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

[LofJ]

But that isn't true. They lost 3 veterans and added 3 veterans. If anything their bench is deeper

You lost half of your top 12 rotation in Bradley, Johnson, Olynyk, Jerebko, Tyler Zeller, and Gerald Green. You replaced them with Hayward, Baynes, Marcus Morris, Yabusele (rookie), Zizic (rookie), and Jayson Tatum (rookie).

Based on that you did replace veterans with young players. Yes, they were end of the bench players but they were all rotation players nonetheless. Eventually, that group should hopefully be better than the guys they replaced, but if you're expecting that right off the bat you are likely going to be disappointed.

This is where the arguement becomes disingenuous. Jerebko, Zeller and Green were towel wavers. It's like saying the Clippers lost depth because Pierce retired

They were your 10-12 guys and played over 2000 minutes combined. Towel wavers are your 13-15 guys, i.e. Demetrius Jackson, Jordan Mickey, and James Young.

Also, I think Celtic fans are taking a longer view of their offseason than most. Looking 3 to 5 years ahead I agree that the moves they made this summer were largely the right way to go. But the point I and others are trying to make is that THIS SEASON the team will likely have some growing pains with so many young players on the roster.

[jazzfan1971]

F-

[Homerclease]

You lost half of your top 12 rotation in Bradley, Johnson, Olynyk, Jerebko, Tyler Zeller, and Gerald Green. You replaced them with Hayward, Baynes, Marcus Morris, Yabusele (rookie), Zizic (rookie), and Jayson Tatum (rookie).

Based on that you did replace veterans with young players. Yes, they were end of the bench players but they were all rotation players nonetheless. Eventually, that group should hopefully be better than the guys they replaced, but if you're expecting that right off the bat you are likely going to be disappointed.

This is where the arguement becomes disingenuous. Jerebko, Zeller and Green were towel wavers. It's like saying the Clippers lost depth because Pierce retired

They were your 10-12 guys and played over 2000 minutes combined. Towel wavers are your 13-15 guys, i.e. Demetrius Jackson, Jordan Mickey, and James Young.

Also, I think Celtic fans are taking a longer view of their offseason than most. Looking 3 to 5 years ahead I agree that the moves they made this summer were largely the right way to go. But the point I and others are trying to make is that THIS SEASON the team will likely have some growing pains with so many young players on the roster.

Garbage time minutes. If Zeller or Green were in the game, it was usually already over. Zeller might have been the worst player in all of basketball last year. Jerebko you have a small arguement for but after he got his face broke just after the all star game he became useless and fell out of the rotation pretty much entirely. None of these guys being gone is anything close to having a significant impact on the team. They won't be missed at all. The arguement here is Bradley, Amir, KO out and Hayward, Baynes and Morris in. The Celtics win that trade pretty handily

[BullyKing]

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.

The 3rd pick alone is worth more than all we gave up.

This is what we've been reduced to. Someone arguing that the 3rd pick alone is worth more than their team gave up, when what that team gave up included the number one pick. Stunning.

[claycarver]

But the point I and others are trying to make is that THIS SEASON the team will likely have some growing pains with so many young players on the roster.

I totally agree with this. But that was the case last year too with all the turnover we had. We started last season 13 and 12. I expect it will take a month or two for this team to get it's bearings also. But if you look at the losses this year in terms of minutes played, the turnover isn't nearly as bad as it looks based on the number of players we lost. So yes, I do agree with you that this team will probably struggle at the start just like last year, but I also expect that this is a better team than last year so the win total is likely to be higher.

And isn't anyone a bit curious about Hayward's fit with Stevens? I could really see Hayward blowing up here and maybe not even missing a beat, right from the start.

[claycarver]

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.

The 3rd pick alone is worth more than all we gave up.

This is what we've been reduced to. Someone arguing that the 3rd pick alone is worth more than their team gave up, when what that team gave up included the number one pick. Stunning.

I was comparing last years team to this year's (the players we actually had to work with who produced the wins and losses from last year). Obviously, we didn't have Fultz or Tatum on last years team so I was viewing this simply as improvements from one year to the next. But sure, the 3rd pick is certainly worth less than the 1st pick.

[HartfordWhalers]

I was comparing last years team to this year's (the players we actually had to work with who produced the wins and losses from last year). Obviously, we didn't have Fultz or Tatum on last years team so I was viewing this simply as improvements from one year to the next.

No one doing a review is doing that however.

Otherwise it is (mostly) a ranking of which team was in a good situation or not before the summer even started.

[claycarver]

I was comparing last years team to this year's (the players we actually had to work with who produced the wins and losses from last year). Obviously, we didn't have Fultz or Tatum on last years team so I was viewing this simply as improvements from one year to the next.

No one doing a review is doing that however.

Otherwise it is (mostly) a ranking of which team was in a good situation or not before the summer even started.

That's fine. So, unless you want to say that Fultz for Tatum and the future pick was a bad trade before we know how that all shakes out, we can just call the draft a wash for now. I like the trade, maybe you don't, but for now you and I have no idea, right?

So that leaves the players added and lost. In offseason moves that really matter, Celtics gave up Avery, Kelly, and Amir for Hayward and Morris. Wouldn't you agree that is significantly lopsided?

I can't imagine one team in the league that would trade away Hayward and Morris for Avery, Kelly and Amir. That's worse than even the Butler and Patton for Lavine, Dunn, and Markkanen trade.

[loserX]

I was comparing last years team to this year's (the players we actually had to work with who produced the wins and losses from last year). Obviously, we didn't have Fultz or Tatum on last years team so I was viewing this simply as improvements from one year to the next.

No one doing a review is doing that however.

Otherwise it is (mostly) a ranking of which team was in a good situation or not before the summer even started.

That's fine. So, unless you want to say that Fultz for Tatum and the future pick was a bad trade before we know how that all shakes out, we can just call the draft a wash for now. I like the trade, maybe you don't, but for now you and I have no idea, right?

Of course, things can always change. But if Boston had instead traded #1 for #27 and a future protected pick, would we still have to wait to see how it turned out? Or could we call it a terrible trade? These assets have value now, and we can evaluate their exchange now...even if it turns out differently down the road.

(Alternatively, if I pay $1,000 for a $5 lottery ticket, that could turn out great for me if I win. But as of now, I was very stupid. And we have no trouble evaluating that )

So that leaves the players added and lost. In offseason moves that really matter, Celtics gave up Avery, Kelly, and Amir for Hayward and Morris. Wouldn't you agree that is significantly lopsided?

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

[claycarver]

No one doing a review is doing that however.

Otherwise it is (mostly) a ranking of which team was in a good situation or not before the summer even started.

That's fine. So, unless you want to say that Fultz for Tatum and the future pick was a bad trade before we know how that all shakes out, we can just call the draft a wash for now. I like the trade, maybe you don't, but for now you and I have no idea, right?

Of course, things can always change. But if Boston had instead traded #1 for #27 and a future protected pick, would we still have to wait to see how it turned out? Or could we call it a terrible trade? These assets have value now, and we can evaluate their exchange now...even if it turns out differently down the road.

(Alternatively, if I pay $1,000 for a $5 lottery ticket, that could turn out great for me if I win. But as of now, I was very stupid. And we have no trouble evaluating that )

Sure, if the trade was obviously lopsided or an obvious longshot, we could make those kind of calls. But we don't know that yet. I mean, say the Lakers get us a top 5 pick, Bagley comes out so the draft is super deep, and we end up with Ayton and Tatum for Fultz. That's an awesome trade for the Celtics. Unfortunately, we have no idea at this point if the Lakers are in the top 5 or if Bagley comes out or if Ayton pulls a Harry Giles or whatever. So we don't have enough information to know if it was a fair or lopsided trade at this point. Too many variables. To be fair, that trade with the Sixers is a push for now.

So that leaves the players added and lost. In offseason moves that really matter, Celtics gave up Avery, Kelly, and Amir for Hayward and Morris. Wouldn't you agree that is significantly lopsided?

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. And man, what a lopsided trade! The Celtics offseason was similarly lopsided...more so I'd say.

I do think rumors of trades are determining the grades more than the actual offseason results. The results are clearly an A offseason. But if you believe rumors that the Celtics failed to execute good trades that were available then you use those rumors or assumptions to downgrade their offseason results. When really, the actual results in front of you are excellent.

[HartfordWhalers]

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.

[patman52]

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.

But that isn't true. They lost 3 veterans and added 3 veterans. If anything their bench is deeper

You lost half of your top 12 rotation in Bradley, Johnson, Olynyk, Jerebko, Tyler Zeller, and Gerald Green. You replaced them with Hayward, Baynes, Marcus Morris, Yabusele (rookie), Zizic (rookie), and Jayson Tatum (rookie).

Based on that you did replace veterans with young players. Yes, they were end of the bench players but they were all rotation players nonetheless. Eventually, that group should hopefully be better than the guys they replaced, but if you're expecting that right off the bat you are likely going to be disappointed.

And nobody is saying that they will be better right off the bat. The majority of Celtic fans here and the ones I know- don't think about this year as a contending year - playoffs yes. ship- no. We are building, this year is another step in the building. If they wanted to compete more this year- It would have been Smart and other Assets going out and not Bradley. But Bradley was not a long term piece so he went, even if it was a step back at the 2. They added another shot at the brass ring next year too.

[MoneyTalks41890]

Chuck nailed it. This is the Magic thread all over again.

[claycarver]

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.

So where do you grade the Celtics asset accumulation? You ding them in your write up for failing to execute Noel and Cousins trades, but you also want to ignore the assets they had on hand in offseason. It seems to me that you're trying to have it both ways.

The Celtics didn't "just have" the assets they used this offseason. That dismisses they choices they had to make to put them in the position to have the A+ offseason they executed.

[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.

So where do you grade the Celtics asset accumulation?

When it happens.

You ding them in your write up for failing to execute Noel and Cousins trades, but you also want to ignore the assets they had on hand in offseason. It seems to me that you're trying to have it both ways.

To be clear, their offseason grade for this offseason wasn't lowered because of those non-trades in the past. But I did note how much I hated not doing it at the time.

The Celtics didn't "just have" the assets they used this offseason. That dismisses they choices they had to make to put them in the position to have the A+ offseason they executed.

Couldn't disagree more. Ainge made some great moves in the past. That doesn't make his moves *now* great, and they should be judged stand alone.

[loserX]

That's fine. So, unless you want to say that Fultz for Tatum and the future pick was a bad trade before we know how that all shakes out, we can just call the draft a wash for now. I like the trade, maybe you don't, but for now you and I have no idea, right?

Of course, things can always change. But if Boston had instead traded #1 for #27 and a future protected pick, would we still have to wait to see how it turned out? Or could we call it a terrible trade? These assets have value now, and we can evaluate their exchange now...even if it turns out differently down the road.

(Alternatively, if I pay $1,000 for a $5 lottery ticket, that could turn out great for me if I win. But as of now, I was very stupid. And we have no trouble evaluating that )

Sure, if the trade was obviously lopsided or an obvious longshot, we could make those kind of calls. But we don't know that yet.

I guess I just disagree that a trade has to be obviously lopsided before we can grade it. Some Celtics fans are already counting it a win. (And to be fair, other Celtics fans are saying Boston could have gotten more.) Fans of other teams are also split.

I do understand that this was not a terribly lopsided trade to most, so there's not going to be a unanimous opinion on it. But to say we can't have any opinion at all on player moves until we see how it all turns out...well this would be a pretty quiet board if that were the case

[BullyKing]

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.

So where do you grade the Celtics asset accumulation? You ding them in your write up for failing to execute Noel and Cousins trades, but you also want to ignore the assets they had on hand in offseason. It seems to me that you're trying to have it both ways.

The Celtics didn't "just have" the assets they used this offseason. That dismisses they choices they had to make to put them in the position to have the A+ offseason they executed.

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?

[dakomish23]

My only beef with another great offseason is trading Bradley, who I thought would be a great compliment to both IT & Hayward. I understand the logic, but I would of moved Smart or Crowder instead.

[claycarver]

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.

So where do you grade the Celtics asset accumulation? You ding them in your write up for failing to execute Noel and Cousins trades, but you also want to ignore the assets they had on hand in offseason. It seems to me that you're trying to have it both ways.

The Celtics didn't "just have" the assets they used this offseason. That dismisses they choices they had to make to put them in the position to have the A+ offseason they executed.

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.

[SmartWentCrazy]

He wasn't close to the worst player in the NBA last year, and I'd take more from APM than I would from PER. He's also a full year younger, had a solid block rate, and graded out better defensively.

PER is just one of the many statistics grading Brown out favorably. Facts are, Bender was pathetic at every facet related to offensive performance other than providing spacing because his entire game relies on him parking behind the 3 point line.

He may grade out better defensively per APM (though, I'll plead ignorance, what are the inputs? Could you provide me a link to last year's grades? The only thing I could see online is a distinct warning from the authors on small sample sizes, which likely applies to both Brown and Bender), but I'd argue that Brown still showed well on that end for a rookie.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1CiOqGlz6zjjmjUlJBNOXflG6wYAS1RLjZjtZSQHraF4/edit?usp=sharing

It's RAPM. Lineup data is the main input along w/ scoring margin. And Brown doesn't show remotely well, he's near worst in the NBA. Brown wasn't good offensively either, wasn't good defensively, and is older. And RAPM is generally more predictive than other metrics.

I'm confused how you can rely on RAPM when it comes to evaluating Brown vs Bender and also not 100% love the Bradley for Morris trade? Moving to player ~150 from ~420 at the expense of a second rounder in 2019 feels like it should be a home run A+ move, especially when considering contracts. Yet you seemed ambivalent. Why?