2017 Celtics Offseason: News and General Discussion

[JakeRae]

Bingo. If that's his value then there's 29 other GMs in the league who are asleep at the wheel. He's not a perfect player but at a rookie scale contract for 3 years he's essentially free. And a very important contract as the tax looms.

Crowder is a very similar player in terms of both position and value to Otto Porter Jr. Porter just had multiple teams jumping to give him a max. Crowder is, admittedly, 3 years older, but he is still improving and locked up through age 29 at what is one of the, if not the, best value deals in the league (non Superstar division of value). It does appear, from what we can tell, that most of the league undervalues him. We should all be grateful the Celtics don't instead of people clamoring to run him out of town.

 

[southshoresoxfan]

Crowder is a very similar player in terms of both position and value to Otto Porter Jr. Porter just had multiple teams jumping to give him a max. Crowder is, admittedly, 3 years older, but he is still improving and locked up through age 29 at what is one of the, if not the, best value deals in the league (non Superstar division of value). It does appear, from what we can tell, that most of the league undervalues him. We should all be grateful the Celtics don't instead of people clamoring to run him out of town.

I got quite a chuckle from the Utah contingent that thought Ainge was going to cough up Crowder because they owed Utah one.

Reminded me of the Malcolm Butler situation where the Saints writers were convinced they were getting Butler for less than the #11 pick.

 

[luckiestman]

I got quite a chuckle from the Utah contingent that thought Ainge was going to cough up Crowder because they owed Utah one.

Reminded me of the Malcolm Butler situation where the Saints writers were convinced they were getting Butler for less than the #11 pick.

Was it just the Utah contingent? I think some Cs fans also thought something like that would happen. Then the national media was convinced Crowder was going to get traded and even BS seemed surprised Bradley not Crowder went.

Nighthob convinced me a while back with unassailable logic that Bradley was going to be the one to go and I couldn't disagree with him even though Bradley was my favorite guy to cheer for. That was more than over a season ago. Some of these media people are not even coming close to doing proper research.

 

[Auger34]

Was it just the Utah contingent? I think some Cs fans also thought something like that would happen. Then the national media was convinced Crowder was going to get traded and even BS seemed surprised Bradley not Crowder went.

Nighthob convinced me a while back with unassailable logic that Bradley was going to be the one to go and I couldn't disagree with him even though Bradley was my favorite guy to cheer for. That was more than over a season ago. Some of these media people are not even coming close to doing proper research.

PKB and I had a discussion about this in one of the threads on here but I was, and still am, shocked at just how wrong the national NBA media was (this includes even very smart guys like Nate Duncan, Kevin Pelton, and Danny Leroux) about who the Celtics were trying to get rid of after signing Heyyyyyaaward. It was treated as pretty much a foregone conclusion that Smart was going to be traded and even the mere idea of Avery Bradley being traded wasn't discussed. The complete misread of the situation was made even more glaring by the fact that pretty much every educated Celtics fan and most Boston media were in agreement that Bradley was definitely going to be the one to go for a few different reasons (mostly the fact he's a UFA after this year while Smart is an RFA, Smart is 3 years younger and the FO are huge fans of his).

It was very interesting to watch this play out and, to me at least, made it seem like its smarter to follow the good team specific websites for info versus the national media

 

[Fishy1]

PKB and I had a discussion about this in one of the threads on here but I was, and still am, shocked at just how wrong the national NBA media was (this includes even very smart guys like Nate Duncan, Kevin Pelton, and Danny Leroux) about who the Celtics were trying to get rid of after signing Heyyyyyaaward. It was treated as pretty much a foregone conclusion that Smart was going to be traded and even the mere idea of Avery Bradley being traded wasn't discussed. The complete misread of the situation was made even more glaring by the fact that pretty much every educated Celtics fan and most Boston media were in agreement that Bradley was definitely going to be the one to go for a few different reasons (mostly the fact he's a UFA after this year while Smart is an RFA, Smart is 3 years younger and the FO are huge fans of his).

It was very interesting to watch this play out and, to me at least, made it seem like its smarter to follow the good team specific websites for info versus the national media

Bradley has been a blind spot for a lot of media types for a long time -- it's a case of public perception not catching up with reality. The days of Bradley being a full-court ballhawk are long gone -- three or four years in the rearview mirror, in fact, but people still talk about him as if he were that defender. And if he's that defender -- how could you trade him! No doubt Bradley still can turn it on to be an elite on-ball defender, but anybody who watched the Cavs series can see that the idea that he's a point guard killer is just not true. Kyrie cooked him over and over again. And he's just not a versatile defender: he's just too fucking short, and that makes him a bad fit alongside IT, and he does a lot of the little things badly: he gets backdoored all the time, he's among the fucking worst in transition offense (as is Marcus, to be fair), he can't make basic passes, etc. Smart, meanwhile, can floor general, even if he can't shoot, and can defend 1-3 credibly.

All that in mind, I'm really surprised to see people still calling for Crowder to be traded. He is a versatile defender, he turns the ball over less, and he was the better shooter on greater volume last year, and he's on a ridiculous contract. There's no way on that contract you get good return. Paying him and Morris a combined 12 million to play what will likely be starter's minutes is an incredible steal.

 

[nighthob]

I don't think that any of us that think that Crowder will be traded are calling for it (to be brutally frank the year before the Rondo trade I had Crowder 2nd on my list of future free agent targets that I posted here). It's just the recognition that he has been giving all the signs of being an unhappy camper since Boston signed a SF, combined with some present realities (he's being underpaid, he's not ideal for the big wing spot in the small ball game, he wants a big deal in his future and being bumped down the usage chart hurts him, etc.) that make the scenario seem likely.

I think that Boston would be happy to keep him to help anchor a second unit, but the reality is that he doesn't seem to be happy about it. Now that there's no imperative to trade him, they're going to wait around for the right deal. And this is why I suspect that they've been hovering around the Irving proceedings, because Ainge could potentially exploit the Cavs' desire to win now for a higher pick than Crowder would normally bring in trade.

 

[pjheff]

he has been giving all the signs of being an unhappy camper since Boston signed a SF

Could you elaborate on "all the signs" that he has been giving since Hayward signed?

 

[Jimbodandy]

Again with the SF talk. They brought in a FA wing and traded one away. The only way that Crowder loses a lot of minutes is if he is outplayed by someone behind him on the depth chart like Tatum (unlikely), not by someone beside him on that chart like Hayseed.

 

[JakeRae]

I don't think that any of us that think that Crowder will be traded are calling for it (to be brutally frank the year before the Rondo trade I had Crowder 2nd on my list of future free agent targets that I posted here). It's just the recognition that he has been giving all the signs of being an unhappy camper since Boston signed a SF, combined with some present realities (he's being underpaid, he's not ideal for the big wing spot in the small ball game, he wants a big deal in his future and being bumped down the usage chart hurts him, etc.) that make the scenario seem likely.

I think that Boston would be happy to keep him to help anchor a second unit, but the reality is that he doesn't seem to be happy about it. Now that there's no imperative to trade him, they're going to wait around for the right deal. And this is why I suspect that they've been hovering around the Irving proceedings, because Ainge could potentially exploit the Cavs' desire to win now for a higher pick than Crowder would normally bring in trade.

What has Crowder said or done that makes you think he is unhappy in the aftermath of the signing? He said things during last season. But, that was about fans cheering for an opposing player, which he saw as disrespectful. Also, what makes you think he'll see less usage? I mean, sure, there's only so much ball, but Crowder was never a high usage player so continuing to get a reasonable number of looks seems likely.

I'm unaware of any indication Crowder is currently unhappy. It's also worth noting that Crowder's initial comments probably assumed Hayward would replace him. I think it's safe to say that's not the team's plan. And, given that Crowder now knows that plan, which would not have been discussed with him during the middle of last season, it makes sense that there is no evidence of him still being upset.

 

[the moops]

Again with the SF talk. They brought in a FA wing and traded one away. The only way that Crowder loses a lot of minutes is if he is outplayed by someone behind him on the depth chart like Tatum (unlikely), not by someone beside him on that chart like Hayseed.

They brought in one wing, traded for another, and spent the third pick in the draft on yet another. Collectively those three mirror everything that Crowder does.

 

[nighthob]

Could you elaborate on "all the signs" that he has been giving since Hayward signed?

You mean besides the reports of him being upset and his social media posts?

 

[DJnVa]

You besides the reports of him being upset and his social media posts?

What posts?

This article says he, unlike his teammates, didn't say anything: http://boston.cbslocal.com/2017/07/05/jae-crowder-gordon-hayward-celtics/

When I google "Jae Crowder upset Gordon Hayward signing" it all appears to be articles from back in January.

 

[pjheff]

You mean besides the reports of him being upset and his social media posts?

Could we just start with the reports and social media posts?

 

[JCizzle]

He's been liking a bunch of posts from trolls saying they want him off the team now, he sucks, etc. The standard motivate yourself athlete stuff that everyone does to prove the haters wrong and all that shit. Other than that, reports seemed to be the opposite: Jae has no issue playing with Hayward and gave the signing his blessing before they moved Avery.

https://www.bostonglobe.com/sports/celtics/2017/07/07/celtics-aren-expected-seek-jae-crowder-trade/3NGIQqVARl4bE08wbhWNfL/story.html

A source said the Celtics reached out to Crowder this week after Hayward agreed to sign with Boston, and that the understanding was that Crowder had no issue with playing with Hayward; he simply did not like hearing home fans cheer for an opponent.

If he really wanted out, that was his chance.

 

[Fishy1]

Crowder was upset because he thought fans wanted Hayward to replace him. But this is Crowder: he looks for motivation everywhere. He only posts in CAPS.

I would be stunned if this leadership group hadn't reached out to Crowder to make very, very clear to him that he has a significant role on this team going forward, and their public communications align with that view. Brad Stevens in his free agent pitches commonly shows players how he imagines them slotting in. He's probably done the same the same to assure Crowder that he's got a substantial role going forward. And he does: it's probable that on any given night, Tatum and Brown are going to be minuses on the floor, and Brad doesn't just give minutes out because a guy is a first round pick.

There's a chance, of course, Crowder's asked for a trade, or will ask for a trade. But I think the Celtics will do whatever they can to convince him to stay even if he does, because he's an incredible role-player, and makes this team very deep.

EDIT: JCizzle got there first, and with better info!

 

[mcpickl]

I think that Boston would be happy to keep him to help anchor a second unit, but the reality is that he doesn't seem to be happy about it.

Well, he's gonna be psyched when he finds out they don't want him to anchor a second unit, but that he's going to remain on the first unit.

Why do you keep doing this?

What starting lineup in your opinion wouldn't include Crowder?

I can't think of any that make sense that don't include Horford, Hayward, Crowder and Isaiah.

 

[Jimbodandy]

They brought in one wing, traded for another, and spent the third pick in the draft on yet another. Collectively those three mirror everything that Crowder does.

They need lots of wings, since there be 3 on the floor most of the time.

If Crowder doesnt understand that now, he will soon enough.

 

[the moops]

I think it is quite easy to imagine a starting lineup without Crowder in it. I agree that it is unlikely though, for he did start every game he played in last year.

But, a few different lineups that could start could be

IT/Smart/Hayward/Horford/Baynes - gives a more traditional big to go against other traditonal bigs

or

IT/Brown/Hayward/Morris/Horford - a small ball 4 lineup which hasd Morris who has a bit more size than Crowder and can match up better against other 4's.

 

[mcpickl]

I think it is quite easy to imagine a starting lineup without Crowder in it. I agree that it is unlikely though, for he did start every game he played in last year.

But, a few different lineups that could start could be

IT/Smart/Hayward/Horford/Baynes - gives a more traditional big to go against other traditonal bigs

or

IT/Brown/Hayward/Morris/Horford - a small ball 4 lineup which hasd Morris who has a bit more size than Crowder and can match up better against other 4's.

Lineup one has two non shooters, that's not going to happen. I'd guess Smart and Baynes are rarely on the floor together.

Lineup two, what have Brown or Morris shown to be a better starting option than Crowder? Why isn't IT/Hayward/Crowder/Morris/Horford a better small ball 4 lineup?

Crowder is better than Jaylen Brown by quite a bit at this point in his career. Trying to piece together a better starting lineup that doesn't include Crowder is trying to find a solution to a problem that doesn't exist.

 

[Cesar Crespo]

There's also a possibility Tatum starts but I think Tatum's ability to create his own shot will work better off the bench this year with Hayward and IT. Crowder should have a role this year but after that, who knows. They have a lot of rookie wings, Jaylen Brown and whatever Yabu is.

I also don't think it matters who starts. I could see Zizic starting but only getting 10 minutes a game.

In regards to Denver, Hernangomez and Lydon are also probably closer to mid 1st round picks. Lyles I have no idea.

 

[j-man]

i will take over your team in nba2k17

do u want me to be like agine or go for the big names and try to beat GS CLE

i will likely have to trade thomas just so i can get 21st or 2 really good players

but i am go with 2k roster or a custom that has tatum zizic larin

 

[DeJesus Built My Hotrod]

I think it is quite easy to imagine a starting lineup without Crowder in it. I agree that it is unlikely though, for he did start every game he played in last year.

But, a few different lineups that could start could be

IT/Smart/Hayward/Horford/Baynes - gives a more traditional big to go against other traditonal bigs

or

IT/Brown/Hayward/Morris/Horford - a small ball 4 lineup which hasd Morris who has a bit more size than Crowder and can match up better against other 4's.

Here is the thing - I don't think the C's are going to need more size that often. In fact, while the C's aren't anywhere near Golden State, the Warriors and others have shown that small line-ups can be lethal against bigger ones. There is a reason the C's don't have many bigs and that is because the most valuable ones resemble wings in terms of skill set. There are maybe one or two teams that the C's will face where they will need more size on the floor and maybe not even then.

Who, specifically, do you think presents the Celtics with match-up issues with lots of size that can play both inside and out? The Pelicans, of course, Milwaukee and maybe Denver. Who else?

 

[smastroyin]

They need lots of wings, since there be 3 on the floor most of the time.

If Crowder doesnt understand that now, he will soon enough.

Crowder does understand and his most recent social media "flare up" was to laugh at people that were tweeting at him that he was going to lose all his minutes.

Meanwhile, there are going to be 15-20 minutes per game where Crowder isn't playing, even if he keeps all of his minutes. I do think that Brad has more flexibility that he did last year, and there may as a result be more time where 2-3 starters are on the floor without Crowder. That doesn't make him expendable.

 

[Jimbodandy]

Crowder does understand and his most recent social media "flare up" was to laugh at people that were tweeting at him that he was going to lose all his minutes.

Meanwhile, there are going to be 15-20 minutes per game where Crowder isn't playing, even if he keeps all of his minutes. I do think that Brad has more flexibility that he did last year, and there may as a result be more time where 2-3 starters are on the floor without Crowder. That doesn't make him expendable.

Agreed completely. I said "if he doesn't understand yet" because I'm agnostic about his social media activities.

He's going to get minutes similar to last year. He's clearly a thoughtful and competitive guy, which is a feature, not a bug. And I have no doubt that Ainge and Stevens will explain his role to him sufficiently.

There is no credible reason to think that he will be a problem. In the very unlikely chance that someone behind him plays so well that Stevens is forced to eat into his minutes, thats a great problem to have. And only then would Ainge have reason to fire up the rolodex, maybe.

 

[smastroyin]

Yep, I'm with you. Probably should have grabbed a piece of the moops post for the minutes thing, but it was just in context of the discussion.

 

[HomeRunBaker]

Crowder is a very similar player in terms of both position and value to Otto Porter Jr. Porter just had multiple teams jumping to give him a max. Crowder is, admittedly, 3 years older, but he is still improving and locked up through age 29 at what is one of the, if not the, best value deals in the league (non Superstar division of value). It does appear, from what we can tell, that most of the league undervalues him. We should all be grateful the Celtics don't instead of people clamoring to run him out of town.

First off, nobody is clamoring to run him out of town only recognizing that we added 3 players, including a max guy and a 3rd overall pick, to perform his same duties while having this crazy thought that him losing his role may upset him enough to ask for a trade.

Secondly, we can revisit this in 4 years to compare Porter's next 4 years with Crowder's......I'm guessing they won't be resembling each other much. Damn, we can revisit it at the end of next season and they won't even be comparable I'm fairly certain.

 

[the moops]

I am just skeptical that Crowder can play many minutes as a small ball 4. Last year, while it was the 3rd most common configuration, IT/Bradley/Smart/Crowder/Horford, was actually one of their worst lineups (still decent at +5.9), and only accounted for 135 minutes all year. I can only see one other lineup with Crowder playing any significant minutes as the 4 - IT/Smart/Brown/Crowder/Horford - and that wasn't a very good lineup either.

Now, maybe this was all a function of the personnel and things will change significantly this year. Or maybe Theiss and/or Zizic and/or Yabusele will show enough that Crowder will not be forced to play those minutes. But if that happens, where is Crowder going to see his 32 minutes per game?

 

[bowiac]

I am just skeptical that Crowder can play many minutes as a small ball 4. Last year, while it was the 3rd most common configuration, IT/Bradley/Smart/Crowder/Horford, was actually one of their worst lineups (still decent at +5.9), and only accounted for 135 minutes all year. I can only see one other lineup with Crowder playing any significant minutes as the 4 - IT/Smart/Brown/Crowder/Horford - and that wasn't a very good lineup either.

Now, maybe this was all a function of the personnel and things will change significantly this year. Or maybe Theiss and/or Zizic and/or Yabusele will show enough that Crowder will not be forced to play those minutes. But if that happens, where is Crowder going to see his 32 minutes per game?

The Celtics were +2.8 for the year last year. Being +5.9 is by definition one of the better lineups.

 

[Smokey Joe]

PKB and I had a discussion about this in one of the threads on here but I was, and still am, shocked at just how wrong the national NBA media was (this includes even very smart guys like Nate Duncan, Kevin Pelton, and Danny Leroux) about who the Celtics were trying to get rid of after signing Heyyyyyaaward. It was treated as pretty much a foregone conclusion that Smart was going to be traded and even the mere idea of Avery Bradley being traded wasn't discussed. The complete misread of the situation was made even more glaring by the fact that pretty much every educated Celtics fan and most Boston media were in agreement that Bradley was definitely going to be the one to go for a few different reasons (mostly the fact he's a UFA after this year while Smart is an RFA, Smart is 3 years younger and the FO are huge fans of his).

It was very interesting to watch this play out and, to me at least, made it seem like its smarter to follow the good team specific websites for info versus the national media

I listened to the Nate Duncan podcast recently. He gave the Celtics a C- for the off season. He felt that trading Bradley was a big mistake, didn't like Tatum, couldn't understand why we kept Smart, was convinced that Baynes would be our starting center and didn't know why we let useful players like Kelly, Amir and Jonas go.

Sometimes I think that Ainge is playing chess and the media is critiquing his checker skills.

 

[Fishy1]

I am just skeptical that Crowder can play many minutes as a small ball 4. Last year, while it was the 3rd most common configuration, IT/Bradley/Smart/Crowder/Horford, was actually one of their worst lineups (still decent at +5.9), and only accounted for 135 minutes all year. I can only see one other lineup with Crowder playing any significant minutes as the 4 - IT/Smart/Brown/Crowder/Horford - and that wasn't a very good lineup either.

Now, maybe this was all a function of the personnel and things will change significantly this year. Or maybe Theiss and/or Zizic and/or Yabusele will show enough that Crowder will not be forced to play those minutes. But if that happens, where is Crowder going to see his 32 minutes per game?

There's been talk of starting Hayward at SG. That'd put Crowder at the 3 and Morris at the 4. Some nights that'll be a tough match-up. But, if anything, SG is the only place where you can hide someone most nights: most SGs are shooters and have little else in their arsenal.

There are seven shooting guards in the NBA who scored 20 points or more, and 3 of them (Booker, Wiggins, McCollum) started on terrible-bad teams. The other four are Harden, Thompson, Beal, and DeRozan. 2 of those guys are efficient, but do most of their damage shooting, and Derozan you want taking as many shots as possible in hopes Toronto beats themselves in the midrange. You'll also notice 3 of those 7 are within a couple inches of Hayward.

You start him AND Morris AND Crowder and you also reduce the number of players on the floor who will get steam-rolled by good SFs. And you can switch more. And you create match-up problems for other teams. And you start four guys who've had seasons of ~38% 3-pt shooting or better. This stuff is good for the team.

The other thing I'll say is that "small" line-up you've referred to resembles GS death line-up only in that it doesn't have true center. IT-Bradley-Smart-Crowder-Horford starts two guys who can't even guard their position and a third in Smart that's tasked with guarding guys four to five inches taller than him. There's four guys there under 6'6. With Bradley shipped out, and Hayward coming in for him, we'll be able to run out five guys between 6-6 and 6-10 if we want to.

EDIT: Forgot to point out what Bowiac did above. +5.9 is fucking great.

 

[pjheff]

But if that happens, where is Crowder going to see his 32 minutes per game?

Well, as he's neither a big nor a ballhandler, my guess would be wing.

 

[Eddie Jurak]

I am just skeptical that Crowder can play many minutes as a small ball 4. Last year, while it was the 3rd most common configuration, IT/Bradley/Smart/Crowder/Horford, was actually one of their worst lineups (still decent at +5.9), and only accounted for 135 minutes all year. I can only see one other lineup with Crowder playing any significant minutes as the 4 - IT/Smart/Brown/Crowder/Horford - and that wasn't a very good lineup either.

Now, maybe this was all a function of the personnel and things will change significantly this year. Or maybe Theiss and/or Zizic and/or Yabusele will show enough that Crowder will not be forced to play those minutes. But if that happens, where is Crowder going to see his 32 minutes per game?

I don't think that "too much Crowder at the 4" was the reason why IT/Bradley/Smart lineups struggled. I think the problem was going undersized (in some cases very undersized" at the 1, 2, 3, and 4 at the same time. With Hayward in for Bradley we'll see much less of that.

The Celtics are pretty obviously striving to play more wings and less smalls and bigs. Call Baynes for Amir a wash. Bradley, Olynyk, Jerebko (a small and 2 bigs) are being replaced by 3 wings (Hayward, Morris, Tatum). It's pretty obvious that they aren't "replacing Crowder" so much as they are planning to play more wings at the expense of bigs and smalls.

 

[JakeRae]

The Celtics were +2.8 for the year last year. Being +5.9 is by definition one of the better lineups.

In addition to this point, the above post ignores that the Celtics were about +20 when using Jerebko at the 4 along with Crowder, Horford, IT, and Smart or Bradley. That's probably the closest proxy for an IT/Smart/Hayward/Crowder/Horford lineup we have. It's not perfect, because Jerebko has a few inches on Hayward, but he's also a replacement level player. Added to this, Morris is, in many ways, a pure upgrade on Jerebko at that swing 3/4 position, and we'll probably play about half our minutes or more with him in that role.

Finally, where matchups call for it, Zivic and Baynes provide the Celtics with traditional bigs who can play expanded roles in an as needed basis.

 

[Auger34]

I listened to the Nate Duncan podcast recently. He gave the Celtics a C- for the off season. He felt that trading Bradley was a big mistake, didn't like Tatum, couldn't understand why we kept Smart, was convinced that Baynes would be our starting center and didn't know why we let useful players like Kelly, Amir and Jonas go.

Sometimes I think that Ainge is playing chess and the media is critiquing his checker skills.

I like Duncan and generally think he is good at analyzing roster construction, specifically his understanding of the salary cap and player salaries. However, IMO, he will never be as insightful as a Zach Lowe or Kevin O' Connor because he clearly has no real NBA sources and his talent evaluation is suspect.
This off season especially he has been spectacularly wrong multiple times on evaluations of Free Agents and possible trade chips. I think part of it is the fact that he is a slave to certain numbers and data, even if its clear that the data he is referencing isn't a end all-be all. This is something that Kevin Pelton does consistently which makes it very hard for me to read him on anything regarding talent evaluation or predictions.
Basically, in order for me to listen to someone talk for over 5 hours a week I think it's a must that they are actually plugged in with the NBA, have sources and understand how teams view talent.
Because, otherwise, there are so many smart bloggers who have access to and view the same data that Duncan does that there;s really no added value to listening to him versus reading one of the many really good NBA writers/bloggers out there

 

[PedroKsBambino]

I like Duncan and generally think he is good at analyzing roster construction, specifically his understanding of the salary cap and player salaries. However, IMO, he will never be as insightful as a Zach Lowe or Kevin O' Connor because he clearly has no real NBA sources and his talent evaluation is suspect.
This off season especially he has been spectacularly wrong multiple times on evaluations of Free Agents and possible trade chips. I think part of it is the fact that he is a slave to certain numbers and data, even if its clear that the data he is referencing isn't a end all-be all. This is something that Kevin Pelton does consistently which makes it very hard for me to read him on anything regarding talent evaluation or predictions.
Basically, in order for me to listen to someone talk for over 5 hours a week I think it's a must that they are actually plugged in with the NBA, have sources and understand how teams view talent.
Because, otherwise, there are so many smart bloggers who have access to and view the same data that Duncan does that there;s really no added value to listening to him versus reading one of the many really good NBA writers/bloggers out there

Agreed. I enjoy the pods and especially how committed Duncan and LeRoux are. But the more I listen the more clear that they are cap guys more than evaluators.

I do think on cap and transactions stuff they have solid sources. But it's a little like some of the analytics guys who know that community but neither scouting nor the creators of the analytics (who tend to know and see the weaknesses as well as the strengths): you get as much an echo chamber of folks applying same biases as a balanced and insightful perspective

 

[Jed Zeppelin]

Agreed. I enjoy the pods and especially how committed Duncan and LeRoux are. But the more I listen the more clear that they are cap guys more than evaluators.

I do think on cap and transactions stuff they have solid sources. But it's a little like some of the analytics guys who know that community but neither scouting nor the creators of the analytics (who tend to know and see the weaknesses as well as the strengths): you get as much an echo chamber of folks applying same biases as a balanced and insightful perspective

That's really weird then. Keeping Smart, swapping Bradley for Morris and—essentially—swapping KO, Amir, and JJ's $27ish million (their new contracts) for Hayward and his $30 mil all seem like pretty great cap decisions, on top of being very good basketball decisions.

 

[cheech13]

That's really weird then. Keeping Smart, swapping Bradley for Morris and—essentially—swapping KO, Amir, and JJ's $27ish million (their new contracts) for Hayward and his $30 mil all seem like pretty great cap decisions, on top of being very good basketball decisions.

They were very down on both the Fultz and Bradley trades as well as losing KO. Essentially they didn't like doubling down on IT and choosing him and Tatum going forward over Fultz and Bradley and eventually going deep into the tax to do so.

I understood the logic in that criticism but didn't think they gave nearly enough credit for landing Hayward. You can't have a C- offseason when you land the best free agent.

 

[cheech13]

I like Duncan and generally think he is good at analyzing roster construction, specifically his understanding of the salary cap and player salaries. However, IMO, he will never be as insightful as a Zach Lowe or Kevin O' Connor because he clearly has no real NBA sources and his talent evaluation is suspect.
This off season especially he has been spectacularly wrong multiple times on evaluations of Free Agents and possible trade chips. I think part of it is the fact that he is a slave to certain numbers and data, even if its clear that the data he is referencing isn't a end all-be all. This is something that Kevin Pelton does consistently which makes it very hard for me to read him on anything regarding talent evaluation or predictions.
Basically, in order for me to listen to someone talk for over 5 hours a week I think it's a must that they are actually plugged in with the NBA, have sources and understand how teams view talent.
Because, otherwise, there are so many smart bloggers who have access to and view the same data that Duncan does that there;s really no added value to listening to him versus reading one of the many really good NBA writers/bloggers out there

I'm with you on Lowe, but Kevin O'Connor? He doesn't seem to have many, if any, real sources and builds lot of scenarios out of baseless speculation. Also, while he seems to be very good at talent evaluation he defaults too much to the idea that any team without an immediate chance at winning a title should blow it up and build through the draft. Having a long view is fine but the draft is not a panacea for every franchise.

 

[Swedgin]

I listened to the Nate Duncan podcast recently. He gave the Celtics a C- for the off season. He felt that trading Bradley was a big mistake, didn't like Tatum, couldn't understand why we kept Smart, was convinced that Baynes would be our starting center and didn't know why we let useful players like Kelly, Amir and Jonas go.

Sometimes I think that Ainge is playing chess and the media is critiquing his checker skills.

I am regular listener. While I think the C- was too harsh, the points they actually made were to my mind fair. The main considerations they discussed were:

1. Fultz trade is a bad deal, because Fultz has superstar potential and they don't see that in anyone else is this class except Smith (whom the Celts did not pick). The gap on expected returns between number 1 picks and mid lottery picks is significant. They think the moves made by the Lakers/Kings combined with the number of other teams which will suck/tank makes it more likely that those picks are mid lottery instead of 1 or 2.

2. Don't particularly like the Tatum pick, see above.

3. Would have preferred to move Smart rather than Bradley. Moving Bradley significantly reduces the team's immediate ceiling. They are lower on Smart than this board is.

3. Meh on the Baynes signing. Thinks Danny should have brought in a project who at least has potential to provide rim protection. An example they gave was Willy Reed.

In short, they felt that the moves Danny chose (trade pick, select Tatum, move Bradley etc) were worse in both the short and the long term. as compared to the alternatives (keep the pick and use it on Fultz, dump Smart to make the room for Hawyard) they preferred.

As to the other comments.:

• I would be happy to wager that (barring an injury) Baynes is the starting center.
• Neither host was confused as to why Danny let Kelly, Amir, Jonas go. I think the point Nate was trying to make is that in assessing how next years team compares to last years, you can't just look at the addition of Hayward. Need to account for the fact that Kelly, Jonas and to a lesser degree Amir were quality rotation players who are no longer on the team

With regard to the rest of the discussion, its true you would not listen to Dunc'ed on for rumors and sources. However, I think there actually analysis of players and prospects has been pretty good. Like everyone they have binkies. Is there a particular player or prospect that they have really missed on? In the year plus I have listened the two prospects where I recall Nate having differed most from the consensus were Jaylen Brown and Dennis Smith. Its early yet, but so far those look like good calls.

 

[chilidawg]

I see it like this:

Hayward is better than Bradley
Baynes is better than Johnson
Morris is better than Jerebko
The wild card is KO, who I think will be missed.

I personally wasn't that high on Fultz, so I liked the trade, but time will tell. I'm bullish on Brown, so I think improvement from him combined with the above will lead to an improved team.

 

[luckiestman]

I'm with you on Lowe, but Kevin O'Connor? He doesn't seem to have many, if any, real sources and builds lot of scenarios out of baseless speculation. Also, while he seems to be very good at talent evaluation he defaults too much to the idea that any team without an immediate chance at winning a title should blow it up and build through the draft. Having a long view is fine but the draft is not a panacea for every franchise.

I think KOC definitely has some Celtics sources. Don't know about the rest of the league. He was all over Tatum when people thought Jackson and I think he had Brown early too (but I'm less sure about this).

 

[JCizzle]

I think KOC definitely has some Celtics sources. Don't know about the rest of the league. He was all over Tatum when people thought Jackson and I think he had Brown early too (but I'm less sure about this).

Yeah, he was definitely a gigantic Tatum fanboy way earlier than the rest. Hopefully he has some (deserved) sources with the C's, he's very good.

 

[PedroKsBambino]

They were very down on both the Fultz and Bradley trades as well as losing KO. Essentially they didn't like doubling down on IT and choosing him and Tatum going forward over Fultz and Bradley and eventually going deep into the tax to do so.

I understood the logic in that criticism but didn't think they gave nearly enough credit for landing Hayward. You can't have a C- offseason when you land the best free agent.

I have not yet listened to the offseason grade episode, but have listened to the rest of their offseason coverage.

It's pretty clear they have not seen enough of Smart to recognize what he does, and they don't really know analytics well enough to use that as a crutch for the situation where they haven't seen someone enough. They've been completely wrong about how Celts will view that choice all along, and I think that's directly related to their not having seen either guy enough to recognize how Celtics value the guys and why.

I also think it's strange they think this choice commits the Celtics on IT--I think it increases the chances they resign him, but I would guess Hayward being here makes it a lot easier to let IT walk than otherwise. Sure, they'd have more money to chase an alternative in a no-Hayward, let IT walk scenario but they'd be a much worse team, and they'd be looking for a primary creator there.

They have been a little higher on Fultz than consensus, and I think that showed in how they viewed that trade. Ultimately, if Fultz is a star and Tatum is not (and the other pick doesn't generate a star either) they'll be proven right.

I will listen to the episode before passing judgment on the grade, but I tend to agree you can't get a C- while getting Hayward.

 

[moly99]

They think the moves made by the Lakers/Kings combined with the number of other teams which will suck/tank makes it more likely that those picks are mid lottery instead of 1 or 2.

This is the key issue and why it is silly to debate the Fultz trade.

If the Nets and Lakers hand us picks #1 and #2 Danny will probably be laughing his way to multiple Larry O'Brien trophies. If the Lakers and Kings are any good we may have have traded a hall of fame player to pick up a bonus 9th pick in the draft.

We will just have to wait and see if the Lakers are competent this year.

 

[Papelbon's Poutine]

This is the key issue and why it is silly to debate the Fultz trade.

If the Nets and Lakers hand us picks #1 and #2 Danny will probably be laughing his way to multiple Larry O'Brien trophies. If the Lakers and Kings are any good we may have have traded a hall of fame player to pick up a bonus 9th pick in the draft.

We will just have to wait and see if the Lakers are competent this year.

So why does that make it silly?

I'm not upset about the Fault trade, well, not a lot anyway because I trust Ainge, but isn't the variance in draft pick coming back a pretty big portion of the debate of it?

 

[NoXInNixon]

The point of the Fultz trade is that Danny preferred Tatum to Fultz. He thinks Tatum was the best player in the draft. So no matter what pick it ends up being, it is an extra asset he got essentially for free.

Sent from my SM-G930P using SoSH mobile app

 

[Smokey Joe]

So why does that make it silly?

I'm not upset about the Fault trade, well, not a lot anyway because I trust Ainge, but isn't the variance in draft pick coming back a pretty big portion of the debate of it?

Has anyone ever gone broke betting that the Kings are going to suck?

and while I would love to stick it to the lakers, I am not sure that this team needs 2 top five rookies to develop next year. I am thinking that the pick is for trading purposes.

 

[moly99]

So why does that make it silly?

I'm not upset about the Fault trade, well, not a lot anyway because I trust Ainge, but isn't the variance in draft pick coming back a pretty big portion of the debate of it?

Of course, and I am nervous about the trade for precisely that reason. But this is fundamentally a philosophical issue rather than an administrative issue.

You can compare that to Billy King's trades with the Nets, which were mistakes rather than gambles. For example you shouldn't acquire your first star via trade since that leaves you with a highly restricted time frame to build a supporting cast. Or constantly overpaying in trades because you are desperate to "win now." Or trading your future away to build a team that did not have a solid chance at winning a title anyway.

Ultimately they are gambling that either Tatum is as good as Fultz or that the Lakers or Kings give them a great draft pick. I have no certainty whether they are right or wrong, but I am certain that the Celtics staff knows more about both Tatum and the Lakers than we do. So we have to trust their judgement.

 

[Devizier]

There is a fair amount of variance among the worst teams, year-by-year. Not because the bottom feeders miraculously improve. It's more because the difference between winning 25 and 35 games has a lot to do with injuries and other artifacts of random chance.

p.s. I still support the Tatum/Fultz trade.

 

[HomeRunBaker]

The point of the Fultz trade is that Danny preferred Tatum to Fultz.

This seems accurate.

He thinks Tatum was the best player in the draft. So no matter what pick it ends up being, it is an extra asset he got essentially for free.

I don't buy that Ainge was convinced of this or else the last minute desperate day long flight to California to workout Jackson during the busiest part of the offseason never takes place. You don't spend this time and the resources of your two key guys along for the trip if you are convinced Tatum was the best player in the draft.

Has anyone ever gone broke betting that the Kings are going to suck?

and while I would love to stick it to the lakers, I am not sure that this team needs 2 top five rookies to develop next year. I am thinking that the pick is for trading purposes.

Yes and Yes. The Kings are still filled with young players looking out for themselves to get that big second contract......not the best recipe for building a cohesive team in the difficult WC and winning NBA games.

Ainge is always accumulating assets to catch the big fish whether it is young players, future picks, or aligning expiring contracts for the numbers to work in such deals which in this case would appear to be Anthony Davis. This is the one season where Ainge doesn't yet have those larger expiring contracts like Ratliff, Amir, and Zeller. One thought here is that Ainge can both take care of Isaiah while also avoiding to have to pay him max or close to max money on a long-term deal. This is the type of contract Ainge has always avoided while also using Isaiah as a piece to acquire Brow.......everyone wins here. Ainge gets Brow and doesn't have to pay Isaiah while avoiding negative backlash, Isaiah gets the big payday he rightfully desires, and the Pelicans add Isaiah's offense, two high lottery picks, and probably another piece out of Morris/Crowder/etc.