Trade Brad Stevens and a first round pick (nets or another one depending if Nets is in top 2) to Indiana for Paul George?
Would you...
- Thread starter Clears Cleaver
- Start date
No chance. Unless I knew Stevens was going to leave anyway, I wouldn't trade him alone for George.
The value of a coach in the NBA isnt on the same level as say the NFL, but there is still value in having a good coach. Recently Chad Finn had a tweet where he asked how many titles Boston would have won during the Big3 era if Stevens was the coach instead of Doc. Now Doc's not a horrible coach, I think Finn's question is a good one and I think they would have won at least 1 more with Stevens.
Based on that I'm not trading him for George. George is very good but he isnt Lebron where the team will contend as long as they have some other talent on the roster. When people look at the run that San Antonio has had obviously thats a combination of a great GM, the stability of Duncan and the influx of new stars that they found without bottoming out like Parker, Ginobli, Leonard and now Aldridge but Popovich has played a large and sometimes under-rated role in that as well. In Stevens I think we have a coach who could do something similar like that here if he had the influx of talent. I think we have a coach capable of winning a title so that aspet of our organization is all set and I'm not sure if George is a capable of winning a title as your best player, so I'd have a tough time making that trade.
Based on that I'm not trading him for George. George is very good but he isnt Lebron where the team will contend as long as they have some other talent on the roster. When people look at the run that San Antonio has had obviously thats a combination of a great GM, the stability of Duncan and the influx of new stars that they found without bottoming out like Parker, Ginobli, Leonard and now Aldridge but Popovich has played a large and sometimes under-rated role in that as well. In Stevens I think we have a coach who could do something similar like that here if he had the influx of talent. I think we have a coach capable of winning a title so that aspet of our organization is all set and I'm not sure if George is a capable of winning a title as your best player, so I'd have a tough time making that trade.
I mean Vogel is a decent coach probably above average, but are you joking with McHale? He's about as average as they come.
The other thing is that his players seem to really like Stevens and he has a good reputation. So if you're trying to attract free agents (which we will be doing) that can go a long way and have value beyond just his coaching.
And if you get the reputation as team that ditches its popular coach for no good reason, that can work the other way.
And if you get the reputation as team that ditches its popular coach for no good reason, that can work the other way.
the McHale was a test of the rationality. I suspect that no one in Indiana would trade George for Stevens
How much did the Celtics players rally around Stevens when they couldn't score against playoff level defenses the past two springs? This is a coach who has done a great job to boot. A head coaches value is that of a backend rotation guy, 8th-9th man, which is why they are compensated as such. Look at Vogel today vs two years ago.
You trade George for the #1, Stevens, the entire coaching staff, and your entire executive secretary staff without blinking an eye if you're looking to improve the talent on the floor which is what wins in the NBA.
You trade George for the #1, Stevens, the entire coaching staff, and your entire executive secretary staff without blinking an eye if you're looking to improve the talent on the floor which is what wins in the NBA.
Add Paul George to those Celtics teams and how many more titles do they win?
I am a tremendous Brad Stevens fan. I think he has a chance to be the best coach of his generation. I understand and share in the exuberance others feel for the contributions Stevens has already made to turning the Celtics franchise around.
But I also think this question is insane - at least insofar as it contemplates a straight BS for PG swap. Admittedly, the draft pick adds some uncertainty since you don't know how that player will turn out. PG, after all, was drafted 10th overall, like our own Mr. Pierce.
Regardless, long wings who are elite on both ends of the floor and can play small ball 4, like PG, are the rarest and most valued commodity in today's NBA. For those of you who would consider such a swap: how do you value PG's impact on winning versus Stevens? Do you know something about quantifying the value of coaches the rest of us don't?
Stevens would not have done any better than Doc.
In 2008 with a healthy team, Doc won it all.
In 2009, the team was rolling until KG's knee gave out. Stevens doesn't win with Big Baby as his PF.
In 2010, we were a ref hose job away from another title and damn near won it anyways. Maybe Stevens reminds Ray how to make an open 3.
In 2011, we ran into the Miami Big 3. No chance.
In 2012, Doc took a horrid aging team and damn near took down an improved Big 3 Miami squad.
In 2008 with a healthy team, Doc won it all.
In 2009, the team was rolling until KG's knee gave out. Stevens doesn't win with Big Baby as his PF.
In 2010, we were a ref hose job away from another title and damn near won it anyways. Maybe Stevens reminds Ray how to make an open 3.
In 2011, we ran into the Miami Big 3. No chance.
In 2012, Doc took a horrid aging team and damn near took down an improved Big 3 Miami squad.
I look at it as value. You get Paul George, but him alone doesn't win a title. If you put the necessary talent it takes to win around Brad Stevens, he'll win. If he wins, he'll be around Boston for a decade-plus like Popovich is with San Antonio. Do you want 5 great years out of PG and the possibility that the coach doesn't gel the talent or 10 plus great years of Stevens plus top end talent? The Celtics have the assets and cap space to make a bona fide championship team. Brad Stevens doesn't have to be one of those assets.
It's a ridiculous scenario anyways, because there's no way anyone trades Paul George for a coach (I don't think the Brooklyn pick plus Stevens gets you George unless Indiana over does it on the ethanol either), but of course you do.
Paul George instantly makes this team lightyears better. He is a two-way monster - not as good as Lebron or Kawhi, but capable of the same kind of dominance. He's the kind of player you look to build for the next decade around. He'd be the teams best shooter on the wing instantly. He'd make Thomas so so so much better.
Paul George instantly makes this team lightyears better. He is a two-way monster - not as good as Lebron or Kawhi, but capable of the same kind of dominance. He's the kind of player you look to build for the next decade around. He'd be the teams best shooter on the wing instantly. He'd make Thomas so so so much better.
Paul George has a heck of a better chance of recruiting a top flight FA or convincing an all-star to accept a trade to Boston than Brad Stevens does, me thinks.
Its 2009/10 and 2011/12 that I think Stevens makes a 1 game difference which would be the difference in getting a title. He has had the team revolving around Isaiah and with an unimpressive supporting cast Isaiah has had no real drop off in efficiency. Isaiah is a talent but he's not elite talent, so I can only imagine what he would have done with even an aging Big3. In 2010 we were a few plays away from beating the Lakers and I'd be willing to bet Stevens could make a couple of plays difference.
83% of voters prefer an NBA coach over an All-NBA player in his prime. That is beyond insane.
This is really all about who you replace Stevens with. We basically know the quality of who you Paul George is replacing (someone okay, but not especially good who you'd otherwise use that cap space on). If we swap out Stevens for George, and then bring in a very generic coach, then that might be a loss. However, if you're Danny Ainge, and you were the one who hired Stevens in the first place, maybe you can find another very good coach?
Without knowing, I'd make that swap, and bet on Ainge bringing in another top tier hire. Stevens is great, but I do believe there are a lot of other very good potential coaches out there - many NBA GMs just don't know what to look for. The market for NBA players is a lot more efficient than the market for NBA coaches.
Without knowing, I'd make that swap, and bet on Ainge bringing in another top tier hire. Stevens is great, but I do believe there are a lot of other very good potential coaches out there - many NBA GMs just don't know what to look for. The market for NBA players is a lot more efficient than the market for NBA coaches.
I mostly voted against b/c I wasn't completely sold on George. I wouldn't trade Stephens + the Brooklyn pick for George, b/c I am not completely sold on him being the player he used to be pre-injury. I would trade that package for Butler though b/c he seems a safer bet.
Fun stat of the day:
From 2003 to 2013 every Coach of the Year Award winner not named Popovich was fired within 4 seasons of winning the award. 9 for 9. The typical shelf life for a Head Coach with any one team is not very long.
This seems wrong to me for a few reasons. 1) George's stats look fine, and the team was pretty good. I don't see any reason to think he's not the player he was pre-injury; 2) George pre-injury was in the conversation for being a top 5 player - even if he's not the same player he was, he has some room to fall; 3) George is actually a year younger than Butler fwiw.
My point was that the shelf lives are very short even for the most successful head coaches as they are only as good as the players who carry their team.
Yeah, I was just kidding. That said, I think this just points to an issue with coach of the year as a way to judge good coaching. As I posted in another thread, the coach of the year award overlaps strongly with which team beat their Vegas expectation by the most. That might end up selecting for a lot of fluke teams, and may make it hard for the top coaches to win, because Vegas already knows their teams will be good going into the year.
Bowiac already appropriately criticized whether COTY is a good measure of elite coaching. True elite coaching, aka Pop, Red, Jackson (I hate including him but he probably belongs) are incredibly rare. I think how you answer this question depends on if you see Stevens as realistically entering those ranks. If you do, 25 years of elite coaching is more valuable that 5 seasons of a top 10 player, I think. If you don't, 5 seasons of a top 10 player is more valuable than anything you'd get from a lesser caliber coach.
What level of coaching talent Stevens is has yet to be answered yet. I think he's somewhere between Pop, at the high end, and Rick Carlisle, at the low end. That's a range of elite to very good, but that range makes all the difference. I would not trade a young Pop for almost any individual player. I would trade a young RC for pretty much any top tier player. (Coach age matters. I'd probably trade Pop for Paul George right now because he might not be coaching for too much longer. Stevens probably has another 20+ years if he is successful and wants to keep going, so his value is higher if he actually is at that level.)
Shit happens with players. Sometimes they get hurt. All the time, they get old. Stevens will still be the same coach in ten years. Unless we're talking about Steph Curry, I'll take an elite coach, provided everything you know says that he's happy in his job.
He just had perhaps his best year of his career though at age 25. His injury seems like a non factor at this point