Gobert to bos w/mil

[AussieBuck]

Hmm yeah so probably not and Boston doesn't really have the assets for Utah to send them a top 15 player, so thanks but no thanks.

Gobert isn't a top 15 player, you can't be a top player in the league without being able to be at least a first or second option on offense. He's an elite defensive center. Also if any team has the assets to get a deal done it's Boston.

Holy casual fan opinion. Makes no sense whatsoever.

[QRich3]

Count me in among the ones laughing about Stevens having no use for a center that doesn't shoot threes. I said this before, but you could also have said a year ago that Stevens has no use for a playmaking C because he didn't use one before, but suddenly they get Horford and he has him running pick'n'rolls. He is smart and knows how to adapt his strategy to the players he has, and has done it so many times that this shouldn't even be an argument.

Also, Gobert is an awesome floor spacer, spacing is not just about shooting threes. You can open space inside by playing 5 out, but you can also open space outside by having a C that drags two defenders every time he rolls, freeing perimeter players to shoot open. And Gobert is one of the best in the game at doing that. That's without even touching the fact that he's possibly the most impactful defensive player in the league.

Honestly, I feel like a player with Gobert's exact skills is probably top 3 in Stevens wish list.

[OFWGKTA]

Zero.

I'm pleasantly surprised this has been allowed to continue as long as it has, given the present company.

I mean, we're all laughing at the most ludicrous idea that Boston wouldn't trade for a center because he can't shoot 3s and they signed Baynes to give Horford a rest so who needs Gobert. Because I mean theres so much wrong there I can't even. It's the most homerish and distubingly blatantly biased thing I may have ever read on this board. And I've been around.

Did I ever say Baynes was remotely in the same stratosphere as Gobert? No, it was one of you guys that brought Baynes up, so stop pretending like I'm saying Baynes is Gobert.

[Ron Swanson]

Count me in among the ones laughing about Stevens having no use for a center that doesn't shoot threes. I said this before, but you could also have said a year ago that Stevens has no use for a playmaking C because he didn't use one before, but suddenly they get Horford and he has him running pick'n'rolls. He is smart and knows how to adapt his strategy to the players he has, and has done it so many times that this shouldn't even be an argument.

Also, Gobert is an awesome floor spacer, spacing is not just about shooting threes. You can open space inside by playing 5 out, but you can also open space outside by having a C that drags two defenders every time he rolls, freeing perimeter players to shoot open. And Gobert is one of the best in the game at doing that. That's without even touching the fact that he's possibly the most impactful defensive player in the league.

Honestly, I feel like a player with Gobert's exact skills is probably top 3 in Stevens wish list.

Yep, just look at the effects that an elite rim-runner and finisher like DeAndre Jordan has on "spacing".

[OFWGKTA]

Count me in among the ones laughing about Stevens having no use for a center that doesn't shoot threes. I said this before, but you could also have said a year ago that Stevens has no use for a playmaking C because he didn't use one before, but suddenly they get Horford and he has him running pick'n'rolls. He is smart and knows how to adapt his strategy to the players he has, and has done it so many times that this shouldn't even be an argument.

Also, Gobert is an awesome floor spacer, spacing is not just about shooting threes. You can open space inside by playing 5 out, but you can also open space outside by having a C that drags two defenders every time he rolls, freeing perimeter players to shoot open. And Gobert is one of the best in the game at doing that. That's without even touching the fact that he's possibly the most impactful defensive player in the league.

Honestly, I feel like a player with Gobert's exact skills is probably top 3 in Stevens wish list.

Yep, just look at the effects that an elite rim-runner and finisher like DeAndre Jordan has on "spacing".

It sure has accounted for a ton of playoff success.

[OFWGKTA]

More things I think after reading this thread:

Kemba is a nice player and a guy I have to eat crow on because I never thought he'd be close to this good. I was dead wrong. But not so wrong where I understand this talk of him being better than Kyrie. Not sure why this is itt but since it is put me in the Kyrie > Kemba camp and I feel really good about it too.

I know who Baynes is and I like him as a player. Nothing flashy, not a guy you want to play starter's minutes, but can he be a low minute guy who "starts" like Zaza? Sure. Nice player. He has zero relevance to Gobert who is a legit defensive game-changer. I don't think some people itt have any idea how good Utah has been defensively since he was made a starter. And that never changed despite constant turmoil around him with all the injuries Utah has battled.

And this idea that your coach would value his precious system over elite talent is damning your own coach. You are essentially trying to tell us that Brad Stevens is both stubborn and an idiot. Now luckily, neither of those things are actually the case. He would find a way to adapt his offense to accommodate Gobert in a heartbeat to be able to have an elite defense knowing Kyrie and Hayward will provide enough scoring.

Seriously I can't stress this enough, only a moron would pass on a significant upgrade in the name of "system". Nothing against Al Horford who is a very good two way player. But he's not impacting games at either end or even both combined like Gobert is defensively. And again the additions the team has made in bringing in offensive minded players Kyrie, Hayward, and Tatum to be core members means Horford's offensive role is only going to continue to diminish. And sorry, but you can run elite offenses with a center who is mainly a lob threat and an offensive rebounder. Tyson Chandler and DeAndre Jordan have rocked amazing ortgs doing just that. Seriously Tyson Chandler has led the league in that stat a whole bunch of times.

There isn't only one way to get it done. Essentially the argument being made is that hte Celtics would pass on peak Shaq because he's not versatile enough. Forget him being maybe the most dominant player of all-time, nah we pass because we need a guy shooting .8 3's a game or whatever it is.....

Never once did I compare Baynes to Gobert as a player. Someone asked me why the Celtics signed Baynes if they don't value players can switch and shoot, which is irrelevant to the discussion at hand because he isn't a big minute player and makes very little comparatively.


Brad would make it work as well as possible no matter what the roster, but again he would rather someone that can space the floor.

Horford's impact on offense isn't dictated by his scoring, he's an elite passer for a C and is always a threat to pick and pop for a three, making it more difficult for defenders to double the ball handler. The Celtics tore apart the Jazz and Gobert this year with their spread offense. Gobert's defensive rating was 115 and 129 in the two games they played. What are you gonna do with Gobert when Lebron and Durant are at the C spot like they were this past playoffs? Horford doesn't stand a chance defensively either, but at least his offensive impact won't be completely be negated in that scenario. I'm certain Ainge feels a max contract would be better spent on a guy who's greatest impact can't be taken away so easily. If Gobert was a very good passer or had at least long two range (he's still young enough to develop those aspects of his game), it'd be a different story. Gobert is better at basketball than Horford overall, but he doesn't fit what the Celtics want to do nearly as much.


Essentially that is not even remotely the argument that's being made, and comparing Gobert to prime Shaq is even more absurd than if I actually did compare Gobert to Baynes as players.

[Texas Chuck]

Never once did I compare Baynes to Gobert as a player. Someone asked me why the Celtics signed Baynes if they don't value players can switch and shoot, which is irrelevant to the discussion at hand because he isn't a big minute player and makes very little comparatively.


Brad would make it work as well as possible no matter what the roster, but again he would rather someone that can space the floor.

Horford's impact on offense isn't dictated by his scoring, he's an elite passer for a C and is always a threat to pick and pop for a three, making it more difficult for defenders to double the ball handler. The Celtics tore apart the Jazz and Gobert this year with their spread offense. Gobert's defensive rating was 115 and 129 in the two games they played. What are you gonna do with Gobert when Lebron and Durant are at the C spot like they were this past playoffs? Horford doesn't stand a chance defensively either, but at least his offensive impact won't be completely be negated in that scenario. I'm certain Ainge feels a max contract would be better spent on a guy who's greatest impact can't be taken away so easily. If Gobert was a very good passer or had at least long two range (he's still young enough to develop those aspects of his game), it'd be a different story. Gobert is better at basketball than Horford overall, but he doesn't fit what the Celtics want to do nearly as much.


Essentially that is not even remotely the argument that's being made, and comparing Gobert to prime Shaq is even more absurd than if I actually did compare Gobert to Baynes as players.

I didn't quote you nor refer to you a single time. If you feel defensive about your opinions..... that's on you.

I'm simply responding to some pretty indefensible opinions that were posted.

In response to you specifically, I wouldn't be quite as comfortable as you seem to be reaching such wide-ranging conclusions based on a two game sample in which there were some unsustainable shooting performances from some Celtics. Unless you think Gerald Green is a lock to go 7 for 8 and that's somehow on Gobert despite him you know being a plus 4 in that game?

And sure Ainge would rather have Lebron on a max than Gobert. Like literally every GM in the Association. But that doesn't remotely mean he wouldn't rather have Gobert than Horford on a max. Something maybe every GM would prefer. Gobert has more impact and is younger. This honestly feels like an incumbent attachment rather than a reasoned basketball idea.

Gobert had a 129 ortg on a team with a 109 otrg. He had more OWS than Gordon Hayward. This doesn't mean he's an elite offensive player, he's not. But it shows that people have lazy ideas about the only ways players can help a team offensively that they really need to re-think. As mentioned earlier, spacing isn't only about having shooters with range. Gobert creates vertical spacing because he can play above the rim, he's an extremely good offensive rebounder so teams can't just leave him to put extra defenders into play. And because of his size he is pulling the other team's most impactful defender out of the primary action over and over and over.

A little basketball knowledge can be more dangerous than no basketball knowledge because it convinces people of things that simply aren't true. I've said it before but I'll say it again--GSW isn't dominating basketball because they've solved basketball and play in the optimal fashion. They are winning because they overwhelm teams with talent. We need to not forget this in attempting to think we should all rush out to replicate them. Because unless you have a Steph, and a Draymond, and a Durant, and a Klay well good luck with all that.

It's just they aren't massive like Shaq so it fools people into thinking lessor players can have the same results if they use the same style. No. no. no. Kerr didn't break basketball. All of this was already being done.

[Dr Positivity]

I don't think UTA has interest in trading Gobert. Even if they did I think I would prefer taking my chances with BKN pick from CLE and going all in on 2018 draft between that and their own pick

[Daddy 801]

Count me in among the ones laughing about Stevens having no use for a center that doesn't shoot threes. I said this before, but you could also have said a year ago that Stevens has no use for a playmaking C because he didn't use one before, but suddenly they get Horford and he has him running pick'n'rolls. He is smart and knows how to adapt his strategy to the players he has, and has done it so many times that this shouldn't even be an argument.

Also, Gobert is an awesome floor spacer, spacing is not just about shooting threes. You can open space inside by playing 5 out, but you can also open space outside by having a C that drags two defenders every time he rolls, freeing perimeter players to shoot open. And Gobert is one of the best in the game at doing that. That's without even touching the fact that he's possibly the most impactful defensive player in the league.

Honestly, I feel like a player with Gobert's exact skills is probably top 3 in Stevens wish list.

Yep. And you didn't even mention he creates a ton of space for guys coming off his screens. Which he also happens to be elite at.


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM mobile app

[jazzfan1971]

He is pretty good at the screens. I think a lot of star players get allowed one trick where the refs seem to allow them to cheat a bit. I remember how they let Malone slap the ball out of folks hands all the time, those would be hacking calls vs. lesser mortals.

And I think they let Gobert do about what he wants on setting screens.

[Catchall]

ESPN ranked Gobert at #14. Jazz aren't going to move him for an average deal, and what the OP proposed is a really bad deal for Utah.

As for Tatum, there are several guys in this next draft that I like as much or more than him, including Miles Bridges and Kevin Knox.

[CoachD]

I just woke up from a long nap.

While I was sleeping, did Tatum post several All star calibre seasons??

[Cappy_Smurf]

ESPN ranked Gobert at #14. Jazz aren't going to move him for an average deal, and what the OP proposed is a really bad deal for Utah.

As for Tatum, there are several guys in this next draft that I like as much or more than him, including Miles Bridges and Kevin Knox.

And SI just ranked him #15, one spot higher than Gordon Haywood.

IMO, Gobert got robbed of both DPOY and being named an all-star. I wonder where he would be ranked if he hadn't been robbed of those 2 things. Gotta think he's top 10 without the snubs.

-

For those few posters who claimed Rudy wasn't top 15 and is a one dimensional player in the mold of Deandre Jordan, here is part of the write-up from SI. Jordan was ranked #28 compared to Rudy's #15.

While the basketball intelligentsia now views Gobert(14 PPG/12.8 RPG/2.6 BPG) as one of the league's elite defensive players, numerous statistical measures consider him one of the league's elite players, period...The 25 YO center helped lead the Jazz to their first PO series win since 2010 and set new career highs in scoring, rebounds, blocks, and FG%, while ranking 2nd league wide in win shares and 8th in both real plus-minus and WARP. All things considered, Gobert was 2017's biggest all-star snub.

[Bakuto]

Spoiler:

People calling Horford a bad contract is just awesome. I love it.

But yes Utah passes, Gobert is their building block no way the trade him.

Some teams would definitely consider Horford a bad contract and completely justifiably.

For Boston no he's not, because they're winning now and willing to pay for him. But for teams like Milwaukee, and other rebuilding/up and coming teams that have no use for him, why shouldn't they consider his deal bad for them?

Unselfish quality veterans are bad for up and coming teams? Interesting theory.

When i go through the T&T board threads i see a lot of untouchables players for bad teams or up and coming teams. People claim they are the foundation of the respecitve franchise and rightfully so, case Giannis and the Bucks (Jokic/Nuggets, KP/Knicks, Booker/Suns, ...). He's a young star potentially superstar (knock on wood for good health for the greek freak) and will never be traded. But when you have a player like him don't you want to the best help you can? Who is the veteran to lead the young Bucks? Who can they lean on night in and night out, on the court and of the court? Old (34-39) journeyman playing 40 games a season 10 minutes a game? Or young (25-30) vets who never have or will be stars? Give me the player who Giannis can lean on?

By the way the Celtics are the third youngest team in the NBA why are they winning now and are not an up and coming team? Wanna know the age of our five oldest players (Horford 31, Baynes 30, Morris 28, Hayward 27, Kyrie 25). Horford is mega valueable to this young team. A former allstar still good enough for 30 minutes a night, doesn't moan & b**** and leads by example.

If you want to build a team and think you have your foundational piece (especially on his rookie deal/extension) but you can't just aquire an allstar via trade or FA then trading for overpaid but not washed up former star is the way to go. But thats just my humble opinion.

So because I suggested that 30 million dollar Al Horford is a bad contract, that also means that I think that all unselfish quality vets are bad for teams. The fact that you pulled that out of what I said is ridiculous. Where did I say that these vets are bad for teams?

What you need to understand from my post is that some teams would rather not pay someone 30 million dollars to play in that role. There's a huge difference between that at 30 million and having other good character vets on the vet minimum just to lead by example. If Horford does that for Boston then good for him. If they're happy paying him that kind of money, then even better. That doesn't mean every team on the up and up should want him at that kind of money. Other teams prefer paying guys for the minimum to be that exact thing minus the 30 minutes per game, and that is perfectly fine.

Why are you so worried that other people and potentially teams consider Horford a bad contract anyways?

Also please don't misconstrue what I say in the future. Thanks in advance.

[OFWGKTA]

I was ready to reply but then literally started to laugh.

Because when you have Aron Baynes who needs Rudy Gobert.

Exactly

[bondom34]

Well, Baynes is better than an injured Gobert. Still makes no sense.

[neno]

I really want to make an insulting counter offer, but then I'll just have to listen to Chuck lecture.

So I guess I'll just say **** no and **** Boston while we're at it.

<yes, I'm still salty over Haywood>

You don't **** Boston
Boston****'s you

[OFWGKTA]

Well, Baynes is better than an injured Gobert. Still makes no sense.

Replace Baynes with healthy Gobert and I doubt their record is any better (or defense).

[bondom34]

Well, Baynes is better than an injured Gobert. Still makes no sense.

Replace Baynes with healthy Gobert and I doubt their record is any better (or defense).

So Haynes is why Boston is 16-2. Ah that makes sense. Despite his negative on off splits sure. This was a bad thread bump. Like all time bad.

[OFWGKTA]

Well, Baynes is better than an injured Gobert. Still makes no sense.

Replace Baynes with healthy Gobert and I doubt their record is any better (or defense).

So Haynes is why Boston is 16-2. Ah that makes sense. Despite his negative on off splits sure. This was a bad thread bump. Like all time bad.

You're right, I should have just said who needs Gobert at all, my bad.