Cavalry Candidates

128

Member
SoSH Member
May 4, 2019
9,145
This, from a Keith Smith article, rings true:

* One league source characterized the Celtics as “stealthy”. They said, “You never hear about anything they are doing until they do it. Who had them getting (Derrick) White last year? What about (Malcolm) Brogdon this summer? No one. Brad (Stevens), Mike (Zarren) and that whole crew keep their business to themselves. Our running joke is ‘If you hear about it with Boston, it ain’t happening!’ and that’s true. They don’t really have leaks there anymore.”

https://www.celticsblog.com/2023/1/18/23560508/boston-celtics-trade-intel-three-weeks-from-the-trade-deadline
 

Eddie Jurak

canderson-lite
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 12, 2002
40,966
Melrose, MA
This, from a Keith Smith article, rings true:

* One league source characterized the Celtics as “stealthy”. They said, “You never hear about anything they are doing until they do it. Who had them getting (Derrick) White last year? What about (Malcolm) Brogdon this summer? No one. Brad (Stevens), Mike (Zarren) and that whole crew keep their business to themselves. Our running joke is ‘If you hear about it with Boston, it ain’t happening!’ and that’s true. They don’t really have leaks there anymore.”

https://www.celticsblog.com/2023/1/18/23560508/boston-celtics-trade-intel-three-weeks-from-the-trade-deadline
The strange part of this is that it takes two to tango. Even if the Celtics had zero leaks, plenty of other front offices have leaks - and those are the people they Celtics have to talk trade with.
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
31,020
I just don't see the issue at wing. The Celtics have 4 guys who can play 3/4 (Al, Grant, Tatum, Brown), and then 3-4 guards (Smart, DWhite, Brogdon, PP). Brown can play 2-4, and Smart/White can play the 3 in three-guard lineups.

They haven't had trouble with Brown out rotationally--just the drop off from losing his talent. They play Grant more, they play Al at the 4 more, some 3-guard lineups, and it's all good.

The Celtics could lose any one of their 8 guards/wings, besides Tatum & Brown, and make it through a tough playoff series.

Center is.....not like that. If Rob goes down, you have Al, Kornet, and Blake. Al is already having trouble protecting the rim, Kornet is fine but limited, and Blake should not see the floor in a playoff series.

I'm not saying GET POELTL, but I am saying that C depth is a way bigger issue than wing depth for the Celtics.
They're already playing guys too many minutes is part of the concern.
Tatum averaging 37, Brown 36,

These are the guys who are NOT on pace to set a career high for minutes played this year among the top 8:
Clearly not: Robert Williams, Al Horford, Brogdon
Borderline: White

The bigs are playing reasonable minutes, the PG/SGs are too.... the wings are not. Hauser is playing a lot of minutes, and they need someone better in that role.
Now, if TL gets hurt does it reduce the ceiling... yeah probably. The question is, do you really want to make your move based on backing up 1 guy, especially since there will likely be buyout traditional bigs for injury insurance. A big wing would play some even if nobody suffers a major injury, and reducing Tatum and Brown's minutes is probably more valuable than anything else. Last year Tatum had little left by the finals.
 

lexrageorge

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2007
16,409
FWIW, Tatum is 4th in the league in minutes per game, but he is essentially in the same tier as VanVleet, Kyrie, Dejounte Murray, LeBron, Bridges, and Donovan Mitchell.

Jaylen Brown is 23rd, in the same group as Rozier, Lillard, Herro, and Bam.

They're certainly getting minutes, but not convinced it's a problem at this point. Still, agree that wing depth would not be the worst investment of trade capital.
 

RSN Diaspora

molests goats for comedy
SoSH Member
Jul 29, 2005
10,640
Washington, DC
They're already playing guys too many minutes is part of the concern.
Tatum averaging 37, Brown 36
[...]
A big wing would play some even if nobody suffers a major injury, and reducing Tatum and Brown's minutes is probably more valuable than anything else. Last year Tatum had little left by the finals.
This is 100% on-point--JT was clearly on fumes by the finals, and it's unreasonable to expect him and Jaylen to keep up this pace if we want to see a better playoff outcome. I've seen PJ Washington's name in this thread at least once and I'm surprised we're not talking more about him--he's on the final year of a rookie deal that is less money than Schroeder's TPE, Charlotte is about to embark on a total rebuild (presumably), and he's already averaging 32.3 minutes per game. I'm not sure what we would need to give up, but assuming it's not insane, I'd think it would be a prime pickup.
 

benhogan

Granite Truther
SoSH Member
Nov 2, 2007
17,609
Santa Monica
They're already playing guys too many minutes is part of the concern.
Tatum averaging 37, Brown 36,

These are the guys who are NOT on pace to set a career high for minutes played this year among the top 8:
Clearly not: Robert Williams, Al Horford, Brogdon
Borderline: White

The bigs are playing reasonable minutes, the PG/SGs are too.... the wings are not. Hauser is playing a lot of minutes, and they need someone better in that role.
Now, if TL gets hurt does it reduce the ceiling... yeah probably. The question is, do you really want to make your move based on backing up 1 guy, especially since there will likely be buyout traditional bigs for injury insurance. A big wing would play some even if nobody suffers a major injury, and reducing Tatum and Brown's minutes is probably more valuable than anything else. Last year Tatum had little left by the finals.
Al Horford is playing his most MPG since 2017-18 season
His long playoff run last year was helped by the 1/2 year off in OKC

TimeLord is always an injury risk regardless of his MPG
 

Euclis20

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 3, 2004
6,405
Imaginationland
Al Horford is playing his most MPG since 2017-18 season
His long playoff run last year was helped by the 1/2 year off in OKC

TimeLord is always an injury risk regardless of his MPG
Since TL's return, Al is back to 29.0 mpg (basically identical to last year). That's probably still not good enough since he's a year older and (as you note) instead of a super long offseason he's coming off of a very short one, but I'm not overly concerned about his minutes at the moment.
 

RSN Diaspora

molests goats for comedy
SoSH Member
Jul 29, 2005
10,640
Washington, DC
Prefer the concept of a wing to a big, but who?
In addition to PJ Washington, I think a lot of folks are interested in Josh Hart and the Blazers are likely to be sellers. How the C's would handle his $13m cap hit is probably a major stumbling block, though.
 

benhogan

Granite Truther
SoSH Member
Nov 2, 2007
17,609
Santa Monica
Since TL's return, Al is back to 29.0 mpg (basically identical to last year). That's probably still not good enough since he's a year older and (as you note) instead of a super long offseason he's coming off of a very short one, but I'm not overly concerned about his minutes at the moment.
I'm not terribly worried about Al either.

Especially if they cut down his minutes at Center if they added a 5/Poeltl
and let Horford play his preferred position of 4 (which would cut down on the JAY's mpg)
 

JM3

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 14, 2019
3,387
In addition to PJ Washington, I think a lot of folks are interested in Josh Hart and the Blazers are likely to be sellers. How the C's would handle his $13m cap hit is probably a major stumbling block, though.
Thx!

I like PJ...would describe him as a big, though, (I guess the same category as Grant really) & he's been kinda yikes this year for some reason (-12.9 on/off), & I've heard 2 1sts, which seems crazy for a non-elite RFA?

& yeah, the $$$ seems impossible on Hart, plus are the Blazers really looking to move him? He's played 34 mpg this season & they're 1 game out of 6th in the West. His minutes may be a bit down lately with improved health of others, but he's clearly a pretty big part of their rotation, having played at least 27 minutes in every game this season he's played except one blowout against Dallas where he played 21.
 

benhogan

Granite Truther
SoSH Member
Nov 2, 2007
17,609
Santa Monica
Thx!

I like PJ...would describe him as a big, though, (I guess the same category as Grant really) & he's been kinda yikes this year for some reason (-12.9 on/off), & I've heard 2 1sts, which seems crazy for a non-elite RFA?

& yeah, the $$$ seems impossible on Hart, plus are the Blazers really looking to move him? He's played 34 mpg this season & they're 1 game out of 6th in the West. His minutes may be a bit down lately with improved health of others, but he's clearly a pretty big part of their rotation, having played at least 27 minutes in every game this season he's played except one blowout against Dallas where he played 21.
I'm on Team BIG

But these two might be reasonable enough for Team WING
for Wing D: Javonte Green
for Wing O: Alec Burks

both are friends of Tatums'
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
31,020
This is 100% on-point--JT was clearly on fumes by the finals, and it's unreasonable to expect him and Jaylen to keep up this pace if we want to see a better playoff outcome. I've seen PJ Washington's name in this thread at least once and I'm surprised we're not talking more about him--he's on the final year of a rookie deal that is less money than Schroeder's TPE, Charlotte is about to embark on a total rebuild (presumably), and he's already averaging 32.3 minutes per game. I'm not sure what we would need to give up, but assuming it's not insane, I'd think it would be a prime pickup.
Charlotte hasn't shown any willingness to trade Washington is the big thing, they'll take him to RFA and make him the QO.
 

JM3

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 14, 2019
3,387
I'm on Team BIG

But these two might be reasonable enough for Team WING
I guess Brad would have a good idea if he wanted Javonte back. He's currently injured, though, & has been pulling a lot of DNPs since early December prior to that? & potentially isn't really good at basketball & was terrible in the playoffs last year. But I guess if he's like free, I'm in?

I'm always on board with an Alec Burks acquisition. What do the Pistons want & why don't they want to trade him?

The Athletic's James L. Edwards III reported Monday the Pistons "have shown very little interest" in dealing guard Alec Burks. It's a similar story with forward Saddiq Bey, whom Edwards speculated the Pistons won't move "unless a deal they can't refuse comes around."
 

lovegtm

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 30, 2013
10,387
Toscana via Kyiv
They're already playing guys too many minutes is part of the concern.
Tatum averaging 37, Brown 36,

These are the guys who are NOT on pace to set a career high for minutes played this year among the top 8:
Clearly not: Robert Williams, Al Horford, Brogdon
Borderline: White

The bigs are playing reasonable minutes, the PG/SGs are too.... the wings are not. Hauser is playing a lot of minutes, and they need someone better in that role.
Now, if TL gets hurt does it reduce the ceiling... yeah probably. The question is, do you really want to make your move based on backing up 1 guy, especially since there will likely be buyout traditional bigs for injury insurance. A big wing would play some even if nobody suffers a major injury, and reducing Tatum and Brown's minutes is probably more valuable than anything else. Last year Tatum had little left by the finals.
Is the minutes thing about not having a wing behind Tatum/Brown, or about Mazzulla wanting as much Tatum/Brown as possible?

Stoudamire had no trouble keeping their minutes down in a non-blowout.

Having more center oomph also lets Grant and Al play big wing more, which effectively adds significant wing depth.
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
31,020
Is the minutes thing about not having a wing behind Tatum/Brown, or about Mazzulla wanting as much Tatum/Brown as possible?

Stoudamire had no trouble keeping their minutes down in a non-blowout.

Having more center oomph also lets Grant and Al play big wing more, which effectively adds significant wing depth.
Bit of both.

HOWEVER....

I don't want Grant playing down a position, he's much worse at it.
I also don't want Horford playing 4 without TL, he's not as good at it as he used to be. What makes Horford/TL work is that Horford guards the bigs and TL hangs out on the weakest forward roaming to make plays. Very few "bigs" can do that, certainly not the likes of Poetl. That pairing just means Al getting cooked and working 3 times as hard trying to stay in front of wings. At this point in his career, covering bigs is less wear and tear on Horford than covering 4s most nights.

And that's my biggest issue with the "more bigs" theory. It's based on a faulty premise that any of these guys are replacements for TL or Horford.
Take Poetle, who is a good player.... he can play some of Al's role on defense, but he can't play any of it on offense. He can play some of TL's role on both ends (honestly maybe better on offense) but he can't play the key part of the defensive strategy TL does.

To me it's pretty simple. I don't see a big who makes our top 7 even if one of our bigs gets injured. I see wings out there who could make our top 7 if a big got injured and we had to go 1 big.
A major part of that is... none of these guys rumored to be available pair particularly well with either of our bigs. If there were a 3pt shooting big who could rebound and defend... sure. Or a true freak athlete who could mimic TL.... but those guys aren't available at the price we can pay. On the other hand, there are a lot of 6'7" - 6'9" guys who can do a lot of things and fit a lot of lineups out there making under $12M a year, and those guys can slot right into the top 8/9 of a playoff team.
 

benhogan

Granite Truther
SoSH Member
Nov 2, 2007
17,609
Santa Monica
I guess Brad would have a good idea if he wanted Javonte back. He's currently injured, though, & has been pulling a lot of DNPs since early December prior to that? & potentially isn't really good at basketball & was terrible in the playoffs last year. But I guess if he's like free, I'm in?

I'm always on board with an Alec Burks acquisition. What do the Pistons want & why don't they want to trade him?
I see zero need for Boston to go get a WING

BUT if you wanted a defensive WING on the cheap JG adds value when on the floor. I don't see a bad player at all, especially for teams that need wing defense

Alec Burks is putting a dent in the Piston's Victor chase.
Detroit was paid cash and given a 2nd to take Burks & Noel.
Troy Weaver turning him into an asset after 34 games wouldn't be a bad way to pat himself on the back

The is so much NBA parity that it feels like a Seller's market. Demand should be high for Burks, Poeltl, Bojan, JRich, etc
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
31,020
I see zero need for Boston to go get a WING

BUT if you wanted a defensive WING on the cheap JG adds value when on the floor.

Alec Burks is putting a dent in the Piston's Victor chase.
Detroit was paid cash and given a 2nd to take Burks & Noel.
Troy Weaver turning him into an asset after 34 games wouldn't be a bad way to pat himself on the back

The is so much NBA parity that it feels like a Seller's market. Demand should be high for Burks, Poeltl, Bojan, JRich, etc
Burks? He's a player I like, but he's a 6'5" guard. When people talk about Wings, they really mean what Stevens used to calls Swings.... guys who can play 3 or 4 (against KD-types)... the role he got Gallo and Hauser for.
 

benhogan

Granite Truther
SoSH Member
Nov 2, 2007
17,609
Santa Monica
Burks? He's a player I like, but he's a 6'5" guard. When people talk about Wings, they really mean what Stevens used to calls Swings.... guys who can play 3 or 4 (against KD-types)... the role he got Gallo and Hauser for.
Alec Burks standing reach is 8' 7.5"
Sam Hauser's standing reach is 8' 6"

So whatever position you want to label Sam Hauser is playing, it's the same as Alec Burks would play.

People get this wrong around here all the time.

Brad Stevens basically has said there are 3 positions:
Ball Handler (1) or PG
Wing (2, 3, 4) or SG, SF, PF
Big (5) or Center

"I don’t have the five positions anymore," Celtics coach Brad Stevens said, per Kareem Copeland of the Associated Press. "It may be as simple as three positions now, where you’re either a ball-handler, a wing or a big.

View: https://bleacherreport.com/articles/2720250-brad-stevens-says-celtics-have-3-not-5-positions-now
 
Last edited:

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
31,020
Alec Burks standing reach is 8' 7.5"
Sam Hauser's standing reach is 8' 6"

So whatever position you want to label Sam Hauser is playing, it's the same as Alec Burks would play.

People get this wrong around here all the time.

Brad Stevens basically has said there are 3 positions:
Ball Handler (1) or PG
Wing (2, 3, 4) or SG, SF, PF
Big (5) or Center

"I don’t have the five positions anymore," Celtics coach Brad Stevens said, per Kareem Copeland of the Associated Press. "It may be as simple as three positions now, where you’re either a ball-handler, a wing or a big.

View: https://bleacherreport.com/articles/2720250-brad-stevens-says-celtics-have-3-not-5-positions-now
He used to have 4 categories, he goes back and forth depending which interview.

https://www.masslive.com/celtics/2015/06/brad_stevens_boston_celtics_lu.html

Obviously everyone starts with 1s, 2s, 3s, 4s and 5s when they look at a basketball team," Stevens said. "I look at ball-handlers, wings, swings and bigs. I only have four categories. The more guys that can play the more positions, the better. Right now I think if you look at the roster, I think we have three of the four categories with a lot of depth. And I think that swing area where you can go 3-4 and play that way, that's the area we're going to have to adress as we move into the next few weeks and look at our team."
 

benhogan

Granite Truther
SoSH Member
Nov 2, 2007
17,609
Santa Monica
He used to have 4 categories, he goes back and forth depending which interview.

https://www.masslive.com/celtics/2015/06/brad_stevens_boston_celtics_lu.html

Obviously everyone starts with 1s, 2s, 3s, 4s and 5s when they look at a basketball team," Stevens said. "I look at ball-handlers, wings, swings and bigs. I only have four categories. The more guys that can play the more positions, the better. Right now I think if you look at the roster, I think we have three of the four categories with a lot of depth. And I think that swing area where you can go 3-4 and play that way, that's the area we're going to have to adress as we move into the next few weeks and look at our team."
3 or 4 Summers ago I think @lovegtm put together a primer on terms/positions so we could all be on the same page in describing positions.

It's funny when people say SWing I immediately think about a player like Horford or Grant that swings back and forth between Center and Wing. They can body a beef Center or pick up PFs like Giannis on defense. But can play the perimeter on offense.
 
Last edited:

mcpickl

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 23, 2007
4,196
I see zero need for Boston to go get a WING

BUT if you wanted a defensive WING on the cheap JG adds value when on the floor. I don't see a bad player at all, especially for teams that need wing defense

Alec Burks is putting a dent in the Piston's Victor chase.
Detroit was paid cash and given a 2nd to take Burks & Noel.
Troy Weaver turning him into an asset after 34 games wouldn't be a bad way to pat himself on the back

The is so much NBA parity that it feels like a Seller's market. Demand should be high for Burks, Poeltl, Bojan, JRich, etc
This is the exact thing they need, and even need is probably overstating it.

Just could use a guy that can give you 5ish minutes a half if Hauser isn't up to it. Just have to give Tatum/Brown a tiny bit of rest so they don't have play a full half. Some nights they'll be able to get away with just giving the guards/bigs more minutes, but some nights they just might need a 6'7" guy to fill in.

I think you need 9 guys for your playoff rotation, and a couple of them will play sparingly and sometimes not at all.

You need 3 guards. Smart, White, Brogdon is a check. Having Pritchard out of the rotation as depth is a huge bonus.
You need 3 bigs. Rob, Al, Grant is a check. Having Kornet out of the rotation as depth is a smaller bonus.
You need 3 wings. Tatum, Brown and Hauser is maybe a check? Having nobody out of the rotation as depth could be an issue.

That third wing is the 9th of the 9 man rotation, so it's not a glaring issue, but it's their biggest issue.

I don't think they even need to trade for a guy that can fill that spot. Just sign a buyout guy, or a guy not in the league right now(maybe Mo Harkless?). Just a veteran who knows who he is, and what his role is.
 

HomeRunBaker

bet squelcher
SoSH Member
Jan 15, 2004
27,635
Crowder is refusing to play because the team won't start him. He isn't starting here so I don't think it's a very good fit.
This isn’t what I heard at all. He wanted a long term extension which the Warriors refused and him not being with the team is mutual. If he was simply refusing to play the team would be pissed as hell and looking to recoup his salary by suspending him. Crowder is being paid by the team until he’s traded.
 

lovegtm

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 30, 2013
10,387
Toscana via Kyiv
Bit of both.

HOWEVER....

I don't want Grant playing down a position, he's much worse at it.
I also don't want Horford playing 4 without TL, he's not as good at it as he used to be. What makes Horford/TL work is that Horford guards the bigs and TL hangs out on the weakest forward roaming to make plays. Very few "bigs" can do that, certainly not the likes of Poetl. That pairing just means Al getting cooked and working 3 times as hard trying to stay in front of wings. At this point in his career, covering bigs is less wear and tear on Horford than covering 4s most nights.

And that's my biggest issue with the "more bigs" theory. It's based on a faulty premise that any of these guys are replacements for TL or Horford.
Take Poeltl, who is a good player.... he can play some of Al's role on defense, but he can't play any of it on offense. He can play some of TL's role on both ends (honestly maybe better on offense) but he can't play the key part of the defensive strategy TL does.

To me it's pretty simple. I don't see a big who makes our top 7 even if one of our bigs gets injured. I see wings out there who could make our top 7 if a big got injured and we had to go 1 big.
A major part of that is... none of these guys rumored to be available pair particularly well with either of our bigs. If there were a 3pt shooting big who could rebound and defend... sure. Or a true freak athlete who could mimic TL.... but those guys aren't available at the price we can pay. On the other hand, there are a lot of 6'7" - 6'9" guys who can do a lot of things and fit a lot of lineups out there making under $12M a year, and those guys can slot right into the top 8/9 of a playoff team.
Interesting, I think there's just a difference of opinions on some players. I don't think Grant is worse playing down a position (he seems to cover same-sized 3s just fine, but maybe that's just me). We're really just talking about playing Grant+Tatum/Brown at the 3/4, which seems totally fine to me. The team has plenty of guards for 1-2 (and sometimes 3) depth.

I also think Poeltl is much more mobile than you're giving him credit for--he's not a Valunciunas/Steven Adams/Brook Lopez type. If you watch his defensive highlights from last year, there's a lot of variety in where his blocks come from, including a number where he covers lots of ground from the weak side. His fluidity turning his hips is impressive.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-qqVtXdCEkw


The fact that we have this difference of opinion doesn't mean I'm right, of course, but if a deal ends up happening, I think this would be Brad's thinking.

Regarding Al needing Rob as the 5 if Al is the 4:
First off, with another good center, that's totally fine. When everyone's healthy, you just play Al and Rob together for 28 mins/night instead of staggering them. The remaining 20 minutes at the 4 can be Grant or Tatum: with a rim-protecting center, that works great. Honestly, they could probably do this rotation right now with Kornet playing those 20 minutes, and get great results, but I totally understand not wanting to design lineups that give extra minutes to your 11th man. With a starting-caliber C, however, it would make tons of sense.

If Rob is hurt, then you probably go back more to lineups where Horford is a backup 5 anyway, just to avoid playing Kornet tons. If you must play Al as a 4 all the time (I can see the rationale), then you still would have Poeltl or Kornet protecting the rim behind him, because they'd be on the other team's C, who probably isn't spacing out to 3. It's more traditional, and would likely work just fine (it already does when Kornet plays with Al).
 
Last edited:

benhogan

Granite Truther
SoSH Member
Nov 2, 2007
17,609
Santa Monica
This is the exact thing they need, and even need is probably overstating it.

Just could use a guy that can give you 5ish minutes a half if Hauser isn't up to it. Just have to give Tatum/Brown a tiny bit of rest so they don't have play a full half. Some nights they'll be able to get away with just giving the guards/bigs more minutes, but some nights they just might need a 6'7" guy to fill in.

I think you need 9 guys for your playoff rotation, and a couple of them will play sparingly and sometimes not at all.

You need 3 guards. Smart, White, Brogdon is a check. Having Pritchard out of the rotation as depth is a huge bonus.
You need 3 bigs. Rob, Al, Grant is a check. Having Kornet out of the rotation as depth is a smaller bonus.
You need 3 wings. Tatum, Brown and Hauser is maybe a check? Having nobody out of the rotation as depth could be an issue.

That third wing is the 9th of the 9-man rotation, so it's not a glaring issue, but it's their biggest issue.

I don't think they even need to trade for a guy that can fill that spot. Just sign a buyout guy, or a guy not in the league right now(maybe Mo Harkless?). Just a veteran who knows who he is, and what his role is.
The Celtics have the best CORE8 in the NBA. Asking for a 9th player at Poeltl's level would be a luxury.

I really expect Brad to just wade into the buyout market to finish off the roster, not expecting a trade

BUT since Shams rumored it, this is why Brad might want to add Poeltl:
1. Creates not only TL injury insurance but insurance throughout the CORE8. Any player could go down (outside of the JAYs) and they'd still be a heavy contender
2. It sacrifices PP/Luke/Hauser minutes, makes them available in the trade
3. It load manages/reduces reg season minutes for the CORE8 for the remainder of the regular season
4. It lets every player guard down and puts Horford in a position where he has excelled
5. More formidable defensive unit, especially against teams like Milwaukee, Phila or Memphis.
6. Gives Joe more flexibility for in-game matchups
7. Extreme GFIN mode - there is no real dominant team in the NBA

Here is a very rough, back-of-the-envelope outline of regular season minutes allocation w/ Poeltl
Obviously, it would change in the playoffs, with injuries, back-to-backs, Game7s, and match-ups.

5: TL 26mpg / Poeltl 20mpg / Horford 2mpg
4: Horford 23mpg / Grant 22mpg / Tatum 3mpg
3: Tatum 31mpg / Brown 17mpg
2: Brown 17mpg/ White 26mpg / Smart 5mpg
1: Smart 24mpg / Brogdon 24mpg

Rob: 26mpg
Horford 25mpg
Tatum: 34mpg
Brown: 34mpg
Smart: 29mpg

White: 26mpg
Brogdon: 24mpg
Grant: 22mpg
Poeltl: 20mpg
 

Jimbodandy

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 31, 2006
9,584
around the way
Anyone advocating that we wait for the buyout market rather than spend a first rounder to get an insurance big, that's fine. I'd rather get the best big available (likely Poeltl), but I understand wanting to avoid jettisoning all of the first rounders. We do need picks, and we've already dumped some.

Anyone saying that we don't need an insurance big, that I would not understand. Al is 36, and Rob Williams is Rob Williams. Losing a bite at this apple because Luke Kornet is playing drop coverage for 20mpg in the playoffs would break my heart.
 

bosockboy

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
18,249
St. Louis, MO
Anyone advocating that we wait for the buyout market rather than spend a first rounder to get an insurance big, that's fine. I'd rather get the best big available (likely Poeltl), but I understand wanting to avoid jettisoning all of the first rounders. We do need picks, and we've already dumped some.

Anyone saying that we don't need an insurance big, that I would not understand. Al is 36, and Rob Williams is Rob Williams. Losing a bite at this apple because Luke Kornet is playing drop coverage for 20mpg in the playoffs would break my heart.
Spot on. Get Poeltl.
 

mcpickl

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 23, 2007
4,196
The Celtics have the best CORE8 in the NBA. Asking for a 9th player at Poeltl's level would be a luxury.

I really expect Brad to just wade into the buyout market to finish off the roster, not expecting a trade

BUT since Shams rumored it, this is why Brad might want to add Poeltl:
1. Creates not only TL injury insurance but insurance throughout the CORE8. Any player could go down (outside of the JAYs) and they'd still be a heavy contender
2. It sacrifices PP/Luke/Hauser minutes, makes them available in the trade
3. It load manages/reduces reg season minutes for the CORE8 for the remainder of the regular season
4. It lets every player guard down and puts Horford in a position where he has excelled
5. More formidable defensive unit, especially against teams like Milwaukee, Phila or Memphis.
6. Gives Joe more flexibility for in-game matchups
7. Extreme GFIN mode - there is no real dominant team in the NBA


Here is a very rough, back-of-the-envelope outline of regular season minutes allocation w/ Poeltl
Obviously, it would change in the playoffs, with injuries, back-to-backs, Game7s, and match-ups.

5: TL 26mpg / Poeltl 20mpg / Horford 2mpg
4: Horford 23mpg / Grant 22mpg / Tatum 3mpg
3: Tatum 31mpg / Brown 17mpg
2: Brown 17mpg/ White 26mpg / Smart 5mpg
1: Smart 24mpg / Brogdon 24mpg

Rob: 26mpg
Horford 25mpg
Tatum: 34mpg
Brown: 34mpg
Smart: 29mpg

White: 26mpg
Brogdon: 24mpg
Grant: 22mpg
Poeltl: 20mpg
But, of your 7 bullet points on why Brad might want to add Poeltl, most would also apply to why Brad would want to add anybody.

The only points I see that would apply directly to Poeltl(or another center) over just adding another player at wing is Time Lord insurance, agreed, and It lets every player guard down and puts Horford in a position where he has excelled, which I also agree but I think that's a negative as much as a positive.

In this scenario, Poeltl wouldn't be taking playoff minutes from Pritchard/Hauser/Kornet, they aren't getting real playoff minutes without a couple of injuries anyway. He'd be taking minutes from Smart/White/Brogdon, because playing bigger pushes Jaylen down into taking up more guard minutes. I don't think that makes them better.

I'm just not worried about regular season minutes at all. The Celtics can just pump up the Pritchard/Hauser/Kornet regular season minutes down the stretch and they'll be fine. Being 33-12 allows them the luxury of cutting back on minutes without any upgrades. I'd imagine that'll happen in the second half regardless.

I just can't see the value into giving a first round pick for a guy that, in my mind, would mostly just be injury insurance. And a rental at that. Doesn't compute to me.
 

BigSoxFan

Member
SoSH Member
May 31, 2007
44,791
Is there any chance we'd be able to afford Poetl after this season? I don't really see how unless Wyc would be willing to blow through the luxury tax. But I think he would be a huge addition for a team that is already the #1 seed. Don't mess around this year. We're so close. The time is now. Our first round picks just aren't going to be valuable any time soon.
 

tbrown_01923

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 29, 2006
703
Or is there any residual value in Poetl (or Grant) if the choice is "pick 1" on whomever isn't returning in the form of a "sign and trade" so that we could potentially recoup some of the assets used to acquire him. I mean S&T don't return a ton of value but maybe a second round pick, trade exception, etc are't "nothing".
 

mcpickl

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 23, 2007
4,196
Is there any chance we'd be able to afford Poetl after this season? I don't really see how unless Wyc would be willing to blow through the luxury tax. But I think he would be a huge addition for a team that is already the #1 seed. Don't mess around this year. We're so close. The time is now. Our first round picks just aren't going to be valuable any time soon.
I can't imagine the Celtics would be able to afford Poeltl after the season, and can't imagine any reason Poeltl would want to stay. He'd be a backup center here. He's good enough to be a starter. He's going to be looking for starter money and role.

And even though the Celtics first round picks just aren't going to be valuable any time soon, they're also the most valuable trade assets they have to move. If you moved one for Poeltl now, you couldn't trade another future first rounder until 2027 at the earliest. That's a long way to go without much available to trade.
 

HomeRunBaker

bet squelcher
SoSH Member
Jan 15, 2004
27,635
I also don't want Horford playing 4 without TL, he's not as good at it as he used to be. What makes Horford/TL work is that Horford guards the bigs and TL hangs out on the weakest forward roaming to make plays. Very few "bigs" can do that, certainly not the likes of Poetl. That pairing just means Al getting cooked and working 3 times as hard trying to stay in front of wings. At this point in his career, covering bigs is less wear and tear on Horford than covering 4s most nights.

And that's my biggest issue with the "more bigs" theory. It's based on a faulty premise that any of these guys are replacements for TL or Horford.
Take Poetle, who is a good player.... he can play some of Al's role on defense, but he can't play any of it on offense. He can play some of TL's role on both ends (honestly maybe better on offense) but he can't play the key part of the defensive strategy TL does.
I don’t understand the “certainly not the likes of Poeltl at all” or the “but he can’t play the key part of the defensive strategy TL does” part. He’s as good a rim protector as there is in the game right now and arguably his greatest strength IS his mobility as he is best as a weak side defender. His game is so much closer to TL than it is Horford. Are we sure we are talking about the same player and I promise I’m not being obtuse (Rocco would have loved seeing his favorite word used).
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
31,020
I think Poetl is a red herring anyway honestly, the reported price is higher than a single future 1st (already arguably too much for a player who will be an 8th/9th man) and everyone other than Shams seems to be reporting that the Celtics are looking at wings. Considering Shams' likely source is an agent, definitely feels like he was just throwing every team that touched base in the pot.
 

Jimbodandy

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 31, 2006
9,584
around the way
I can't imagine the Celtics would be able to afford Poeltl after the season, and can't imagine any reason Poeltl would want to stay. He'd be a backup center here. He's good enough to be a starter. He's going to be looking for starter money and role.

And even though the Celtics first round picks just aren't going to be valuable any time soon, they're also the most valuable trade assets they have to move. If you moved one for Poeltl now, you couldn't trade another future first rounder until 2027 at the earliest. That's a long way to go without much available to trade.
Yeah that's a really good point. That empties the quiver materially. I'm on team "buyout stiff for insurance big" now. You should be in sales, pickl.

Fake edit: that is not sarcasm
 

Smokey Joe

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 9, 2001
1,057
There seems to be this idea that Poeltl could be acquired with a first round draft pick. I doubt that this is the case. The asking price is reported to be 2 1st rounders. The Spurs do not need to get rid of him. He has not resigned with SA because they are limited in the size of the extension they can offer. Once he is a free agent, they can sign him for any amount and they are one of the few teams who will have the cap room to do that. They are waiting to be blown away by an offer, which is why I said that I don’t want to give away the store for a backup center. I suggest we think about other possibilities, like Vanderbilt.
 

NomarsFool

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 21, 2001
7,060
There seems to be this idea that Poeltl could be acquired with a first round draft pick. I doubt that this is the case. The asking price is reported to be 2 1st rounders. The Spurs do not need to get rid of him. He has not resigned with SA because they are limited in the size of the extension they can offer. Once he is a free agent, they can sign him for any amount and they are one of the few teams who will have the cap room to do that. They are waiting to be blown away by an offer, which is why I said that I don’t want to give away the store for a backup center. I suggest we think about other possibilities, like Vanderbilt.
They are telling everyone the price is 2 first rounders, which means the actual price is likely less than that. Would they have reason to sign him long-term? That's not a rhetorical question, are they in a position where investing in him makes sense? Or, are they likely to let him walk away or S&T (to likely get little in return). If so, they may be looking to get whatever they can get (like a FRP and a pick swap or something). I'm not saying that's what the Celtics should offer. I just think the real price might be something more along the lines of a FRP and PP or a FRP and a 2nd rounder.
 

Devizier

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 3, 2000
17,777
Somewhere
Poetl is likely to be BPA at any level the Celtics are willing to spend, and could be by a mile. I don't see another White or Brogdon lurking in the trade market. Even if there were, the Celtics are hamstrung by a lack of expendable contracts for salary matching purposes.

The other arguments in favor of acquiring him have been detailed exhaustively in this thread so no need revisiting.
 

benhogan

Granite Truther
SoSH Member
Nov 2, 2007
17,609
Santa Monica
Anyone advocating that we wait for the buyout market rather than spend a first rounder to get an insurance big, that's fine. I'd rather get the best big available (likely Poeltl), but I understand wanting to avoid jettisoning all of the first rounders. We do need picks, and we've already dumped some.

Anyone saying that we don't need an insurance big, that I would not understand. Al is 36, and Rob Williams is Rob Williams. Losing a bite at this apple because Luke Kornet is playing drop coverage for 20mpg in the playoffs would break my heart.
Agreed. Hanging on to firsts for future trades is a fair argument. Jaylen Brown, All-NBA, means this team's window is 4-5yrs. Brad has done amazing work with his firsts. Using one on a 2 month/playoff rental Center probably means Brad knows stuff about TL's medicals or feels that Grant is gone in RFA.

A defense-first Center to shrink-wrapping Al/TimeLord is job #1 for Brad in the trade/buyout market.
The Celtics 1-4 is 3 players deep with their CORE8. Don't see Brad using his limited resources to trade for a wing.
There seems to be this idea that Poeltl could be acquired with a first round draft pick. I doubt that this is the case. The asking price is reported to be 2 1st rounders. The Spurs do not need to get rid of him. He has not resigned with SA because they are limited in the size of the extension they can offer. Once he is a free agent, they can sign him for any amount and they are one of the few teams who will have the cap room to do that. They are waiting to be blown away by an offer, which is why I said that I don’t want to give away the store for a backup center. I suggest we think about other possibilities, like Vanderbilt.
This isn't aimed at you Joe

BUT the one thing I have learned over the last few years is we have zero idea what these players' trade prices are (myself included)

Before we say we can't land Poeltl
what is Pritchard's value?
Hauser's value?
Begarin's value?
Kornet's value?

We got 3.5 yrs of Derrick White for less than 2 Firsts. White would have much more trade value then Poeltl

You would have been laughed off this board with the mere suggestion of landing 3yrs of Malcolm Brogdon for a late 1st + flotsam in the Summer when 29 teams are actively looking to upgrade their rosters. Brogdon and his contract have much more value then Poeltl

So color me skeptical that Poeltl, a two-month rental, lands the Spurs two first-round picks. BUT again we just don't know, especially when you have the Wolves trading 5 firsts + usable players for an expensive Gobert.
 
Last edited:

mcpickl

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 23, 2007
4,196
There seems to be this idea that Poeltl could be acquired with a first round draft pick. I doubt that this is the case. The asking price is reported to be 2 1st rounders. The Spurs do not need to get rid of him. He has not resigned with SA because they are limited in the size of the extension they can offer. Once he is a free agent, they can sign him for any amount and they are one of the few teams who will have the cap room to do that. They are waiting to be blown away by an offer, which is why I said that I don’t want to give away the store for a backup center. I suggest we think about other possibilities, like Vanderbilt.
I feel like he's extremely likely to be out of there, because I think they'll be aiming for someone younger with higher upside.

My thinking is Poeltl gets dealt in a trade involving someone like Wiseman or Ayton(provided he agrees to trade) coming back.

Poeltl is a solid player that can help teams now, but by the time the Spurs are good again he's probably hitting his 30s.
 

lovegtm

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 30, 2013
10,387
Toscana via Kyiv
I don’t understand the “certainly not the likes of Poeltl at all” or the “but he can’t play the key part of the defensive strategy TL does” part. He’s as good a rim protector as there is in the game right now and arguably his greatest strength IS his mobility as he is best as a weak side defender. His game is so much closer to TL than it is Horford. Are we sure we are talking about the same player and I promise I’m not being obtuse (Rocco would have loved seeing his favorite word used).
Yeah, I don't think people have watched enough Poeltl. He's really good and mobile defensively, while also being huge (7-1 with a 9-3.5 standing reach).

Regarding the asking price of 2 firsts: the Magic wanted 2 firsts for Fournier. The Spurs wanted that for DWhite. It's nice to want things, but I would be shocked if Poeltl fetches 2 firsts at the end of the day, given his position and contract situation.
 

HomeRunBaker

bet squelcher
SoSH Member
Jan 15, 2004
27,635
There seems to be this idea that Poeltl could be acquired with a first round draft pick. I doubt that this is the case. The asking price is reported to be 2 1st rounders. The Spurs do not need to get rid of him. He has not resigned with SA because they are limited in the size of the extension they can offer. Once he is a free agent, they can sign him for any amount and they are one of the few teams who will have the cap room to do that. They are waiting to be blown away by an offer, which is why I said that I don’t want to give away the store for a backup center. I suggest we think about other possibilities, like Vanderbilt.
I’m going “eat log of my own shit” (ELOMOS?) on this one if the Spurs get two #1’s for an expiring contract. This trade would qualify imo. Low 1st/High 2nd and some sprinkles is what I’d expect the Spurs to receive.

Edit: As @benhogan noted, our two cost-controlled guards were acquitted for less and while Gobert was an offseason anomaly even he was locked up long term.

Edit2: “Acquired” not acquitted……although hopefully they are that too. Autocorrect is my bane.
 
Last edited:

Jimbodandy

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 31, 2006
9,584
around the way
Gobert trade is predictive of nothing imo. Truly stupid deal.

Brogdon and White are better comps, with a bit of a downgrade for years of control but perhaps a tick of inflation because trade deadline fever.
 

Smokey Joe

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 9, 2001
1,057
The spurs are below the salary floor. Poeltl is not in the way of someone they want to develop. If he is not telling them privately that he is not coming back next year, they have no reason not to keep him. And no reason to ship him out for the 30th pick in the 2024 draft, a 2029 swap and pocket lint. This is not a Fourier or White situation.
I would suggest that we talk about vanderbilt, who probably can be acquired for that even though Ainge will probably ask for 3 unprotected 1st rounders and 2 pick swaps.
 

InstaFace

The Ultimate One
SoSH Member
Sep 27, 2016
18,651
Pittsburgh, PA
We likely have 2 second-round picks this spring, but then we have none in 2024 (Hayward/Kemba), 2025 (Fournier), have given Memphis swap rights in 2026, nor any pick in 2027 (also Fournier), and we lose the 2028 pick (Bol Bol / Dozier) if it's outside #45. So while in theory I might be fine with sending even two second-rounders to San Antonio for Poeltl, we may not actually have those second-rounders to send, unless it's both picks this spring, or the worse of (BOS / MEM) in 2026.

We do have our own 1st-rounders from 2024 - 2027, with only this year's being committed (top-12-protected to IND, likely to convey), and the 2028 pick being subject to swap rights with SAS for the White deal. I will say that I like that we've mostly traded out our 2nd-rounders, because finding room on a title-contending roster to try and develop 2nd-rounders seems like a pretty annoying challenge to have to deal with, barring the very unlikely Manu Ginobili situation where they're just blowing you away. But keeping our first in most years seems wise as of right now, and I'm not sure I'd want to trade out of it for a rental.

When speaking of the going rate for a Poeltl trade, I think it's better to reason in terms of specific teams and their offers. I wonder, in particular, what Toronto (the other rumored Poeltl suitor) might be willing to put up. They might not even make the playoffs, they have room to spend some money, and they need an NBA-quality Center because they're having Siakam play the 5 right now for most of his minutes, and he clearly doesn't want to be doing that. So unless they identify an even better target, I think he's probably worth more to Toronto than he is to Boston.
 
Last edited:

chilidawg

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 22, 2015
4,964
Cultural hub of the universe
The spurs are below the salary floor. Poeltl is not in the way of someone they want to develop. If he is not telling them privately that he is not coming back next year, they have no reason not to keep him. And no reason to ship him out for the 30th pick in the 2024 draft, a 2029 swap and pocket lint. This is not a Fourier or White situation.
I would suggest that we talk about vanderbilt, who probably can be acquired for that even though Ainge will probably ask for 3 unprotected 1st rounders and 2 pick swaps.
Is Vanderbilt even good? He seems to be falling in the Utah rotation. He had good advanced numbers in Minny, but they don't seem to have translated to Utah. On-Off of -7.9 is pretty bad.
 

Jakarta

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 18, 2020
183
I threw this out there last year, it didn’t happen, so going back to the well this year: Mike Muscala. He’s had really strong on-off numbers the last 3 years (which Brads seems to value), shoots the 3, defends the rim decently, can play the 4 or 5, is cheap so salary matching is easy and is signed through next year. He’s more like poor man’s Al than poor man’s TL but likely a better player than anyone who will become available on the buyout market.

There is the question of whether OKC wants to try to make the playoffs this year in which case they may not be sellers.
 

HomeRunBaker

bet squelcher
SoSH Member
Jan 15, 2004
27,635
Is Vanderbilt even good? He seems to be falling in the Utah rotation. He had good advanced numbers in Minny, but they don't seem to have translated to Utah. On-Off of -7.9 is pretty bad.
Where do you see him falling in their rotation? As far as I can tell his role hasn’t changed all season. He’s being used off the bench now which is his best usage as an energy guy. He’s very useful and I expect him to be a highly sought after role player on contenders for many years. He gets lost on bad teams.

As far as his game……he’s the love child of Lamar Odom and Reggie Evans. Lefty point forward-type with good ball handling and passing like Lamar with the motor and rebounding tenacity of Evans. Unfortunately for him he also scores the ball similar to Evans.
 

benhogan

Granite Truther
SoSH Member
Nov 2, 2007
17,609
Santa Monica
Is Vanderbilt even good? He seems to be falling in the Utah rotation. He had good advanced numbers in Minny, but they don't seem to have translated to Utah. On-Off of -7.9 is pretty bad.
Complimentary player on cheap $$$ over 2yrs, plays with energy.
His On-Off & +/- over the last 2.5 seasons are both positive on pedestrian teams.

Utah might just keep him as they try to make the playoffs. All these teams we assumed would be sellers (OKC, Utah, Indiana) may be looking to add instead of selling.

Seller's market, so don't blame the Spurs if they try to get a ransom for Poeltl or JRich
 

chilidawg

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 22, 2015
4,964
Cultural hub of the universe
Where do you see him falling in their rotation? As far as I can tell his role hasn’t changed all season. He’s being used off the bench now which is his best usage as an energy guy. He’s very useful and I expect him to be a highly sought after role player on contenders for many years. He gets lost on bad teams.

As far as his game……he’s the love child of Lamar Odom and Reggie Evans. Lefty point forward-type with good ball handling and passing like Lamar with the motor and rebounding tenacity of Evans. Unfortunately for him he also scores the ball similar to Evans.
Well he was starting and now he's not, so that's what I was referring too. Thanks for that description of his game, I always thought LO was a fun player to watch.