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

[patman52]

Yeah, I don't get anything less than a A+, If they would have given up Tatum for George I would have given them a C. Getting Butler would not allow you to get Hayward. I think people are grading them on how they would have rather seen the off season go, rather on what they actually accomplished. Some fans want to see the celts go after the cavs and warriors this year and next and grade them on that scenario and not on building the team for the future.

[Mich3006]

Bondom, Slava and Mamba had some nice takes. I find the rest to be pretty off base, the Cousins comment in particular.

I´m with HW regarding Cousins. He would´ve been the perfect piece to Horford and their frontcourt and even if they would´ve payed more than NOLA a package with Crowder and this years BKN pick (nobody in this years draft can touch on Boogie) would´ve been acceptable.

[BadWolf]

Brown was consensus 3-7 guy. It could really go either way.
He played well enough to stay there, probably separated himself from some (Bender, Dunn, maybe Chriss).
Ainge gets a B from me. Great getting Hayward, solid pick trade, but didn't address the front court (rebounding and defense) issues.
Getting Cousins is way too risky. Better hold out for potential AD trade request.

[BadWolf]

So you decided to start with the hardest review ?

[brackdan70]

Yeah, I don't get anything less than a A+, If they would have given up Tatum for George I would have given them a C. Getting Butler would not allow you to get Hayward. I think people are grading them on how they would have rather seen the off season go, rather on what they actually accomplished. Some fans want to see the celts go after the cavs and warriors this year and next and grade them on that scenario and not on building the team for the future.

These are some pretty good points. Overpaying for a Butler or a George would have been disastrous for the future. Making nabbing one of those guys and Hayward the standard (which was really an impossible scenario) the standard is beyond unrealistic.

The Cs built a pretty good balanced 10 player rotation that includes 3 guys who have been all stars, 5 guys who have been starters on playoff teams, 9 guys who have played legit rotation minutes for a playoff team, plus #3 pick.

foot feel pretty good about it.

[Froob]

Getting Hayward for free, getting their guy Tatum (IF he is truly the best player) and a pick next year (or year after) and adding an all star for free? That's got to be an A+ off season. I'm projecting 60-22 and #1 seed again but, Cavs back to the Finals.

[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.

[brackdan70]

So you decided to start with the hardest review ?

they go top down...I assume Golden State is next.

[BullyKing]

I love the analysis of we got Hayward and the guy Ainge thought was the best and another pick - A+++++++ offseason. It's as if you're grading between a binary choice of what Boston did vs. forfeiting the number one pick and signing no one.

The people who spent a lot of time on these reviews actually graded based on whether they thought it was the optimal use of Boston's resources: max cap space, No. 1 pick in the draft, a number of valuable but shortly ending contracts. Yet there appears to be no room for discussion as to whether using those assets in the way they did was optimal, good, or bad. It's simply, hey we got Tatum and another pick without consideration of whether the No. 1 pick as an asset could have been better used. Hey, we signed Hayward - without wondering whether that max cap space would have been more useful addressing the post situation.

[HartfordWhalers]

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.

[HartfordWhalers]

Overpaying for a Butler or a George would have been disastrous for the future. Making nabbing one of those guys and Hayward the standard (which was really an impossible scenario) the standard is beyond unrealistic.

Just to be clear, I gave them credit for not going for those two.

If Boston couldn't get a top 6 NBA player, then shelling out future assets that *might* get one for a top 10-25 player is a risky way of cutting off upside, even if getting that top 25 player would have taken them to the finals.

Or perhaps to put it more familiar for Boston fans: Going all in on Ray Allen without Kevin Garnett doesn''t make sense to me, and that is what I would liken that move to be.

But that doesn't mean they get an A+ or an A automatically either. Celtics started with a ton of flexibility and options -- #1 pick, future picks, valuable contracts/players, cap space. The question is how well they used it given the amount of assets they had.

I think they did well, and gave an A-. But there were enough judgment calls I disagree with that it should not be a full A.
The Bradley trade wasn't great. I'm not sold on Tatum as the pick. Not getting a useful big besides Baynes seems shortsighted of marginal assets.

[Homerclease]

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.

They were a better team in 2016-17 than the year prior despite the drop off in defense.

Offensive splits with thomas on and off the court show exactly why a second scorer was the Celtics number one weakness.

Baynes is a far superior rebounder and overall player than Amir at this point in their careers.

[Gant]

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.

Overall, they get better size three ways.

In the backcourt they will often be much bigger, playing Brown or Hayward instead of Bradley for large parts of the game. Their back court will often be two of Smart, Brown, and Hayward.

At the wing they can put in Ojeleye, Crowder, or Morris, giving them a strength advantage at that spot.

In the frontcourt they can plug in Baynes, or Zizic (or 25 year old Theis) when they're ready-- in situations where they were getting pummelled last year but had no answer. This won't be the permanent solution (next year's big man draft could take care of that if a trade doesn't beforehand) but it's an improvement.


One other thing, they didn't lose any rebounder that mattered. Olynyk will not be missed for that part of his game. Baynes is a better rebounder than Olynyk or Amir Johnson. Rozier and Brown can rebound as well as Bradley. They didn't get any worse rebounding and interior D, and if Zizic can get on the floor by midseason, they got better.

[HartfordWhalers]

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.

They were a better team in 2016-17 than the year prior despite the drop off in defense.

Offensive splits with thomas on and off the court show exactly why a second scorer was the Celtics number one weakness.

Baynes is a far superior rebounder and overall player than Amir at this point in their careers.

They were essentially the same team in net rating, going from +3.0 to +3.1.

In terms of splits:
Thomas +5.0 on, -.7 off
Amir +8.0 on, -.3 off.

Splits wouldn't prioritize getting a second Thomas versus replacing what Amir provided for (most) of the season.

Here is another split that is even more informative
Thomas on with Amir on: +7.9 (104.8 defensive rating)
Thomas on with Amir off: +2.2 (112.3 defensive rating)

I look at that, and I see an issue. It is hard to be successful with a defense that would be ranked 30th of 30 teams.

[Homerclease]

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:


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.

They were a better team in 2016-17 than the year prior despite the drop off in defense.

Offensive splits with thomas on and off the court show exactly why a second scorer was the Celtics number one weakness.

Baynes is a far superior rebounder and overall player than Amir at this point in their careers.

They were essentially the same team in net rating, going from +3.0 to +3.1.

In terms of splits:
Thomas +5.0 on, -.7 off
Amir +8.0 on, -.3 off.

Splits wouldn't prioritize getting a second Thomas versus replacing what Amir provided for (most) of the season.

Here is another split that is even more informative
Thomas on with Amir on: +7.9 (104.8 defensive rating)
Thomas on with Amir off: +2.2 (112.3 defensive rating)

I look at that, and I see an issue. It is hard to be successful with a defense that would be ranked 30th of 30 teams.

Which is why they signed Baynes. Show the offensive rating on and off with Thomas. The Celtics offense was far too reliant on Thomas over the course of the year.

One team won 49 games and got bounced in the first round. The other won 53 and made it to the eastern conference finals. LMFAO at the net rating arguement.

[HartfordWhalers]

Overall, they get better size three ways.

In the backcourt they will often be much bigger, playing Brown or Hayward instead of Bradley for large parts of the game. Their back court will often be two of Smart, Brown, and Hayward.

This is the one area where raw size rarely matters (thus Bradley's rep, even if he wasn't playing to it last year). But it is a gain of size here true.

At the wing they can put in Ojeleye, Crowder, or Morris, giving them a strength advantage at that spot.

Crowder was already there. Morris is not a stud defender. I'm not seeing how there is any upgrade here in any way, and relying on a 2nd round rookie to give better defense is a tricky road to hew.

In the frontcourt they can plug in Baynes, or Zizic (or 25 year old Theis) when they're ready-- in situations where they were getting pummelled last year but had no answer. This won't be the permanent solution (next year's big man draft could take care of that if a trade doesn't beforehand) but it's an improvement.


One other thing, they didn't lose any rebounder that mattered. Olynyk will not be missed for that part of his game. Baynes is a better rebounder than Olynyk or Amir Johnson. Rozier and Brown can rebound as well as Bradley. They didn't get any worse rebounding and interior D, and if Zizic can get on the floor by midseason, they got better.

Okay, I guess a second round rookie is better than an undrafted rookie. But I really didn't expect to have to say that.

[Gant]

Overall, they get better size three ways.

In the backcourt they will often be much bigger, playing Brown or Hayward instead of Bradley for large parts of the game. Their back court will often be two of Smart, Brown, and Hayward.

This is the one area where raw size rarely matters (thus Bradley's rep, even if he wasn't playing to it last year). But it is a gain of size here true.

At the wing they can put in Ojeleye, Crowder, or Morris, giving them a strength advantage at that spot.

Crowder was already there. Morris is not a stud defender. I'm not seeing how there is any upgrade here in any way, and relying on a 2nd round rookie to give better defense is a tricky road to hew.

In the frontcourt they can plug in Baynes, or Zizic (or 25 year old Theis) when they're ready-- in situations where they were getting pummelled last year but had no answer. This won't be the permanent solution (next year's big man draft could take care of that if a trade doesn't beforehand) but it's an improvement.


One other thing, they didn't lose any rebounder that mattered. Olynyk will not be missed for that part of his game. Baynes is a better rebounder than Olynyk or Amir Johnson. Rozier and Brown can rebound as well as Bradley. They didn't get any worse rebounding and interior D, and if Zizic can get on the floor by midseason, they got better.

Okay, I guess a second round rookie is better than an undrafted rookie. But I really didn't expect to have to say that.

What second round rookie do you mean? I don't understand.

[HartfordWhalers]

They were essentially the same team in net rating, going from +3.0 to +3.1.

One team won 49 games and got bounced in the first round. The other won 53 and made it to the eastern conference finals. LMFAO at the net rating arguement.

I think this summarizes very nicely how incredibly differently we view some things.

[Homerclease]

They were essentially the same team in net rating, going from +3.0 to +3.1.

One team won 49 games and got bounced in the first round. The other won 53 and made it to the eastern conference finals. LMFAO at the net rating arguement.

I think this summarizes very nicely how incredibly differently we view some things.

Right, when you take silly numbers with no context and try to extrapolate them into actual reality it shows a huge difference. But you're right, winning playoff games doesn't make you better than other teams.

[Texas Chuck]

Welcome to the 2016 Orlando MAgic off-season thread ladies and gentlemen.