Boston Early Offseason in Review (HW/Slava/bondom34/Mamba4goat)

[Texas Chuck]

Yet for some reason the Celtics are a vastly superior rebounding team when he's on the court. Can't imagine why

I can help. Rozier plays almost no minutes alongside IT. And in every single one of the lineups he played meaningful minutes with for Boston this year included Marcus Smart and Kelly Olynyk. So take away a horrible rebounding guard and replace him with a very good one and add the actual best rebounder on teh C's and its easy to see why the team rebounds very well.

What's not so easy to see is that Rozier is actually responsible for that. In fact the evidence we do have suggests he is probably not a significant factor in the team rebounding better with him on the court but rather him benefiting from the rotations of his coach.

This isn't true either, Celtics went 3 guard for long stretches throughout the season. Hell the Celtics went FOUR guard in the playoffs alongside Horford.

It is true. I literally looked at every single group of 5 that played even 30 total minutes together for the season. There isn't a single one involving Rozier and Thomas. Not one.

[Homerclease]

[

This post is clearly singling me out for some reason, apparently I'm not allowed to disagree on Celtics related topics being a Celtics fan.

I hate that you continually do this so I'm going to call you out on it. Stop saying things we aren't saying and then getting mad about it. It's really passive aggressive and annoying. I called out your post because it was a bad post. Sorry, we all make them and you aren't immune. You have no issue criticizing others posts non-stop, but I criticize a terrible post of yours and suddenly I'm this big bad censor not letting you have opinions.

Where has anyone stopped you from posting? Go on. Show me where your access has been denied. Oh you can't so kindly stop accusing us of censoring you. That's unfair to a Mod group who has continually allowed you to post your opinions no matter how much we agree or disagree.

And yes I am asking you and a couple other posters who aren't allowing discussion to move beyond your perspective to take a step back out of respect for the board as a whole. When you feel the need to respond to pretty much literally every post its making the thread worse for others who are turned from participating because they don't want to have to defend their posts from a group of posters who appear to be unable to hear opinions that differ from theirs.

You don't have to totally stop posting, but don't you think your opinions on this subject are pretty well known at this point itt?

You literally did the exact same thing you're complaining about when you wrote that I said the Celtics solved their rebounding issues which I said nothing of the sorts. I said Rozier is a good rebounder, better than he's given credit for and got attacked for it and now im getting attacked for it again by having my posts called terrible.

[Captain_Caveman]

Yeah, Stevens is an amazing coach and an even better tactician. I expect you to win more games than you otherwise should because of him. I'm not a huge fan of Ainge as a GM, but Stevens will end up in the hall of fame. As long as he's on the payroll your team will continue to outperform expectations.

That said it is tiresome that so many Celtic fans are as defensive as they are. It is possible to read criticism and not view it as a comprehensive indictment of the organization. No person or organization is perfect, if you can't listen to and consider constructive feedback your ability to learn and progress will be stunted.

So what you're saying is it's fine to criticize moves made by the Celtics organization but when Celtics fans disagree with the criticism and offer their own opinions in return it's tiresome? How does that work?

It's tiresome because I encounter very few Celtic fans who are even willing to acknowledge that you made trade-offs this summer, i.e. the reality that you lost veteran depth to sign Hayward. It isn't unreasonable at all to think there may be negative consequences as a result. The starting lineup was improved, but depth was sacrificed to achieve that and as a result you will be relying on rookies and young players to step up.

Point blank: if you are judging our offseasons based on how we will perform in the following season with no regard to their long-term impacts, you are missing every single part of the point.

Our veteran depth this upcoming season is one of the many considerations that just doesn't matter at all. Not until the Warriors slip. The only thing that matters in this or any other season is whether or not we are making moves that give us a legitimate chance to contend for one or more titles someday.

The moves we made this offseason were excellent in the short-term, and phenomenal in the long-term. We basically replaced Avery Bradley, Amir Johnson, Kelly Olynyk, Tyler Zeller and Jonas Jerebko with Gordon Hayward, Jason Tatum and Marcus Morris. Every team in the league does this 10 out of 10 times while running around their office high-fiving each other, especially given that Bradley was not going to be resigned next year.

People are overthinking this. We had a top 4-5 offseason by any standard that exists. Two of those other teams are very likely going to be in the toilet within a year (Houston, OKC), and one of the others is included simply for not losing anyone (GS). Nod to the Wolves as well, but given that they added Butler at significant cost instead of just adding a comparable guy in Hayward for free like we did, they are well behind us.

[nykballa2k4]

Amir played center, and guarded opponents centers. That was strictly his role, to bang inside to keep Horford fresh

So you'd call Horford a PF? And are going to play essentially 2 Cs this year? That's not what I expected, and rather interesting. Not going to lie I don't like the idea. But I'm no coach.

Id call pidgeonholing players into specific positions an extinct practice in todays NBA. Nevermind the fact that the two teams in the finals this year were trotting out lineups with Lebron and Durant at "center" for stretches

End of the day what we all saw in the playoffs was opposing centers Robin Lopez and Marcin Gortat put up higher numbers than their averages would suggest. I don't know how to even talk about the Cavs series because it just looked like a cat playing with a toy (that's not an insult, that's just the world we live in with these super teams). I think that center issue has to be addressed if the Celtics want to make actual noise. In the playoffs, if it were not for the Rondo injury, the Celtics may have gone home in the 1st mostly due to their rebounding issues and their lack of skilled size player.

IDK if the C's are looking at Andrew Bogut, but if they can sign him, then I may change my grade.

[Texas Chuck]

You literally did the exact same thing you're complaining about when you wrote that I said the Celtics solved their rebounding issues which I said nothing of the sorts. I said Rozier is a good rebounder, better than he's given credit for and got attacked for it and now im getting attacked for it again by having my posts called terrible.

I'm not attacking you. I'm attacking your posts for a couple reasons:

1. The censoring one because its blatantly untrue and its insulting to a Mod group who has never censored a single poster based on what their opinion is. Not one. Not ever. So when you accuse them of doing so I am going to stand up for them(and me). Period.

2. Your rebounding point was terrible. Sorry but it is. And plenty of relevant evidence has been posted by multiple posters blowing giant holes in your belief that he's a great rebounder.


Please stop thinking every time someone disagrees with your opinion that they are attacking you the person, or you the poster. But other posters are allowed to challenge your content absolutely. And its troubling to me that you get so offended anytime I disagree with the content of one of your posts especially in a thread where you have repeatedly gone after the content of others posts.

Are we supposed to give you the red QB jersey where no one is ever allowed to disagree with you even when you make posts we strongly disagree with? Because you are implying that's the case.

[Homerclease]

You literally did the exact same thing you're complaining about when you wrote that I said the Celtics solved their rebounding issues which I said nothing of the sorts. I said Rozier is a good rebounder, better than he's given credit for and got attacked for it and now im getting attacked for it again by having my posts called terrible.

I'm not attacking you. I'm attacking your posts for a couple reasons:

1. The censoring one because its blatantly untrue and its insulting to a Mod group who has never censored a single poster based on what their opinion is. Not one. Not ever. So when you accuse them of doing so I am going to stand up for them(and me). Period.

2. Your rebounding point was terrible. Sorry but it is. And plenty of relevant evidence has been posted by multiple posters blowing giant holes in your belief that he's a great rebounder.


Please stop thinking every time someone disagrees with your opinion that they are attacking you the person, or you the poster. But other posters are allowed to challenge your content absolutely. And its troubling to me that you get so offended anytime I disagree with the content of one of your posts especially in a thread where you have repeatedly gone after the content of others posts.

Are we supposed to give you the red QB jersey where no one is ever allowed to disagree with you even when you make posts we strongly disagree with? Because you are implying that's the case.

So other posters are allowed to attack my opinions when you deem them terrible but I'm being told to back away because I'm having a discussion? We can take this to PM's chuck because we're derailing the thread but we both know this goes beyond this particular thread with us.

[Captain_Caveman]

Of course. But could they have gotten more? Some of us are using that as a yardstick, some aren't. It makes for a (mostly) interesting debate

yeah...but I mean, that's kind of weird, right? Minnesota could have gotten more from the Bulls but we don't really look at what they could have gotten (hypothetically) we look at what they actually got.

This comment makes me not sure if you are getting the fundamental difference between grading 'how much the Celtics improved overall' and 'how well the Celtics managed their existing assets'.

Just having a lot of existing assets makes the first very likely to be an A+. But the second is neutral to how many existing assets a team has and asks how good of a job the GM did just on that summer.

But how they did just on that summer is not just a matter of performance in that first upcoming season.

How an offseason's moves relate to the longer-term is a much, much bigger issue for 95% of teams.

And with that said, we probably did as much to improve in this next season as any other team out there. Just as we did last year.

[HartfordWhalers]

yeah...but I mean, that's kind of weird, right? Minnesota could have gotten more from the Bulls but we don't really look at what they could have gotten (hypothetically) we look at what they actually got.

This comment makes me not sure if you are getting the fundamental difference between grading 'how much the Celtics improved overall' and 'how well the Celtics managed their existing assets'.

Just having a lot of existing assets makes the first very likely to be an A+. But the second is neutral to how many existing assets a team has and asks how good of a job the GM did just on that summer.

But how they did just on that summer is not just a matter of performance in that first upcoming season.

How an offseason's moves relate to the longer-term is a much, much bigger issue for 95% of teams.

And with that said, we probably did as much to improve in this next season as any other team out there. Just as we did last year.

I have no problem with that. Miami got a great grade from me last summer because they set up the foundation for future success, not because they needlessly pushed in win now.

Boston got a higher grade for not doing an expensive Butler deal from me, even though a Butler deal would have helped with the right now.

[pacers33granger]

No idea about that thread, but pretty sure the Magic weren't a top 5 team that arguably became the 2nd best team that offseason.

2nd best is quite a stretch right now. Houston won 2 more games in a much better conference and added a better marquee free agent at a lower current expense (Lou/Dekker/Harrell/1st vs. Olynyk/Amir). The Houston package is certainly more valuable, but has much lower current on court production. And Boston also has the downgrade from Bradley to Morris. So I don't think it's even arguable at this point.

[Captain_Caveman]

So Brooklyn's offseason grade should factor in that they gave away the number one pick for nothing?

Honestly, I can't understand how worked up some people are getting that someone gave the Celtics an A- and not an A+ on an offseason. It's like you think the grade HW gives the offseason actually impacts how Boston will perform this season. Like do you realize how amazing it is to be arguing between an A- and an A+ as though there is some clearly delineated objective distinction between the two? If HW's analysis was exactly the same but at the end he gave them an A+, what would your reaction be?

No, I just think Celtics should not be docked for the offseason because they started with more assets. Somewhere in the assessment process, you have to account for the steps Ainge took to acquire and hold onto those assets. If he gets criticism for not using them on Cousins, then you must also give him credit for having the assets now. He can't use them twice.

And look, I'm not concerned with any particular grade you want to give (I assume the"F's" are coming from Utah fans, sorry guys). I'm just discussing the points laid out for and against the offseason moves and I see them differently than you guys do. From my point of view, the criticisms you're laying out aren't consistent...and apparently you think the same of mine. But if it seems I'm worked up about something, I've miscommunicated. I don't perceive any of you to be worked up about anything either. I thought we were just disagreeing.

Maybe it's a good idea to move on. Hartford, thanks for coming onto our board and inviting us to be a part of the discussion. I've enjoyed it.

No one "docked" Boston for the assets they had. They only evaluated their use of the assets this offseason. Amazingly, you accuse others of changing their criticisms, which is not only inaccurate but exactly what you did after saying Boston should be "credited" for past moves to get those assets.

Sixers did what they had to do in the Fultz trade. They had more top picks than they were every going to be able to give real minutes to, never mind resign. It could definitely work out for them.

As a Celts fan, I was shocked when I heard that they got yet another likely top 5 pick just for trading down to #3 in a 5-man draft.

Not quite as shocked as I was the day of the KG/Pierce trade to the Nets, but still.

[Captain_Caveman]

I think the off-season was a B. Ultimately the team is obviously better and nothing is broken, but is the team any closer to the NBA finals? Treading water for me is a C, the big addition of Hayward and the solid looking draft makes this a B. What would have made it an A for me would have been moving Horford for a center who is a better rebounder.

All of this.

You agreed with a post suggesting trading Horford and then asked if someone made a post saying they should trade Horford

Pretty sure the first time I traded posts with this dude, he scoffed at me for passing along that the Ws thought they were KD frontrunners, even though that info was coming from like five or six current or future HOFers, lol.

[Captain_Caveman]

The four grades that the OPs gave were A, A-, A-, and a B or B+. These are the grades that some Boston fans are losing it over.

B or B+ is asinine, but it was more the arguments used that got me.

Amir Johnson?

[Texas Chuck]

The four grades that the OPs gave were A, A-, A-, and a B or B+. These are the grades that some Boston fans are losing it over.

B or B+ is asinine, but it was more the arguments used that got me.

Amir Johnson?

Amir was 6th in the team in minutes and played 80 games last year and by every measure available to us was their most impactful defensive player.


Yeah its a loss. Fine for anyone to disagree to its importance, but its a loss. So calling those rankings asinine or calling the loss of Amir a poor argument feels pretty misguided.

[brackdan70]

I just can't believe how many quality players they have whose natural position is the three. I mean, why trade for Morris and trade down to draft Tatum? Along with signing Hayward?

That said, pulling in those assets rates the off-season an A-.

on the surface yes...but in position-less basketball which Stevens is doing, Morris, Crowder and perhaps Tatum can play at "4". Morris definitely has the size and skill set. Brown and Hayward can play 2 and 3, so I don't really see a problem. The team is more balanced with better overall size than last year anyway.

Positionless basketball still requires rebounding (and rim defense).

Here is an ugly side note of the last year that no one seems to have noticed:

2015-2016 Celtics: 5th best defensive rating at 100.9 (+3.0 net rating)
2016-2017 Celtics: 12th best defensive rating at 105.5 (+3.1 net rating

I might even go edit that into my review, because it is huge.

You have opinions being expressed like:

Celtics number one weakness was a lack of guys that can put the ball in the basket.

But their defense was 12th in the league while their offense was 13th, suggesting that they didn't have a huge advantage in either.

And defensively they did just lose their leading rebounder, and two of the top 3 in defensive rating (and the highest in terms of DRPM).
Morris/Horford; Crowder/Horford; Tatum/Horford
Morris/Baynes; Crowder/Baynes; Tatum/Baynes

I'm worried about the interior defense and rebounding on all 6 of those big combos.

If you look at expected improvement, Boston might be a top 5 offense this year, I have no qualms on that side of the ball at all. But their defense should slip further. I don't see better size.

Thats all fair. as far as better size...hayward is bigger than bradley, baynes is bigger than johnson, and Morris is actually longer than Olynyk, and plays bigger IMO.

I can agree that statistically they don't appear to be a much better rebounding team, but heuristically it feels better to me.
will see how it shakes out, but I am pretty happy with the balance....granted no games have been played yet

[loserX]

Seems like much of the debate is process-oriented vs. results-oriented.

***ANALOGY ALERT***

Imagine there are two widget companies. Celtic Industries has $2,000 worth of inventory. Imaginary Inc. has $400 worth of inventory. Both companies have to liquidate.

At the end of the period, through shrewd wheeling & dealing, Celtic Industries managed to sell everything for $2,500. Imaginary Inc. sold theirs for $800.

Which company deserves the A+?

If you're results-oriented, you probably go with Celtic Industries. They made the most profit ($500 to $400) *and* ended up with the most money overall. (Even if they didn't quite catch CavCorp.) What they *could* have accomplished is irrelevant.

If you're process-oriented, you notice that Celtic made 25% profit while Imaginary made 100%. Given the two companies' starting position and the assets available to them, Imaginary did the better job, didn't they? And in this case, leaving profit on the table absolutely does matter.

Looks like where a lot of this back-and-forthing is coming from. I personally tend to be process-oriented; I remember giving the Thunder an A last year despite a results-oriented disaster in losing KD for nothing. (Haven't figured out how to grade my Jazz in 2017 yet ) But other posters may care more about results, and that could be where some of these grade/expectation discrepanccies are coming from.

As long as the debate is productive...

[bondom34]

One last ost:

http://www.espn.com/nba/insider/story/_/id/20222412/nba-2017-eastern-conference-offseason-grades

Boston Celtics: B+


The Celtics landed the big prize in free agency, convincing Gordon Hayward to pick them over the Miami Heat and the incumbent Utah Jazz. Because the cap came in lower than expected, clearing room for Hayward required Boston to part with a key player. The Celtics chose to trade ace individual defender Avery Bradley for Marcus Morris, a swap that is a financial upgrade and better balances the roster but still might be painful in the playoffs.

Signing Hayward spared Boston harsher criticism for losing out on potential trades for Jimmy Butler and Paul George. It's unclear whether dealing for George would have been worth the price because of his ability to leave next summer, but the cost for Butler probably would have been more reasonable with two years left on his deal.

The Celtics also will be graded long term on whether Jayson Tatum is good enough to justify trading down from No. 1 to No. 3. Despite Tatum's prolific scoring in summer-league play, I'm still somewhat skeptical.

I'm done.

[Captain_Caveman]

No idea about that thread, but pretty sure the Magic weren't a top 5 team that arguably became the 2nd best team that offseason.

2nd best is quite a stretch right now. Houston won 2 more games in a much better conference and added a better marquee free agent at a lower current expense (Lou/Dekker/Harrell/1st vs. Olynyk/Amir). The Houston package is certainly more valuable, but has much lower current on court production. And Boston also has the downgrade from Bradley to Morris. So I don't think it's even arguable at this point.

If the Ws stay healthy, everyone else might as well just take the year off. No one else is scary. Spurs are an old team that had a bad offseason. Cavs were already slipping hard last year, and are in open warfare with each other right now. Rockets did well, but there is a decent potential that adding a 32yo, ball-dominant CP3 to an even more ball-dominant James Harden-led team might not work out at all, whether or not they add an equally ball-dominant Melo later this offseason. Thunder are intriguing, but 2nd best team? Wizards a young team set to improve, but didn't improve this summer.

Hard to say. I think there are like 4-6 teams who are packed into the same general tier. Four of them can make a good case for 2nd best. We are the only one that can realistically make major moves to improve midseason should the Ws falter.

[Captain_Caveman]

The four grades that the OPs gave were A, A-, A-, and a B or B+. These are the grades that some Boston fans are losing it over.

B or B+ is asinine, but it was more the arguments used that got me.

Amir Johnson?

Amir was 6th in the team in minutes and played 80 games last year and by every measure available to us was their most impactful defensive player.


Yeah its a loss. Fine for anyone to disagree to its importance, but its a loss. So calling those rankings asinine or calling the loss of Amir a poor argument feels pretty misguided.

I liked him, even though he was an intentionally overpaid stopgap intended to facilitate major trades while preserving our cap room.

But Amir is practically a dead body right now. Almost nothing left in his tank.

[williambh3]

An A+ would have been getting Hayward and Butler or George for similar value to the package they fetched, but that was always going to be tricky with the lower cap, and the bulls and pacers appear to have been in a rush and/or incompetent, or maybe Danny just blew it.

Getting Hayward for 3 yrs is >>> trading assets for Butler or George and not getting Hayward. Unless you think a Bradley/Olynyk S&T was getting it done.

Great move keeping Crowder, love that guy.

Would have rather traded Smart for a pick than Bradley, but I thought getting a win now piece on a good deal was solid and keeping Smart is a low cost option on him magically learning how to score.

Hope Brown and Tatum make Morris expendable by next offseason anyway.

Nobody knows what Brown is, but he was better than I expected as a rookie after watching him a lot at Cal (Pac-12 fan). Take a look at Butler, George and Hayward's rookie years - it means nothing.

Why give minutes to mediocre/crappy vets like Amir, Zeller, Green, Jerebko when you can give them to mediocre/crappy youngsters with the talent to be really good?

Rebounding is still an issue, but Baynes/Zizic will help in place of Amir/Zeller for those minutes. I would have rather gotten Gobert, AD or KAT obviously, but improvement is improvement.

Boston will play a lot of 3-wing but also continue to play two bigs for stretches with Horford at PF as they did last year, not sure what's weird about that.

Loved the Philly trade, but I was never a Fultz guy to begin with. I watched him a lot and he's clearly talented, but I just don't get how he's going to be that efficient. Plus you get to pick your college team, and he picked a terrible one... that still managed to underperform expectations. They weren't just mediocre, they were egregious - I just don't get how that happens with an elite lead guard. They went 2-16 and the bottom of the PAC was baaaaaad.

So 1 to 3 wasn't a big spread for me, and the whole top 5 next year is more intriguing to me at this point than Fultz, so definitely worth the gamble that LAL will be bad again.

I would have preferred Isaac but 1-7 (sub DSJ for Markannan) was really close for me.

Hayward signing - A
Philly trade - A
Tatum pick - B
Bradley trade - B
Other moves (Baynes, Ojeleye, Theis) - B

A-
Overall since the Hayward and Philly deals were by far the highest impact.

But I can understand the argument for bumping it down to B+ for missing out on Butler/George.

As for wins, it may not be that different but I bet point differential improves by a point or two, the matchup with Cleveland in the ECF goes at least 6, and they are in position to be favorites to make the finals in 2018-19.

Much better than an IT/Boogie Sacramento 2014 re-run destined to blow up next offseason at the expense of Brown, the top 3 protected 2018 BRK pick, and quite possibly Hayward.

[BullyKing]

Which is why stats without context are useless

So we can't cite stats anymore to support our opinions. So what's that leave other than "I watch the games".

No, just cite more credible stats in a more credible manner.

Watching the games is pretty useful to. Read last year's offseason to see how bad bondom got tagged by that nowyouknow guy for proof.

More credible stats in a more credible manner. Hmm, I cited the exact same stat -rebounding percentage (which is not exactly a subjective thing or open to interpretation) - over a longer period of time that was cited back to me.

I'm going to join Bondom now as bidding goodbye to this topic. It's beyond clear at this point that it is simply impossible to reason with people who are unable or unwilling to consider a position that is not unequivocal praise for the infallible Boston Celtics. So what's the point?