Should the Celtics Trade Thomas

slamminsammya

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2006
9,152
San Francisco
The case for trading IT:

1) He is probably at the apex of his trade value. He is 27 years old which is not young for the NBA. He is currently riding an incredible hot streak of offense, posting career highs in pretty much everything this season. There is some reason to believe he will not age well. By several metrics he is a very good player, but very unusual in that he is amazingly good offensively and horrendous defensively, with the difference still having him come out as a net positive. Given his stature it is intuitive that his defense is a major drawback, and I dont see that improving. On the other side of the ball, he relies on his quickness and body control getting past the first man and then using his amazing finishing ability. What will happen when the quickness gives a little bit?

2) It makes sense for the Celtics to trade him while his value is peaked. This team, though fun to watch now, is not a serious championship contender, and would not be one likely until after he signs a new less team friendly contract, which will likely include his waning years which may not be pretty. The timing does not make sense. Furthermore, it seems Marcus Smart is developing into a legitimate creator at point guard, while in the front court in two years we will have an old Al Horford and then question marks.

Discuss.
 

finnVT

superspreadsheeter
SoSH Member
Jul 12, 2002
2,153
To who, for what? What team that could use him would have a tradeable asset worth losing him for?
 

sox311

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 30, 2004
1,753
That's what she said.
No, stop people, no.

Any team looking to trade for him would be in the same situation as we are, but without the assets to trade we have.

He is going to be extended, and luckily the other contracts and contributors on the Cs on their rookie deals in better than any team in basketball, so we can continue to pay our players and sign another max deal. Never has a team been in better cap situations than this it seems to build a team rather than just get Lebron and Bosh... Well, actually, Golden State was in the same situation, with better players though.
 

DeJesus Built My Hotrod

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 24, 2002
48,204
The problem for the Celtics is that they are currently the third best team in the East and arguably the second (I would love for them to have had Bradley for the Toronto game). Furthermore, their "core" is not young so despite the fact they have assets, they can either try to improve their team right now and go for it.

Or they can blow it up in a manner of speaking and trade someone like Thomas for picks and contracts to make it work. I would argue if they are doing this, they ought to move the rest of their core including Bradley and Crowder because at that point, you aren't going to win a playoff series anyhow - you have essentially thrown in the towel on this generation of the team.

Finally, the problem with picks is that, even if you get them all right over the next two to three years, you may not see a contending team out of it for another three to five years from now if at all (see T-Wolves for what this looks like).

Will Stevens stick around for that? Do the fans want to see the C's go the 76ers route after seeing what that organization has gone through?

This team is kind of stuck and the new CBA makes acquiring a superstar even more difficult. However, were they able to find another star player, I think they should absolutely go for it. In short, no way should this team trade IT4. He is their best player, they will never fetch equal value and the guy puts butts in seats.
 

Eddie Jurak

canderson-lite
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 12, 2002
44,474
Melrose, MA
The only posible reason for trading him would be if the Celtics decided that they were not going to pay him. And in that scenario I wouldn't expect full market value, so it would probably make more sense to just let him play out the string, unless the Brooklyn Nets were willing to offer unprotected firsts in 2020, 2022, and 2024 plus an unprotected pick swap in 2023.
 

wade boggs chicken dinner

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 26, 2005
30,482
He is going to be extended
Is he?

Although the original post was inelegant, there is a couple of interesting questions here: what should DA do with IT4, what would he accept, and how might other teams value him.

I haven't had time to look into the new CBA at all, so I'm not sure if what I am reading is correct, but IT4 will be eligible for an extension following this season, somthe first question is whether one will be offered AND whether IT4 would agree to one.

I understand that DA could offer up to 5 years starting at approximately $8.4M (120% average salary) which could be increased by any cap space that the Cs. have.

(Note that AB is also eligible for an extension).

If the Cs sign a free agent and don't have any cap space, I doubt IT4 signs an extension and hits the open market after the end of the next season. He might do something like 3/$50M as that would be approximately what he would make over the same time if he waited to hit FA ($6.26M plus first two years of max or near-max contract).

Then the question is whether anyone is going to offer him a max deal.

Will be interesting to see how this all plays out.
 

NoXInNixon

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 24, 2008
5,296
If they draft a point guard this year with the #1 or #2 pick, maybe I could see the Celtics considering it, but I don't see a team out there that needs IT and would have enough to offer to remotely approach a fair return.
 

sox311

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 30, 2004
1,753
That's what she said.
I guess you are right in that he isn't eligible to be extended for anywhere near what he will get on the open market. So, he probably won't extend, but wait for the Brinks truck to back up to his front door.

Having Isaiah and this "not young" core is great in my opinion for the Celtics and their fans. It allows them to compete as they would with this roster and have players like Jaylen and future draft picks to learn from and play with instead of being the Orlando Magic, lots of talent but no success. David Robinson to Tim Duncan, Duncan to Kawhai.

We should prefer Isaiah to extend now, but if not, he'll be making Chandler Parsons money until 2022 with us.
 

mauf

Anderson Cooper × Mr. Rogers
Moderator
SoSH Member
Only way it makes sense to trade IT4 is if (a) trading him is critical to landing the superstar we need, or (b) the ping-pong balls fall our way this summer and we want to push our window back by a few years.
 

mauf

Anderson Cooper × Mr. Rogers
Moderator
SoSH Member
Is he?

Although the original post was inelegant, there is a couple of interesting questions here: what should DA do with IT4, what would he accept, and how might other teams value him.

I haven't had time to look into the new CBA at all, so I'm not sure if what I am reading is correct, but IT4 will be eligible for an extension following this season, somthe first question is whether one will be offered AND whether IT4 would agree to one.

I understand that DA could offer up to 5 years starting at approximately $8.4M (120% average salary) which could be increased by any cap space that the Cs. have.

(Note that AB is also eligible for an extension).

If the Cs sign a free agent and don't have any cap space, I doubt IT4 signs an extension and hits the open market after the end of the next season. He might do something like 3/$50M as that would be approximately what he would make over the same time if he waited to hit FA ($6.26M plus first two years of max or near-max contract).

Then the question is whether anyone is going to offer him a max deal.

Will be interesting to see how this all plays out.
In a world where Evan Turner gets 4/70, I can't see any way IT4 signs an extension that doesn't pay him near the max.

The interesting part of this discussion is that the C's can't afford to keep IT4/AB/Smart after 2018; in fact, I'm not sure they can afford more than one of them, unless we somehow land a superstar next summer and are willing to go way over the cap to keep the supporting cast together. I happen to think, however, that AB is the guy you'd choose to trade -- he'd fetch nearly as much as IT, and Smart can slide into AB's role in the short term.
 

Jed Zeppelin

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 23, 2008
51,289
I guess you are right in that he isn't eligible to be extended for anywhere near what he will get on the open market. So, he probably won't extend, but wait for the Brinks truck to back up to his front door.

Having Isaiah and this "not young" core is great in my opinion for the Celtics and their fans. It allows them to compete as they would with this roster and have players like Jaylen and future draft picks to learn from and play with instead of being the Orlando Magic, lots of talent but no success. David Robinson to Tim Duncan, Duncan to Kawhai.

We should prefer Isaiah to extend now, but if not, he'll be making Chandler Parsons money until 2022 with us.
Don't know if it's just a symptom of being a Boston fan these days but I agree. Perfectly okay with winning, if not truly competing, while building and waiting for the right move to strike.
 

wade boggs chicken dinner

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 26, 2005
30,482
In a world where Evan Turner gets 4/70, I can't see any way IT4 signs an extension that doesn't pay him near the max.

The interesting part of this discussion is that the C's can't afford to keep IT4/AB/Smart after 2018; in fact, I'm not sure they can afford more than one of them, unless we somehow land a superstar next summer and are willing to go way over the cap to keep the supporting cast together. I happen to think, however, that AB is the guy you'd choose to trade -- he'd fetch nearly as much as IT, and Smart can slide into AB's role in the short term.
Agreed that if IT4 was a free agent this year he wouldn't be signing anything but because he's playing for such a below-market contract next year, it's been suggested that signing a two or three year extension wouldn't be such a bad thing for him so long as it brings next year's salary up.

This is probably something for another thread but in terms of Smart, the Cs are lucky that people like Van Gundy keep referring to him as a "horrific" shooter. That will depress his market and maybe make him a valuable non-max asset that the Cs can extend for a reasonable price.
 

gammoseditor

also had a stroke
SoSH Member
Jul 17, 2005
4,219
Somerville, MA
The problem with being a major seller in the NBA today is any team with young assets to trade is not one player away from being able to compete so no one is giving up young talent.
 

JakeRae

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 21, 2005
8,125
New York, NY
The Cetics aren't making any decisions on IT until they see where the ping pong balls fall. It becomes a lot harder to extend IT if you land Fultz, Ball or Smith.
I think this is the thing that is being overlooked by people who claim we absolutely shouldn't trade him. In a world where the Celtics pick #1 and draft Fultz, it very well could make sense to try to put together a deal centered around Thomas. The problem is, there really aren't any available bigs who are actually better players than him except, maybe, Cousins. If you can find one, adding the 2018 pick to Thomas to create better roster balance might make sense. Another possible option is a similar scenario, where Hayward is acquired, and Thomas is traded for an inferior big that is a better roster fit and a future limited-protection pick.

I'm not saying we should trade him. And, it's pretty silly to talk about it mid-season. For starters, on the heels of a major FA signing, the team cannot then trade away talent without a really good justification. IT playing the best basketball of his career is not such a justification. It's, in fact, the opposite of it.
 

the moops

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 19, 2016
4,700
Saint Paul, MN
The problem is, there really aren't any available bigs who are actually better players than him except, maybe, Cousins..
Well, we aren't talking now, so we don't really know what available bigs would be there in the offseason. It also could very well be a wing they are looking for, and not a big.

If the Celts only win one series, or less likely, but still possible, win no playoff series, trading Thomas becomes that much easier for the fanbase to swallow. If they make it to the ECF, it is going to be difficult to justify trading away your best player.
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
34,457
I would absolutely trade him this off-season if a decent deal presented itself. He's not a guy I want to pay for his late 20s early 30s. He's a great offensive player and a terrible defender, undersized and heavily reliant on quickness. IF they have the opportunity to draft Fultz or Smith, I draft one of them and immediately shop IT.
 

mcpickl

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 23, 2007
4,546
I've been advocating for a while to definitely be looking for a trade partner for him.

I don't think you can win in the playoffs with such a defensive liability.

We saw a preview in Toronto this week. A playoff series with them would result in relentlessly isolating IT on defense trying to guard Lowry or Derozan. They're just going to score with impunity.

The idea isn't to trade IT for picks/futures. They'd be trying to acquire a disgruntled star, or maybe a level below star, player to compete now. Ainge isn't trading IT for 2019 draft picks(unless it's in a 3 way deal), and I don't think he's going to pay him anywhere near a max deal. I think IT will be getting paid elsewhere.
 

JCizzle

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 11, 2006
20,530
Agreed that if IT4 was a free agent this year he wouldn't be signing anything but because he's playing for such a below-market contract next year, it's been suggested that signing a two or three year extension wouldn't be such a bad thing for him so long as it brings next year's salary up.

This is probably something for another thread but in terms of Smart, the Cs are lucky that people like Van Gundy keep referring to him as a "horrific" shooter. That will depress his market and maybe make him a valuable non-max asset that the Cs can extend for a reasonable price.
Is he really wrong though? Outside of a couple of hot steaks, he really hasn't proven any ability to shoot or finish at the rim. He's still valuable, but I think he will always be a very flawed player, unfortunately.
 

Eddie Jurak

canderson-lite
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 12, 2002
44,474
Melrose, MA
Is he really wrong though? Outside of a couple of hot steaks, he really hasn't proven any ability to shoot or finish at the rim. He's still valuable, but I think he will always be a very flawed player, unfortunately.
I think being on a team loaded with small guards and having only one legit go-to scorer (a small point guard, of course) has hurt his development and value.

I think we've seen enough of him now to know that he is a point guard and that his best offensive attributes are his vision/passing and his size (at the PG position, where he can post up smaller players). Playing a lot of SF, as he has this year, hurts him both offensively and defensively - he's just not cut out to be a short 3.

I think he can work as part of a backcourt with IT because, offensively, IT can play with or without the ball.

But in the end I think that unless they let IT go, they need to move on from either Smart or Bradley.
 

nighthob

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
12,678
If they draft a point guard this year with the #1 or #2 pick, maybe I could see the Celtics considering it, but I don't see a team out there that needs IT and would have enough to offer to remotely approach a fair return.
Unless the Lakers ended up with the second or third pick. They could use the star power.
 

Schnerres

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 28, 2009
1,554
Germany
You would have to find a team that needs an experienced finisher for the 4th quarter to win them games and is able to give up a young player with potential or a good pick (or some combination of both).

-MIN: Zach Lavine?
-PHI: 2017 Lakers 1st round pick (currently No.7)+Noel (or another one of the Philly big guys)?
 

Devizier

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 3, 2000
19,461
Somewhere
The Celtics wouldn't get dick for Thomas. Undersized is the first thing general managers around the league are going to see in him. That's why the Celtics got him for nothing in the first place. Im enjoying the team right now. Thomas isn't what is holding them back.
 

mcpickl

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 23, 2007
4,546
The Celtics wouldn't get dick for Thomas. Undersized is the first thing general managers around the league are going to see in him. That's why the Celtics got him for nothing in the first place. Im enjoying the team right now. Thomas isn't what is holding them back.
I don't think this is fair.

The Celtics got him when he was a bench scorer on a blah team. Now he's a top 5 scorer in the league on a very good team. I don't think you can get back as much as you'd expect from his stat line because of his defensive limitations, but he's worth much more than "dick".

You may be overestimating how smart every GM, or owner, in the league is. All you need is one GM who has a player you want to think he can sell to his owner that, hey we traded player X, but we got an All-Star in return!
 

Eddie Jurak

canderson-lite
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 12, 2002
44,474
Melrose, MA
Trying to trade Thomas in order to acquire a player who improves the team today is just not realistic.

Keep in mind that the Celtic's biggest offensive problem is the lack of a go to scorer, and anyone who comes back for Thomas would be a downgrade in that regard.

Stupid teams blame their best players for the failings of the rest of the roster.

What the Celtics really need to do is add another guy who can create his own shot when needed to Thomas.
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
34,457
Trying to trade Thomas in order to acquire a player who improves the team today is just not realistic.

Keep in mind that the Celtic's biggest offensive problem is the lack of a go to scorer, and anyone who comes back for Thomas would be a downgrade in that regard.

Stupid teams blame their best players for the failings of the rest of the roster.

What the Celtics really need to do is add another guy who can create his own shot when needed to Thomas
.
See I disagree with this part, Thomas is one of the single biggest defensive weaknesses in the league, there is no combination of other players that doesn't make him a terrible defender, you can't truly hide him against a good team.
Adding another playmaker is what the Celtics need, in part so they can move Thomas out and replace him with a more well rounded player.

UNRELATED:
since one criticism to the idea of trading IT is what do you get back......

Thomas
Crowder
Rozier
2018 Nets pick

for

Jimmy Butler
Portis

OR

IT
Crowder
Johnson
2019 LAC pick

for
Blake Griffin (obviously contingent on re-signing)
Paul Pierce
 

Eddie Jurak

canderson-lite
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 12, 2002
44,474
Melrose, MA
See I disagree with this part, Thomas is one of the single biggest defensive weaknesses in the league, there is no combination of other players that doesn't make him a terrible defender, you can't truly hide him against a good team.
Adding another playmaker is what the Celtics need, in part so they can move Thomas out and replace him with a more well rounded player.

UNRELATED:
since one criticism to the idea of trading IT is what do you get back......

Thomas
Crowder
Rozier
2018 Nets pick

for

Jimmy Butler
Portis

OR

IT
Crowder
Johnson
2019 LAC pick

for
Blake Griffin (obviously contingent on re-signing)
Paul Pierce
The concerns about Thomas' defense are legitimate (although I think you overstate them), but it remains true that:
  • IT is almost as good a scorer as there is in this league
  • The Celtics, were they to swap IT for a different, more well-rounded star, would still be just as much of a one-dimensional offensive team as they are now, maybe even more of one
What they need more than anything else is >1 player who can create his own high percentage shot (Evan Turner need not apply). (After that, they need the forward depth to avoid having to routinely use 3 guard lineups.)

Shipping out IT plus a vat of assets for a star who represents a defensive upgrade over IT (though also an offensive downgrade) just leaves them more or less right where they are now - a team that will suffer for lack of a second go-to scorer.
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
34,457
The concerns about Thomas' defense are legitimate (although I think you overstate them), but it remains true that:
  • IT is almost as good a scorer as there is in this league
  • The Celtics, were they to swap IT for a different, more well-rounded star, would still be just as much of a one-dimensional offensive team as they are now, maybe even more of one
What they need more than anything else is >1 player who can create his own high percentage shot (Evan Turner need not apply). (After that, they need the forward depth to avoid having to routinely use 3 guard lineups.)

Shipping out IT plus a vat of assets for a star who represents a defensive upgrade over IT (though also an offensive downgrade) just leaves them more or less right where they are now - a team that will suffer for lack of a second go-to scorer.
that's reasonable, but I think if you are planning long-term IT has to go, and before the start of next season is the best chance to get value for him. Between his upcoming FA and his physical limitations on D (here we likely disagree, but you have to score at a ridiculous rate to offset his defense in the playoffs). Looking at the Butler move, you likely follow that by drafting a potential secondary go-to scorer (Fultz, Smith), and going hard in FA, or dangling this year's net pick and Jaylen Brown for a second star.

Mostly IT is an asset that is a year and a half from becoming a liability, they should be looking for potential opportunities to shift him into a longer term asset.
 

mcpickl

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 23, 2007
4,546
The concerns about Thomas' defense are legitimate (although I think you overstate them)
Defensive Real Plus/Minus isn't a perfect stat, no stat can be, but I think it at least gives a decent ballpark on defensive ability.

Of the 437 players who've played in the NBA this year, Isaiah Thomas ranks dead last. Maybe he's not really 437th, but he's very likely in the 400s.

It's not his fault, it's not an effort issue. But as all my ex-girlfriends have told me, size matters.
 

Eddie Jurak

canderson-lite
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 12, 2002
44,474
Melrose, MA
that's reasonable, but I think if you are planning long-term IT has to go, and before the start of next season is the best chance to get value for him. Between his upcoming FA and his physical limitations on D (here we likely disagree, but you have to score at a ridiculous rate to offset his defense in the playoffs). Looking at the Butler move, you likely follow that by drafting a potential secondary go-to scorer (Fultz, Smith), and going hard in FA, or dangling this year's net pick and Jaylen Brown for a second star.

Mostly IT is an asset that is a year and a half from becoming a liability, they should be looking for potential opportunities to shift him into a longer term asset.
"If you are planning long-term IT has to go" is a reasonable, defensible argument that may well be true. Personally, I don't agree, but I don't have anywhere near 100% certainty about that.

That said, if that is your position you need to lower expectations and realize that an IT deal represents a short-term step backward for the long-term good. There's not likely to be IT deal out there that improves the team in the short-term. Deal him plus a pile of current players and future assets for a similar-aged star who is better and more versatile on the defensive end (Jimmy Butler or Blake Griffin) and you are both weakening the current team and depleting future assets while shifting more from "future" to "now" mode. Lots of ways to F up a deal llike that.
 

Eddie Jurak

canderson-lite
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 12, 2002
44,474
Melrose, MA
Defensive Real Plus/Minus isn't a perfect stat, no stat can be, but I think it at least gives a decent ballpark on defensive ability.

Of the 437 players who've played in the NBA this year, Isaiah Thomas ranks dead last. Maybe he's not really 437th, but he's very likely in the 400s.

It's not his fault, it's not an effort issue. But as all my ex-girlfriends have told me, size matters.
In some sense it is an effort issue. I doubt there is another player in the NBA that carries the same offensive load as IT. IT is the only shot creator and go to scorer on the Celtics, their offensive demands on him are massive, and that does detract from what he can do on defense. (See Harden, James, for another example).

Another issue is the Celtics' short guard-heavy roster construction, which has led to a lot of minutes for IT-Bradley-Smart lineups that have been destroyed defensively. (Far worse than IT lineups as a whole).

His physical limitations are still an issue, of course, but I think that role and roster issues are part of what puts him in the 400s.
 

lexrageorge

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2007
18,095
"If you are planning long-term IT has to go" is a reasonable, defensible argument that may well be true. Personally, I don't agree, but I don't have anywhere near 100% certainty about that.

That said, if that is your position you need to lower expectations and realize that an IT deal represents a short-term step backward for the long-term good. There's not likely to be IT deal out there that improves the team in the short-term. Deal him plus a pile of current players and future assets for a similar-aged star who is better and more versatile on the defensive end (Jimmy Butler or Blake Griffin) and you are both weakening the current team and depleting future assets while shifting more from "future" to "now" mode. Lots of ways to F up a deal llike that.
I don't see how any competent GM would consider dealing IT, current players, and future assets (which I read as Brooklyn picks) for a Blake Griffin.
 

NoXInNixon

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 24, 2008
5,296
IT is so perfect for this team right now. He's exciting and sells tickets and wins games. He's good enough to lead a team to a playoff series win or two, but not a championship. But then this team isn't winning a championship anyway. And since they're 90% likely to be drafting a PG this year, by the time IT becomes no longer useful he will be easily replaceable. Or tradable if this year's pick develops into an NBA starter while IT has trade value.
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
34,457
"If you are planning long-term IT has to go" is a reasonable, defensible argument that may well be true. Personally, I don't agree, but I don't have anywhere near 100% certainty about that.

That said, if that is your position you need to lower expectations and realize that an IT deal represents a short-term step backward for the long-term good. There's not likely to be IT deal out there that improves the team in the short-term. Deal him plus a pile of current players and future assets for a similar-aged star who is better and more versatile on the defensive end (Jimmy Butler or Blake Griffin) and you are both weakening the current team and depleting future assets while shifting more from "future" to "now" mode. Lots of ways to F up a deal llike that.
I guess "long term" might be the wrong phrase, I should probably say building with the intent of winning a championship. They aren't blowing it up with Horford signed and Bradley's great deal.

However, I don't think you are correct that it weakens the current team because both Blake Griffin and Jimmy Butler are better players than IT. Based in part on what we saw with IT out this year, I think the team you get based on the Butler trade I posted up-thread is better RIGHT NOW than the current team, and that trade still leaves you with plenty of assets to go get or draft another star caliber player.

The team is already in now mode to be honest, yes they have the BKN picks coming up that let them hope for a long build as well, but most of their other assets are not going to be assets much longer, there is a clock on the value of Horford/IT/Bradley/Crowder. This team is built for a teardown, it's built for the next 2-5 years. A move for Butler makes the team better, and extends out that timeline since your 2 best players will be locked up longer.
 

Eddie Jurak

canderson-lite
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 12, 2002
44,474
Melrose, MA
However, I don't think you are correct that it weakens the current team because both Blake Griffin and Jimmy Butler are better players than IT. Based in part on what we saw with IT out this year, I think the team you get based on the Butler trade I posted up-thread is better RIGHT NOW than the current team, and that trade still leaves you with plenty of assets to go get or draft another star caliber player.
I'm not sold on Griffin being better, due to injury concerns. But either way you are also shipping Crowder out with IT, and in the Butler deal you also ship Rozier. A midseason, on-the-fly, shipping out of 2 starters is going to cause adjustment problems that may still be going on come playoff time. The other problem is that dealing Crowder, IT, Rozier for Butler means you don't have a backup PG. At best, these deals give you a team that is better "on paper" but not necessarily in practice.

The other problem is that moves like this do absolutely nothing to address one huge weakness on the current Celtic team: the overreliance on one guy to do the scoring and shot creation. Where teams defend the current Celtics by focusing the whole defense on IT and daring the rest of the team to beat then, they will do the same with Butler.
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
34,457
I'm not sold on Griffin being better, due to injury concerns. But either way you are also shipping Crowder out with IT, and in the Butler deal you also ship Rozier. A midseason, on-the-fly, shipping out of 2 starters is going to cause adjustment problems that may still be going on come playoff time. The other problem is that dealing Crowder, IT, Rozier for Butler means you don't have a backup PG. At best, these deals give you a team that is better "on paper" but not necessarily in practice.

The other problem is that moves like this do absolutely nothing to address one huge weakness on the current Celtic team: the overreliance on one guy to do the scoring and shot creation. Where teams defend the current Celtics by focusing the whole defense on IT and daring the rest of the team to beat then, they will do the same with Butler.
Yeah Rozier has to be replaced in that deal, I screwed that up. I think any adjustment period is fine, because this team had no shot of winning the East anyway. I look at how the team played without IT and it's a reason I'm fine with the deal, yes teams will key on Butler, but.... the Celtics will also be a much much much much much better defensive team. I look at how the team lost by the same or less to top teams with or without IT, the difference mostly being whether they played good D and lost close or played good O and lost close, and I see an opportunity to be better on both ends than that non-IT lineup. The trade is really for next season though, with the addition of Nets pick player, and free agency, that's when the step is made. I don't think a similar step can be made if IT is the resident star and not a Butler type.
 

nighthob

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
12,678
Lil' Zeke is not being dealt until this summer at the earliest. And if/when he goes on the market a lot of middle of the road teams are going to make calls because if there's one thing that young teams need help with it's closing games and Thomas is as good at that as all but a handful of guys right now.
 

slamminsammya

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2006
9,152
San Francisco
In some sense it is an effort issue...(See Harden, James, for another example).
It is an interesting theory that in the particular case of James Harden the defensive lack of effort is compensating for his offensive responsibility. In my opinion watching Harden the bad defense goes above and beyond saving energy. Mostly I am writing this as an excuse to share this hilarious video (best caption was "Hardens controller disconnected":