraine
There is a very good chance Clarke's rookie season is better than the best year of Romeo's career.

Year 2 for Clarke was less promising, somewhat concerning.
This is the problem with (almost) 25 year-old bigs who have no standing reach. All Romeo has to do to be way better than Clarke is to be moderately competent/mediocre on offense. Positional value+relative size and age take care of the rest.

Seriously, Clarke is freakishly small for a big. He and Romeo actually have the same standing reach (8'6"). This isn't a Romeo-humping thing; I've never understood the obsession with Clarke at all (not on your part).
 

benhogan

Granite Truther
SoSH Member
Nov 2, 2007
12,053
Santa Monica
That's not rational.
Romeo is an open book, hasn't done anything yet to deserve that type of confidence. I understand wish casting but he hasn't, mostly due to injuries, done anything yet. I still think good Canadian kid Brandon Clarke would have been a better pick, I get that's based on what has happened and not we are pretty sure is going to happen.
I guess that makes me irrational.

BTW I'm sending you all my Oshae Brissett, Kris Joseph, Tyler Ennis and Leo/Andy Rautins posters from their days at Cuse to add to your collection of dominant Canadien hoopers.
 

wade boggs chicken dinner

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 26, 2005
23,781
It's funny. Some people killed Danny for not taking high upside picks. Romeo is a super high-upside pick who certainly could still bust out - though if he does, it will be because of injuries rather than lack of skill/talent/athleticism/work ethic IMO.

Even if Romeo busts with the Cs, I think the pick was a good one.
 

Cesar Crespo

79
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
16,496
It's funny. Some people killed Danny for not taking high upside picks. Romeo is a super high-upside pick who certainly could still bust out - though if he does, it will be because of injuries rather than lack of skill/talent/athleticism/work ethic IMO.

Even if Romeo busts with the Cs, I think the pick was a good one.
One of him or Nesmith needs to work out otherwise it's pretty disappointing. One of the two not working is pretty much expected.
 

BigSoxFan

Member
SoSH Member
May 31, 2007
39,216
One of him or Nesmith needs to work out otherwise it's pretty disappointing. One of the two not working is pretty much expected.
Yup. We really need one of these guys to hit and be a consistent, no doubter rotation player. If both of them hit, we're in really good shape. If neither of them do, Brad will have his work cut out for him.
 

radsoxfan

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 9, 2009
10,871
This is the problem with (almost) 25 year-old bigs who have no standing reach. All Romeo has to do to be way better than Clarke is to be moderately competent/mediocre on offense. Positional value+relative size and age take care of the rest.

Seriously, Clarke is freakishly small for a big. He and Romeo actually have the same standing reach (8'6"). This isn't a Romeo-humping thing; I've never understood the obsession with Clarke at all (not on your part).
I'm certainly not a huge Clarke fan, just pointing out he already has a solid to good NBA season under his belt. Romeo may not ever do that.

If Romeo becomes moderately competent on offense I agree he has the upside to be much better than Clarke. But there is a big gap between what we have seen and moderately competent, though he has still has time to close it.

Would most teams trade Romeo for Clarke right now? Probably depends on each team's situation. My hunch is that around the league Clarke probably has more value.
 

slamminsammya

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2006
5,277
Palo Alto
The disparity between the anger over TT missing a jump hook, vs unbridled optimism of the guy guarded by Romeo missing a jump hook will never cease to amaze me.
I feel like you are grafting attitudes from the game threads (which are mostly by posters who don't appear much in the port cellar) onto the discussions here. Tell me if I am wrong.
 

reggiecleveland

sublime
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Mar 5, 2004
24,937
Saskatoon Canada
I feel like you are grafting attitudes from the game threads (which are mostly by posters who don't appear much in the port cellar) onto the discussions here. Tell me if I am wrong.
No, Romeo has been touted as replacing Marcus. There is much talk of relief to be able to get rid of TT.
Casual hoops people hate bigs. They is a tendency for high school level players, etc, to think all that kept them out of the next level was their size. Also people wish cast about prospects. A guy like Romeo fits that. He has not played enough to prove he anything, so all kinds of potential can be reflected on him. If he doesn't pan out they know they have the injury exzcuse. It is lazy, pointless, safe posting.

It's nothing against Romeo, either, as I said I have talked to G-league guy who said if one of him and Nesmith end up top 7 players that is above average results. I was mostly hoping for Clarke not Grant.
 

JakeRae

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 21, 2005
6,887
New York, NY
No, Romeo has been touted as replacing Marcus. There is much talk of relief to be able to get rid of TT.
Casual hoops people hate bigs. They is a tendency for high school level players, etc, to think all that kept them out of the next level was their size. Also people wish cast about prospects. A guy like Romeo fits that. He has not played enough to prove he anything, so all kinds of potential can be reflected on him. If he doesn't pan out they know they have the injury exzcuse. It is lazy, pointless, safe posting.

It's nothing against Romeo, either, as I said I have talked to G-league guy who said if one of him and Nesmith end up top 7 players that is above average results. I was mostly hoping for Clarke not Grant.
The negative appeal to authority isn’t helping your argument.

People don’t value Tristan because a lot of us don’t think he’s very good. I’ll use myself as an example. I thought Tristan was a big overpay and it has nothing to do with his position. I would’ve gladly paid Theis that much money in a reversed situations scenario. I think Timelord has a ton of talent. I think Horford is still a quality NBA player.

Tristan’s problem isn’t that he’s a big, it’s that he has one true NBA level skill—rebounding. He’s a bad offensive player who bogs down an offense because he cannot shoot, cut, drive, or finish and does not pass. He’s also a mediocre defender who can be taken advantage of by true bigs, isn’t quick enough to switch onto wings, and doesn’t effectively control the lane or challenge dribble penetration. He does have a good BBIQ on defense and is good enough at many of the weaknesses I noted to be not terrible. He’s also a really good rebounder, and that isn’t worthless.

Again, I don’t hate bigs. I don’t hate Tristan. But I don’t think he has meaningful value as an NBA player either. That’s because he’s not good at most of the things you want a big, or any player, to be able to do.