Rudy Pemberton said:Agree, and I think that the C's erred by not bringing in a veteran who can at least run this team and make sure everyone doesn't fall into bad habits. Don't think Bogans qualifies. As it is now- if Bradley and the like continue to play as they have, so what? Who is going to call them out of replace them in the lineup?
Morgan's Magic Snowplow said:Honestly, its kind of an ingenious tanking strategy from Ainge. He won't tell the guys not to play hard (for good reason), he won't lean on Stevens to intentionally lose games (again, for good reason), and he probably would like to avoid making up a ton of phantom injuries late in the season. So he kneecapped the team mainly by constructing a roster that doesn't make any sense for several reasons, the biggest of which is that there is no actual point guard on the team unless you count an undrafted rookie.
Koufax said:Well that would explain the puzzling failure of Dealer Danny to move any of the flotsam and jetsam that he got in the Nets trade. It doesn't explain picking up Faverani. Maybe Danny thought he would suck too . . . .
Brickowski said:Of course there is a veteran first string pg on the team right now, but he's hurt.
Also, I do not think Stevens is trying to win games. His rotations are weird even counting the unbalanced roster.
PedroKsBambino said:I don't think getting a vet fill-in PG serves any purpose for this team this year. I hear the 'learning the right lessons' argument but don't find it especially compelling.
This team is designed 1) to lose a lot of games and generate high lottery spot 2) enable young players to play and learn on the job and 3) allow Stevens to experiment and build a system that will work. Bringing in a vet PG hurts the first objective, has pluses and minuses for the second (but on net is a negative by taking minutes away from younger guys) and does little to help the third.
Determining based on a half-season or more of regular PT whether Bradley can be any form of PG is a valuable experiment; I think the answer will be 'no' but so what? We are only going to learn if he has the chance. Bringing in a vet to win a couple more games just isn't where this team is right now.
Brickowski said:Of course there is a veteran first string pg on the team right now, but he's hurt.
Also, I do not think Stevens is trying to win games. His rotations are weird even counting the unbalanced roster.
Well at the risk of repeating myself, giving significant minutes to Brandon Bass and Jordan Crawford is not a winning strategy.
Bass plays well for stretches, but invariably does stupid things with the game on the line. He also slows down the offense whenever he touches the ball. He's a poor outlet passer, and more often than not, four guys stand around watching while he makes one of his awkward dribble moves. Sure, some of his jumpers go in, but he's a black hole. It's bad basketball.
As for Crawford, watching him is like scratching your fingernails on a blackboard. I can just hear his coaches screaming "Oh no, don't take it!.....nice shot" LOL. He also pounds the ball incessantly. Wastes half of every possession when he's playing the point.
IMHO more minutes for Sullinger and Faverani (with fewer minutes for Bass) and a regular shift for Pressey (with fewer minutes for Crawford) would produce more wins. And I believe that Stevens understands this very well.
Brickowski said:Well at the risk of repeating myself, giving significant minutes to Brandon Bass and Jordan Crawford is not a winning strategy.
Bass plays well for stretches, but invariably does stupid things with the game on the line. He also slows down the offense whenever he touches the ball. He's a poor outlet passer, and more often than not, four guys stand around watching while he makes one of his awkward dribble moves. Sure, some of his jumpers go in, but he's a black hole. It's bad basketball.
As for Crawford, watching him is like scratching your fingernails on a blackboard. I can just hear his coaches screaming "Oh no, don't take it!.....nice shot" LOL. He also pounds the ball incessantly. Wastes half of every possession when he's playing the point.
IMHO more minutes for Sullinger and Faverani (with fewer minutes for Bass) and a regular shift for Pressey (with fewer minutes for Crawford) would produce more wins. And I believe that Stevens understands this very well.
nighthob said:
The problem with all three of their big men is that they're painfully slow. I've had bowel movements quicker than Sullinger, Faverani, and Olynyk, so it's tough to have them paired up out there defensively speaking. And here's the fun thing, I am having this exact same debate with someone on another board, and his evidence that Stevens is "deliberately" losing is that he doesn't play Crawford and Bass enough.
Put another way, I think that what we're really seeing is a young coach with zero NBA experience in way over his head. And I'm pretty sure that this is exactly what the front office and ownership wanted, a coach that was a long term prospect but who'd be overmatched his first year or two coaching a roster that didn't have an ice cube's chance in Yuma of winning.
wutang112878 said:
Its a little more involved than just being slow. You can be slow and be effective (on defense) if you can still defend the paint and rebound. Garnett had times, especially towards the end, where he was slow but he still defended the paint very well. I dont think these guys can really defend the paint well together, nor rebound, so defensively we look like garbage. Offensively, to be kind, all of them are challenged and need to work on that area of their game.
I dont get the overmatched part though. What would you do that Stevens isnt doing that would make this team much better right now? I can see some little things here or there, but nothing that is really genuinely impactful.
Showcase for trade.wutang112878 said:I agree on Bass, no clue why he is playing at all.
If they want to play Crawford at shooting guard because Lee isn't performing, I can live with that. But they should never play Crawford at the point. It's not that he can't penetrate and dish, he does so on occasion. It's that he doesn't have the vaguest idea of how to run an offense. So, he dribbles...and dribbles... and dribbles.wutang112878 said:
I couldnt agree more with your gripes on Crawford, the way he plays is purely awful and the exact opposite of team basketball. It has to drive Stevens bonkers as well, which is why I am kind of surprised he keeps getting minutes, so thats sort of a head scratcher.
nighthob said:
Thing is that teams don't anchor two defenders in the paint. One man handles the job of primary paint defender and the other is the primary help defender. Which of those guys is going to be handling that task if, say, you have Faverani and Sullinger on the floor? Both are going to be a step slow cutting off dribble penetration, and that's what leads to fouls. Davis may not have had great end to end speed, but he had really good lateral quickness and great defensive awareness, which made him great at drawing charges. Boston's big men don't. So Bass gets playing time because of all their PFs he has the best combination of quickness and awareness of where he's supposed to be (physically Humphries is the best, but he's also one of the five stupidest people in the history of the game and runs around like a decapitated chicken on D).
I agree on the second part, I'm not sure that different tinkering will really impact the wins at this point. I always expected that they were coming out of the gate slow and Stevens to start throwing shit against the wall from day one to see which lineups work the best. That's going to be part of what's going on, the team statisticians need some data to work with as regards five man lineups to figure out what's going to work.
ifmanis5 said:Showcase for trade.
His numbers are actually half decent, it's just when you watch him all you want to do is strangle him. His basketball IQ is awful and he has no future here. As soon as he can be moved he will.
Brickowski said:If they want to play Crawford at shooting guard because Lee isn't performing, I can live with that. But they should never play Crawford at the point. It's not that he can't penetrate and dish, he does so on occasion. It's that he doesn't have the vaguest idea of how to run an offense. So, he dribbles...and dribbles... and dribbles.
wutang112878 said:
I'm not saying you want slow bigs, but if they are smart and can anticipate they can make up for a lack of speed. Take Perk, he wasnt fast moving in any direction, but he clogged up the lane mainly with anticipation. Now he is Acie Earl slow, but while he was here he wasnt fast but was effective. I dont think Favs or Sully could be great help defenders, but I think they could be adequate if they were just experienced enough to just play and react and not have to think. Its also funny that you of all people are defending the decision to play Bass because I know how much you hate him.
wutang112878 said:The showcase is probably the reason that confuses me the most. Which seems like the better contract to move 1yr/$12M or 2/$13.3M? Which is why I would think they would want to showcase Humphries not Bass
Humphries is expiring so less incentive to move him, and Bass is actually a pretty good basketball player. A team that is or thinks that it is a legitimate playoff contender might be willing to trade for Bass. LAst year was his worst, so showcasing him and having him play at or above his career level makes him a legitimate trade target. Humphries is more of a target for a team looking to get out from under a contract, so it doesn't matter if he plays.wutang112878 said:The showcase is probably the reason that confuses me the most. Which seems like the better contract to move 1yr/$12M or 2/$13.3M? Which is why I would think they would want to showcase Humphries not Bass
Cellar-Door said:Humphries is expiring so less incentive to move him, and Bass is actually a pretty good basketball player. A team that is or thinks that it is a legitimate playoff contender might be willing to trade for Bass. LAst year was his worst, so showcasing him and having him play at or above his career level makes him a legitimate trade target. Humphries is more of a target for a team looking to get out from under a contract, so it doesn't matter if he plays.
Is it really? Look at his stats. He's an efficient shooter, good freethrow shooter, passable defender. He was a valuable member of the championship team. He's overpaid for sure, but he's a legit NBA rotation player.radsoxfan said:
The bolded statement is..... false. Very false.
If a contending team (or any team) wants Bass, Danny should do anything in his power to make it happen, regardless of return. Assuming it doesn't require taking longer term contracts back, that trade would be a huge win for the C's.
radsoxfan said:
The bolded statement is..... false. Very false.
If a contending team (or any team) wants Bass, Danny should do anything in his power to make it happen, regardless of return. Assuming it doesn't require taking longer term contracts back, that trade would be a huge win for the C's.
Cellar-Door said:Is it really? Look at his stats. He's an efficient shooter, good freethrow shooter, decent passer, passable defender. He was a valuable member of the championship team. He's overpaid for sure, but he's a legit NBA rotation player.
Cellar-Door said:Is it really? Look at his stats. He's an efficient shooter, good freethrow shooter, passable defender. He was a valuable member of the championship team. He's overpaid for sure, but he's a legit NBA rotation player.
wutang112878 said:
I'm not saying you want slow bigs, but if they are smart and can anticipate they can make up for a lack of speed. Take Perk, he wasnt fast moving in any direction, but he clogged up the lane mainly with anticipation. Now he is Acie Earl slow, but while he was here he wasnt fast but was effective. I dont think Favs or Sully could be great help defenders, but I think they could be adequate if they were just experienced enough to just play and react and not have to think. Its also funny that you of all people are defending the decision to play Bass because I know how much you hate him.
The showcase is probably the reason that confuses me the most. Which seems like the better contract to move 1yr/$12M or 2/$13.3M? Which is why I would think they would want to showcase Humphries not Bass
I also hate watching him, and I wont say play point, but instead dribble the basketball as he attempts to orchestrate an offense. But I think the fact that he runs it shows how little confidence they have in Pressey running it right now.
radsoxfan said:
The bolded statement is..... false. Very false.
If a contending team (or any team) wants Bass, Danny should do anything in his power to make it happen, regardless of return. Assuming it doesn't require taking longer term contracts back, that trade would be a huge win for the C's.
mcpickl said:
This seems crazy to me.
You don't think Bass can be a backup big for a playoff contender?
Miami wouldn't prefer him to Michael Beasley? The Bulls wouldn't take him over Erik Murphy/Nazr Mohammed? Doc Rivers wouldn't want him over his BJ Mullens/Ryan Hollins cacafest? C'mon
I don't get why we have to run down Celtic players because they're not stars. Is Bass a guy you want starting on a championship contender? Hell no. But why does that have to equate to him being garbage? No question in my mind he'd be an upgrade to the bench of quite a few playoff contenders. (Not factoring in trade fit, just his talent level)
Steve Dillard said:Is Wiggins of the Lebron quality, or a notch below like Durant?
radsoxfan said:
The bolded statement is..... false. Very false.
If a contending team (or any team) wants Bass, Danny should do anything in his power to make it happen, regardless of return. Assuming it doesn't require taking longer term contracts back, that trade would be a huge win for the C's.
PedroKsBambino said:
Bass is not an asset playing 35 minutes a game as a focal guy on offense, sure.. However, as a backup 4 who can hit a jumper he has value for a contender, especially one that has a non-shooter as their starting 4 or 5. Think about his role with the GOOD Celts teams---he was a useful guy. There's teams out there who could use that, though I don't think there's a ton of trade value there.
Koufax said:Well that would explain the puzzling failure of Dealer Danny to move any of the flotsam and jetsam that he got in the Nets trade. It doesn't explain picking up Faverani. Maybe Danny thought he would suck too . . . .
Steve Dillard said:With the uncertainties of getting the top pick, I have heard the names Wiggins and Parker as being impact/cornerstone guys. Is Wiggins of the Lebron quality, or a notch below like Durant?
A lot of people are wondering whether he has the competitiveness and mental toughness of a guy like Durant as well. That's potentially very unfair, but I guess we'll start seeing tonight. I'm basically prepared for any outcome regarding Wiggins and this year at Kansas - dominating like Durant wouldn't surprise me, but neither would a very quiet year that leads to some real competition for the #1 slot in the draft.moly99 said:He isn't as good of a prospect as Durant, IMO. He is very athletic, but not especially polished. Dwight Howard is probably a better comparison, though obviously at a different position.
radsoxfan said:
The way Bass played last year, he would not be an asset to any team, in any role. He was that bad.
I agree he has a better chance to be a useful player in a more limited role as a backup big who is asked to perform very few, specific functions. If he plays like he did last season, its irrelevant because there is no role that he would have value.
But I suppose if you think he was asked to do too much last season, and thats the reason he cratered, then perhaps on a better team he has some value as a 15 minute a game guy (though not at his current salary).
He has nowhere to go but up this season, so I'm semi curious to see how he does. If he manages to stop drinking before games, that should help.
Are you forgetting Mr Russell?JakeRae said:
There is roughly one player in the history of the game, other than Lebron, that is of the Lebron quality. I would be shocked if Wiggins were another.
PedroKsBambino said:
I get the sense you don't like him much!
I think he has some value as a role player, even at his current salary. He needs the right situation, and that may or may not present itself in the trade market. He's not a huge chip in any scenario
Bass is allowing a minuscule 0.528 points per play (28 points on 53 possessions), according to individual defensive data logged by Synergy Sports.
What's more encouraging is the team's defensive performance when Bass is on the floor. The Celtics own a defensive rating of 95 points per 100 possessions with Bass on the court. That's 4.1 points less than the team's season average, and that number skyrockets to 106.3 when Bass is on the bench.
You despise entertainment.wutang112878 said:Oh and Danny please trade Crawford or just release him while you're at it.
It is five games which is way too small of a sample size, but it isn't terrible competition in terms of who he has been guarding: Gasol/Randolph, Drummond/Monroe, Favors/Kanter, those are good scoring 4/5 combos.Rudy Pemberton said:The numbers seem pretty meaningless; the entire season is five games, against mostly terrible competition. Comparing what a team has done when a player is on the floor vs off on a sample that small seems like it would have lots of noise in it.
We all loved Rafer Alston in the AND1 Mix Tour but he didn't amount to much in the NBA.You despise entertainment.
But we knew that.