Trading Chips and Keepers

wutang112878

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 5, 2007
6,066
Thus far it seems they are simply not using a traditional PG whatsoever unless you consider what Bradley is doing PG play. 
 

nighthob

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
12,678
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?
 
Part of the point of this season was Boston getting under the luxury tax line, and at the end of the day they didn't have the room to sign someone like Tinsley. Combined with their determination to suck like Lindsay Lohan after a quart of rum and an eightball of coke they decided to go as is.
 

Morgan's Magic Snowplow

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 2, 2006
22,345
Philadelphia
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

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
5,936
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 . . . .
 

wutang112878

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 5, 2007
6,066
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.
 
Danny can also deny that he is actively making moves to tank.  He can point to the KG/PP trade as being made to make the team better in the long term.  But then after that, because they are so close to the luxury tax line, they werent going to use the MLE for a rebuilding team so he can say his hands were tied.  Then come deadline time I am sure one of our more effective players gets moved for some sliver of value and effectively our talent is reduced.
 
 
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 . . . .
 
I think Favs falls into the tanking plan a bit too.  It seems like Danny recognized the talent, but he is also a young player who has never played in the NBA so it was going to take him some time to develop and developing players generally dont lead you to a lot of wins.  Thats exactly the type of player Danny is looking for at the moment.
 

PedroKsBambino

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 17, 2003
31,189
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

Banned
Feb 15, 2011
3,755
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. 
 

nighthob

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
12,678
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. 
 
Which the long history of young coaches without even a single second's NBA experience taking over shitty teams and turing them around bears out.
 
I mean, seriously, were people expecting that Stevens wasn't going to be juggling around his floor lineups to figure out what worked?
 

wutang112878

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 5, 2007
6,066
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.
 
This brings up an interesting debate on the development of young players, which is better the 'right environment' or 'minutes'.  Take the Nets as an example, besides the inexperienced coach, they have a great PG and knowledge veterans (KG&PP) who play the right way and can teach a young player.  However, because of the talent on that roster and the team expectations chances are a rookie wouldnt get much playing time there.  Whereas, Orlando is awful and Nelson is an adequate PG, but most importantly a rookie can get tons of minutes there.  Some players will develop better in the 'right environment' over 'getting minutes', but I think the majority of young players will develop more when they are getting significant minutes. 
 
We could bring Chris Paul in tomorrow and I dont think Olynyk's development is really significantly impacted
 

Brickowski

Banned
Feb 15, 2011
3,755
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.
 

wutang112878

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 5, 2007
6,066
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
 
I am not suggesting he is trying to maximize wins, but are there really any clear cut solid lineups for him to roll out there?  Faverani is their only true C and he is starting and playing decent minutes considering his inexperience and propensity to foul.  The only 2s he has are below average.  They want to showcase Green but he doesnt have a true position.  I cant tell you why Bass is playing over Humphries and why Sully isnt immediately getting more minutes than both of them, but thats really my only gripe.  The roster isnt just unbalanced its just missing true NBA caliber pieces all over the place
 

nighthob

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
12,678
 
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.
 
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

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 5, 2007
6,066
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.
 
Wish I saw this before I posted.
 
I agree on Bass, no clue why he is playing at all.  Give those minutes to Sully or Olynyk. 
 
I can kind of understand Crawford because considering his low salary he might be movable for something.  But then I think of Lee, and I would much rather give those minutes to Lee to see if they could increase his value so maybe, just maybe that deal might be movable.  What it comes down to is the chance of increasing the value of either of those 2 enough to actually get something for them is pretty remote, so it really doesnt matter who they give minutes to.
 
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.
 
I think Sully and Favs should get the bulk of the 4/5 minutes but I dont see that as winning that many more games for us.  They are still so young they will make plenty of mistakes which should lead to plenty of losses.  Plus, Favs looks good now but give him a month after the book is out on him from scouts and he is not going to look as good as he does right now
 

wutang112878

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 5, 2007
6,066
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.
 
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. 
 

nighthob

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
12,678
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. 
 
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

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 29, 2007
63,740
Rotten Apple
wutang112878 said:
I agree on Bass, no clue why he is playing at all.  
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

Banned
Feb 15, 2011
3,755
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.
 
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

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 5, 2007
6,066
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.
 
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.
 
 
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.
 
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
 
 
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.
 
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. 
 

nighthob

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
12,678
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.
 
Yeah, but you never saw Perkins as the primary helpside defender once Garnett was here. The problem is that you need someone to fill that roll, and none of three guys are really capable of it yet. Bass is the only guy on the roster at the moment even remotely competent at it. And I'm not saying this as a positive, to me this is an indication of just how far Boston has to go and why people need to temper their expectations of a quick turnaround. When Brandon Bass is your best option as primary helpside defender your team is in a lot of trouble.
 
But, anyway, as I indicated, state of the art statistical analysis in basketball is done on five man units, and we should should just get used to the fact that ut will take Boston a few months to develop a steady base of data for the statisticians to work with.
 

Sprowl

mikey lowell of the sandbox
Dope
SoSH Member
Jun 27, 2006
34,437
Haiku
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
 
The two-year contract is harder and more important to move. An expiring contract is an asset -- Humphries doesn't need to be showcased (although the team probably needs him to be playing if they want to lose more respectably).
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
34,460
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.
 

radsoxfan

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 9, 2009
13,622
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.
 
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

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
34,460
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.
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.
 

Sprowl

mikey lowell of the sandbox
Dope
SoSH Member
Jun 27, 2006
34,437
Haiku
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.
 
I agree that Bass is pretty poor in most dimensions of the pro game, but the announcers for the Jazz broadcast were giving Bass props for playing very well against Miami. Maybe there's still a rosy glow left over from past years' association with Rondo and the Big Three. It certainly won't last long, so I can see why Ainge and Stevens might want to get lucky by showcasing Bass while they can.
 
On a related note, it's amazing to me that the Celtics are bad enough to lose to teams as inept as the Raptors and Bucks. The NBA's also-rans in 2013-14 are awful, truly awful.
 

radsoxfan

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 9, 2009
13,622
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.
 
A valuable member of the Championship team?  Are we talking about Brandon Bass here?
 
He's a good FT shooter, I'll give you that.  If by "decent" and "passable" you mean "horrific", then we might be on the same page.  And we haven't gotten to what a terrible rebounder he is, which for PF, is sorta important.  
 

nighthob

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
12,678
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.
 
Maybe you're thinking of his predecessor? Because Bass was in Dallas when the Magic lost in the finals and Orlando when Dallas won the title. This is his third year in Boston. Also, he's had two seasons in his entire career where his shooting reached above average, neither of them here in Boston. He is a good free throw shooter, though. You did get that part right.
 

mcpickl

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 23, 2007
4,546
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. 
 
Bass at 2/13.3M is far and away the more desirable contract to move than Humphries 1yr/12M
 
For a rebuilding team, moving the bigger salary isn't the goal, moving the longer term is.
 
If you can only showcase one(if that's what is happening) Bass is the guy for the possibility of trading him for a guy expiring this year and you can have both Bass and Humphries off the books this summer.
 

mcpickl

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 23, 2007
4,546
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.
 
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)
 

nighthob

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
12,678
Bass is 6'7" and 240 soaking wet. He isn't a replacement for a third string center. He's strictly a backup 4. One of the less useful positions (which is to say you like your reserves to be able to cover multiple spots on the floor). Boston did not seek him out and if they hadn't elected to make one more run with the old squad in 2013 his Celtic career would have ended after one season (the only reason they re-signed him was that they had no other options at the 4 once the decision was made to re-up Garnett and keep rolling the same team out). He doesn't really provide a lot out there to make him attractive at that salary.
 

radsoxfan

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 9, 2009
13,622
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)
 
Michael Beasley has played 4 minutes this season.  He sucks, and Miami knows it. I suppose Miami might prefer Bass, but thats an indictment on Beasley more than anything.  I don't think either of them should be getting much playing time on that team.  Also, for some of the other guys, I don't think any of those teams wants Brandon Bass as their backup center (though Mullins I agree is quite terrible).
 
Perhaps I was being hyperbolic when I said Bass was one of the worst players in the NBA last year.... I meant he was one of the worst players who had a real role on a team (he played an astounding 28 minutes/game last year for a playoff team).  I admit guys #10-15 on the bench for plenty of these teams that could be worse.
 
My opinion of Bass is based mostly on his play last year.  In his career, he has had seasons where he can be useful, I won't argue with that.  But last year, he was in fact, total garbage.  That's not bashing him because he isn't a star.  That's stating what he was last season.  If he can have a decent 30 game start to this year, and convince some team to trade for him, Danny would be thrilled.
 

DannyDarwinism

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 7, 2007
4,883
Bass was really bad last year.  He had far and away the worst +/- on the team at -174.  For reference, the team overall was -18 for the year.  Lee was next worse individual at -91 overall in comparable minutes, and looking at Lee's 5 man unit data, he fared much better when he was on the floor with guys who weren't Brandon Bass.    The majority of Bass's minutes were played with both Pierce and Garnett, who had the highest +/- on the team, so while some of his +/- can likely be attributed to the fact that he was subbing in for KG, I don't think that's an overriding factor.  His WPA/48 last year was 0.8, significantly worse than average.  His rebound rate fell to 6.8 per 36 minutes. His eFG% on jump shots was the worst of his career at .451.  His outside touch was his one plus skill, so the regression last year was particularly troubling.
 
None of this should come as any big surprise to those who watched him play last year.  He looked utterly lost out there.  If he can shoot and rebound like he did for a couple of seasons with Dallas and Orlando, I think he absolutely has value as a back-up big, but if he's the guy from the last two years, he's worth about a second rounder and a bad contract.  Dime-a-dozen undersized bigs who don't do anything particularly well and are making 7 mil a year aren't particularly valuable.
 

Steve Dillard

wishes drew noticed him instead of sweet & sour
SoSH Member
Oct 7, 2003
5,932
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?
How many of the other kids fit into that elite already proven category, vs. the "great potential" category of so many 19 Year olds?   Also, is there a cliff (top 4?) we need to get above?
Rk Name Pos. From Stock
1 Andrew Wiggins SG Kansas
All-around game reminds of T-Mac 
2 Julius Randle PF Kentucky
Proto-type power forward 
3 Dante Exum PG Australia
Blend of athleticism, skill at 1 & 2
4 Jabari Parker SF Duke
Smart, do-it-all, forward 
5 Marcus Smart PG Oklahoma State
Tough, super-competitive guard 
6 Joel Embiid C Kansas
Raw, freaky big man all about upside 
7 Aaron Gordon PF Arizona
Freak athlete caught between 3 & 4 
8 Andrew Harrison PG Kentucky
Huge PG does everything well 
9 James Young SF Kentucky
Do-it-all wing drawing raves from scou ... 
10 Dario Saric PF Croatia
"Point 4" has amazing basketball IQ 
 

JakeRae

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 21, 2005
8,125
New York, NY
Steve Dillard said:
Is Wiggins of the Lebron quality, or a notch below like Durant?
 
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

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 17, 2003
31,189
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.
 
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.
 
The "play Humphries" logic would be that you want to use him enough someone thinks he can contribute this year, in addition to teams looking at him as a salary dump with the expiring deal.  I do think he can play, and like Bass he's really a role player on a good team (different role than Bass).  Not sure why he doesn't get more run, but for whatever reason that does seem to be their plan.
 

radsoxfan

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 9, 2009
13,622
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.
 
 
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.
 

moly99

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 28, 2007
939
Seattle
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 . . . .
 
The point of rebuilding is to emerge with young players you can build around. Faverani is only 25.
 
If Olynyk turns into a Nowitzki type player and Faverani turns into a Marc Gasol type player and the Celtics make the playoffs that's fine. They can rebuild around those guys. And if the young guys don't turn in ROTY seasons and the Celtics lose a ton of games and end up with a top 5 pick that's fine 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?
 
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.
 

Morgan's Magic Snowplow

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 2, 2006
22,345
Philadelphia
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.
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.
 

PedroKsBambino

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 17, 2003
31,189
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.
 
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
 

radsoxfan

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 9, 2009
13,622
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
 
What gave you that impression??
 
I'm still scarred from watching him run around last season like a chicken with his head cut off. I joke about the drinking before games, but he played as if he was drunk. Doc allowing him to play almost 30 minutes a game didn't help things either, though part of the problem was the lack of other options and KG's minutes limit. 
 
I admit I'm being overly harsh based on one year's performance though, as he has proven useful at some points in his career. He's not that old, so let's hope he gets back to that point.
 
Apparently he learned to swim this offseason http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1793244-celtics-brandon-bass-is-learning-how-to-swim-at-the-age-of-28.... So anything is possible!
 

wutang112878

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 5, 2007
6,066
I feel like this article was written to try to pump up Bass's trade value, but even with the small sample I cant believe the numbers:

 
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.
 
 
I hope some other GMs take notice so I dont have to watch him anymore.  Oh and Danny please trade Crawford or just release him while you're at it.
 

Blacken

Robespierre in a Cape
SoSH Member
Jul 24, 2007
12,152
wutang112878 said:
Oh and Danny please trade Crawford or just release him while you're at it.
You despise entertainment.

But we knew that.
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
34,460
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.
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.
 
I still expect him to fall to earth and be a below average defender, but I think sample size is a much more likely reason for the number than competition.
 

Blacken

Robespierre in a Cape
SoSH Member
Jul 24, 2007
12,152
Well, yeah. Crawford's not good, but he's about as much fun as you're going to get this year with the dumpster fire that the Celtics are putting on the court. I want him launching heat-check threes just 'cause.
 

Koufax

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
5,936
Closest thing we have to Ricky Davis, whom I loved to watch.
 

Blacken

Robespierre in a Cape
SoSH Member
Jul 24, 2007
12,152
Ricky Davis is available. He worked out for the Knicks this year.

Make it happen, Danny. Three guards who all (wrongly) think they're Steph Curry on the floor at the same time. At least make this losing shit fun.