21st Century Tiny Archibald?

[CreightonGubanich]

Agreed... But where the Celtics utilize Thomas isn't necessary where a winning team would.

I get what you're saying in theory, but I don't see it in practice. Sure, if Thomas played for Golden State, he'd be a sixth man. Despite his shiny scoring numbers, he's a liability that you have to hide on defense.

But first of all, the Celtics are a winning team by any definition, and they are largely because Thomas has turned into a legitimate star. You can make the argument that offense is only half of the game, and that he takes nearly as much off the table defensively as he brings to it offensively. I don't agree, but it's a reasonable position. But the fact remains, players who average 30 points per game in the NBA don't get moved to the bench on the upswing of their prime. There's no situation in the league where that is tenable.

 

[Kliq]

Because of his height, people seem inclined to believe that Thomas isn't really that good of a player and he is basically a gimmick change of pace player that isn't someone that should play big minutes. He is like Nate Robinson or Spud Webb when in reality he is closer to Allen Iverson than those guys. At this point I don't know what IT can do to convince people he is a starter; maybe average 40 ppg?

 

[RetractableRoof]

The Celtics are a winning team. They are one of the 5 best teams in the NBA right now. Is this post an exercise in absurdism?

No. I define a winning team as a team that has a legitimate chance at winning a title.

Many here think that basketball is the exact opposite of the other sports, in that the regular season results are meaningless other than seeding, and talent is only shown in playoff series. I'm not sure I would go as far as some do with that line of thought, but until this core actually wins a playoff series or two, it's a valid criticism of them.

That doesn't make them any less fun, enjoyable, or "winning" right now. But I assume that's where RR is coming from.

Thank you for giving me the benefit of the doubt. This is part of my thinking.

I'm only trying to parse what RR is saying, because it is nonsensical on its face unless you limit it strictly to "in the playoffs" - and I've seen many posts here saying the C's can win in the regular season with IT starting, but won't win in the playoffs, so he's certainly not alone.

I've made that claim, and I stand by it. Teams in the NBA don't have much by way of practice time for in season games. There is no real incentive to spend 3 hours designing/planning for the exploiting of IT's weakness on defense. Come playoffs that statement is no longer true and every facet of his defensive weakness will be exploited. I hope I'm wrong, but I don't believe I am.

---

When Ainge took over the team originally he looked at the team he had which was winning some regular season games and said to the media and fans (paraphrasing) - don't be fooled, this team is fun and is winning some games but as constituted it can't win a championship. His perspective seems to be that there are two states in the NBA - capable of winning it all and not. He also seems to be of the opinion that the Celtics should only be interested in Championships - anything else is a fools errand. I'm of the same opinion. I'm willing to be patient while he walks that path and enjoy watching the kids develop and even the sensation that is IT. I'm not willing to fool myself into thinking that this team has a snowballs chance at a championship this season. Winning a playoff round or two sure. Growing from that - sure. But short of the Cavs AND the Warriors losing two major pieces each - there is no way the Celtics can compete for a championship this year. Just my opinion - but one I suspect is shared by the Celtics front office.

From THAT perspective, trading Bradley doesn't makes sense if you view him as a winning piece (unless you think his peak doesn't align with what you hope/project your actual competitive window to be). From THAT perspective, I am biased against IT (a wonderful regular season player). [As an aside, I'm not sure IT is enough of a team player to accept the necessary role on a winning team at this point either. I base that on media statements that were borderline critical of Stevens earlier in the year, and his "give me the ball' approach. I admire an athlete wanting the ball, it just has to be balanced with what the team needs.]

Nothing mean or absurd about my perspective (I don't think). I'm not spoiled either - I'm simply aligned with Ainge or what I perceive his perspective to be on winning versus competitive for a championship win.

[My apologies if this post seems preachy or over bearing or simply douchy - I'm rushed for time and am trying to respond in a timely manner to reasonable reactions to my post(s) earlier in the thread. I don't have time to soften up any 'absolutes' or poor choices of words.]

Edit: In the future I will use "Championship caliber" team instead of winning. It should clarify things - and I might look a bit less like a horses as.

 

[NoXInNixon]

The only reason the Celtics have virtually no chance to win a title this year is that the Warriors are a Superteam. No one else has much of a chance to beat them either. But in a typical season, these Celtics would absolutely have a decent shot.

 

[Koufax]

Which is exactly why giving up anything of long-term value for player whose contract expires this year makes little sense.

 

[smastroyin]

I moved some posts over here from the trade thread. Maybe I should have just made a new one, but they seemed to fit better here.

 

[RetractableRoof]

I moved some posts over here from the trade thread. Maybe I should have just made a new one, but they seemed to fit better here.

Your call. I was speaking to building/trading for championship level play but devolved into too much IT conversation.

Thanks for modding... though I thought SoSH had vomited 8-10 posts

 

[Cesar Crespo]

Update to beat Havlicek: He has to average 30 1/3 ppg in the final 33 games. To beat Birds 29.9, he needs to average 31.1ppg. In December, he average 30.3, in January it was 32.9. 34.8 over his last 16. If you take out that game where he only played 24 minutes because Orlando sucks, he has averaged 37.5 over the last 8.

He has to score 785 points in the next 26 games (30.2ppg) to become the single season record holder for points in Celtic's franchise and 30.03ppg to eclipse Larry Bird's single season PPG record. In IT4's last 29 games, he is averaging 33.1ppg. If he keeps up the pace, he'll beat the record by 77 points while averaging 31.0ppg.

 

[DeJesus Built My Hotrod]

Globe piece on IT4.

 

[PedroKsBambino]

I think the best comp, or perhaps best historical analogue, would be two parts Calvin Murphy and one part Iverson. He is nowhere near the passer or defender Iverson was, but he's more of a penetrator and physical offensive player than Murphy.

A pretty unique guy, and fun to watch.

 

[Kliq]

I would argue IT is as good of a passer as Iverson and Iverson was a shitty defender by his own omission. Thomas is also a much, much more efficient shooter and scorer than AI ever was. I think Iverson was better because of the era he played in and if he played today he'd probably be scoring 35 a game; but the gap isn't that big.

 

[PedroKsBambino]

Iverson stopped trying on D second half of his career, that's fair...but he was a very good defensive player for longer than IT has been in the league, too. Tremendous on-ball defender who generated a ton of steals without gambling, and physically able to D up anyone he was matched against. He wasn't regularly pulled from the game for defensive purposes, unlike IT.

I just don't think it's a close call as a passer or PG either though IT has made up ground on that this year and last I think. Assist numbers support that, though those are also pretty dependent on role/situation I acknowledge. I love IT, but he's no AI in terms of ability to penetrate and create shots....few are.

Now, separate from the point I was making about AI's traits, I do agree one can criticize AI's value because he was such a volume, ball-dominant player. IT is a higher percentage player and this year has been so in a usage range similar to Iverson's. Of course, AI contributed more in other ways and played at this level for a bunch of years, too.

 

[Devizier]

Iverson also played under different rules. I think he would have been more successful in the modern context.

 

[the moops]

What does a max contract look like for Thomas anyway? He falls in the 7-9 year player after the 2018 season, so are we talking 30% of the cap?

 

[DJnVa]

He definitely seems to be pressing a bit since the ASG, although last night he still hit a big shot and drew the defense and made the right pass.

 

[Van Everyman]

I can't remember whether it was Gorman and Tommy or Scal after the game. But there was some commentary that IT has seemed off the last few games, with respect to how he's finishing and some speculation last night that he might be hurt.

 

[RetractableRoof]

Was watching/listening to the Cleveland feed of 3/1 Celtics/Cavs game. The announcers were amused and basically offering that Cleveland should approach every possession (non-fast break of course) by identifying who IT was on, and just isolate him and abuse him defensively as long as he was on the floor. Obviously Cleveland didn't do that.

FWIW: After the game, the Color guy and the in studio guys were all spin that the Cavs were more concerned with trying to establish chemistry and integrating D-Will (2) than placing a high priority on winning the actual game. Take it with grains of salt and all that.

 

[Koufax]

There's some truth to that. Had it been a playoff game, LeBron would have taken over at the end.

 

[smastroyin]

It may be true, but

- LeBron played 40 minutes. 40! If the idea was to just have him lollygagging and let others do the work then cut him to 32 minutes for a while.

- Deron's corner three was the best shot they had in that possession, he just missed it.

- Kyrie Irving takes plenty of the late game action even in the playoffs.

 

[wade boggs chicken dinner]

I can't remember whether it was Gorman and Tommy or Scal after the game. But there was some commentary that IT has seemed off the last few games, with respect to how he's finishing and some speculation last night that he might be hurt.

IT4 takes a tremendous pounding every night. I'm sure pretty much everything hurts after a game. I just wonder if there's something nagging that's not going away.

 

[Sprowl]

Tiny was generously listed at 6'1", but nobody believed that. He was left-handed, had a great handle, unlimited nerve, a monster year in 1973, and a championship in 1981.

Isaiah Thomas has a lot of the same game, although he doesn't yet have the body control of Nate at his peak. He certainly has the chutzpah, though. 21st Century Nate?

I am revising my opinion. I now think he equal instincts for horizontal completions off the drive, and the best stop-and-go move on the dribble that I have ever seen.

I just hope that he's close kin to the Rubberband Man, because he has taken a lot of impact on finishes. Maybe the shock waves don't travel so far when you're only 5'9.

 

[DeJesus Built My Hotrod]

IT4 takes a tremendous pounding every night. I'm sure pretty much everything hurts after a game. I just wonder if there's something nagging that's not going away.

He looked hobbled last night. And given what we know about him, he for sure would play through an injury versus sitting. He's waited his whole life for this - the chance to lead a team - and he won't relinquish it as long as he can stand. Its kind of stupid given that they playoffs are coming up and the C's have made the dance. But would anyone do it differently were you in IT4's shoes?