Moderators: bisme37, Parliament10, canman1971, shackles10, snowman, Froob, Darthlukey, Shak_Celts
FakeScreenName123 wrote:165bows wrote:the depth is older and weaker in the front court than most for me.
that's the trade off when the 2nd/3rd best player int he world joins yer team? u can't have everything...
CsBsSoxPhins wrote:I used to not be a big fan of Klay, admittedly, but I would be all in for him. I've seen some wonder whether he is overrated; I used to think he was just a beneficiary of Curry but that was too easy of a way to look at it.
All alone, he is probably the second best shooter in the league. He can create off the dribble. One of the best defenders at his position. He's already played for a selfless team, so he would fit right in, but in a bigger role.
On the other hand, I think someone like Bradley could do wonders for a team like the Warriors. He'd provide what they wanted from Barnes in reality and wouldn't demand as many shots for this "super team".
I give it a .1% chance of it happening AND him coming to Boston, but I will dream about that...
CeltsfanSinceBirth wrote:CsBsSoxPhins wrote:I used to not be a big fan of Klay, admittedly, but I would be all in for him. I've seen some wonder whether he is overrated; I used to think he was just a beneficiary of Curry but that was too easy of a way to look at it.
All alone, he is probably the second best shooter in the league. He can create off the dribble. One of the best defenders at his position. He's already played for a selfless team, so he would fit right in, but in a bigger role.
On the other hand, I think someone like Bradley could do wonders for a team like the Warriors. He'd provide what they wanted from Barnes in reality and wouldn't demand as many shots for this "super team".
I give it a .1% chance of it happening AND him coming to Boston, but I will dream about that...
I wouldn't give the Warriors Bradley for Klay, because it all but ensures that they win the 2-3 titles. Imagine if Klay wanted out and Myers called up Ainge and offered Klay for AB and Crowder. The Celtics fare pretty well in that deal, but Golden State, rolling out a lineup of Curry/Bradley/Durant/Crowder/Green means they have the offensive firepower to score, and the defensive stoppers to ensure that their defense is close to elite. You would be helping them out by providing them role players and depth.
CsBsSoxPhins wrote:I used to not be a big fan of Klay, admittedly, but I would be all in for him. I've seen some wonder whether he is overrated; I used to think he was just a beneficiary of Curry but that was too easy of a way to look at it.
All alone, he is probably the second best shooter in the league. He can create off the dribble. One of the best defenders at his position. He's already played for a selfless team, so he would fit right in, but in a bigger role.
On the other hand, I think someone like Bradley could do wonders for a team like the Warriors. He'd provide what they wanted from Barnes in reality and wouldn't demand as many shots for this "super team".
I give it a .1% chance of it happening AND him coming to Boston, but I will dream about that...
CrowderKeg wrote:This is why Crowder's my current favorite Celtic...
bucknersrevenge wrote:CrowderKeg wrote:This is why Crowder's my current favorite Celtic...
I love that this team is comprised of grinders, and scrappers, and guys who at one level or another were counted out or second-guessed, or told what they would not be. Even the new kid who has probably the best chance to be that franchise level star in the future Jaylen Brown. Boos at his draft party. I was there. I watch Wyc climb up to that podium and get blasted for drafting a guy that couldn't shoot. So much of this teams identity is rooted in a holistic "IDGAF what you think". Is it weird that I almost don't want to trade for an established star? Like the idea of beating a great talent-laden team like GSW with guys that are not intimidated by it whatsoever would be the best feeling ever. Probably more rooted in fantasy than reality but nevertheless, I wouldn't want to acquire just any star here.
. Didn't think the pick was thought of THAT badly. London2Boston wrote:bucknersrevenge wrote:CrowderKeg wrote:This is why Crowder's my current favorite Celtic...
I love that this team is comprised of grinders, and scrappers, and guys who at one level or another were counted out or second-guessed, or told what they would not be. Even the new kid who has probably the best chance to be that franchise level star in the future Jaylen Brown. Boos at his draft party. I was there. I watch Wyc climb up to that podium and get blasted for drafting a guy that couldn't shoot. So much of this teams identity is rooted in a holistic "IDGAF what you think". Is it weird that I almost don't want to trade for an established star? Like the idea of beating a great talent-laden team like GSW with guys that are not intimidated by it whatsoever would be the best feeling ever. Probably more rooted in fantasy than reality but nevertheless, I wouldn't want to acquire just any star here.
Brown was booed at his draft party? Damn, that's rough
CeltsfanSinceBirth wrote:CsBsSoxPhins wrote:I used to not be a big fan of Klay, admittedly, but I would be all in for him. I've seen some wonder whether he is overrated; I used to think he was just a beneficiary of Curry but that was too easy of a way to look at it.
All alone, he is probably the second best shooter in the league. He can create off the dribble. One of the best defenders at his position. He's already played for a selfless team, so he would fit right in, but in a bigger role.
On the other hand, I think someone like Bradley could do wonders for a team like the Warriors. He'd provide what they wanted from Barnes in reality and wouldn't demand as many shots for this "super team".
I give it a .1% chance of it happening AND him coming to Boston, but I will dream about that...
I wouldn't give the Warriors Bradley for Klay, because it all but ensures that they win the 2-3 titles. Imagine if Klay wanted out and Myers called up Ainge and offered Klay for AB and Crowder. The Celtics fare pretty well in that deal, but Golden State, rolling out a lineup of Curry/Bradley/Durant/Crowder/Green means they have the offensive firepower to score, and the defensive stoppers to ensure that their defense is close to elite. You would be helping them out by providing them role players and depth.
Captain_Caveman wrote:sully00 wrote:Captain_Caveman wrote:
Why do people always make this terrible argument? League history shows pretty conclusively that nothing trumps having the most elite talent. Could be all perimeter guys, could be all frontcourt guys, can be a mix of the two.
Warriors probably have a twice as good a chance for a title this year than the rest of the field combined, which is a pretty claim to be able to utter before a long 100-game season even starts. They won 73 games last year, have been to back-to-back Finals and have now essentially traded a broken down Bogut and Barnes -- who is a poor man's Jeff Green and not even top 20 at his position -- for a guy who might be one of the top 10-15 players ever.
In addition to the two most recent MVPs, they have two other top 15 players, who both excel at both ends of the floor without needing to have the ball inn their hands, and an elite 6th man who is also an elite defender. In addition to potentially/likely being the best offense of all time, with the most floor spacing the game has ever seen, they may also be a top 2-3 defensive team this year with the DPOY and two other guys who have a very legitimate shot at making All-Defensive teams.
Oh, and they play completely unselfishly and likely have the 2nd best coach in the league behind Popovich.
ca
Sure, there are any number of injuries that could derail them, but come on, already.
Actually most of the time it doesn't work in year 1. The '08 Celtics are the exception not the rule. If they stay together chances are they pull through like Miami did but in general putting high usage super stars together is growing pain situation. That said the Warriors were damn good without Durant. It think the hardest thing is going to figure it out how they are going to approach the half dozen real games they play this season.
There is still only one ball. Ironically the Warriors would probably be better off having added a guy like Horford they don't exactly struggle scoring the ball. Nobody is going to turn away one of the best scorers in the game but it isn't like the Warriors can win more regular season games Curry, Durant, and Thompson are all going to watch their scoring avgs drop significantly so they can win 1 more game against the Cavs in June. Bottom line it is the most important thing but its about stopping Lebron James not scoring more points.
I don't know how they lost last year but I would not be shocked if Durant's stay in GS is short.
Got any examples of that of teams in their prime which don't involve them losing in the Finals?
8 of the last 9 Eastern Conference champs were from three different super teams, all of whom doing it in their first year together and again at least one time after that.
Shaq added to a Wade Heat and they win Year 1.
Duncan added to a team with DRob and they win Year 1.
Magic added to Kareem and they win Year 1.
McHale and Parish added to Larry and they win Year 1.
Bulls assemble a super team for 1996 and win Year 1.
sully00 wrote:Captain_Caveman wrote:sully00 wrote:
Actually most of the time it doesn't work in year 1. The '08 Celtics are the exception not the rule. If they stay together chances are they pull through like Miami did but in general putting high usage super stars together is growing pain situation. That said the Warriors were damn good without Durant. It think the hardest thing is going to figure it out how they are going to approach the half dozen real games they play this season.
There is still only one ball. Ironically the Warriors would probably be better off having added a guy like Horford they don't exactly struggle scoring the ball. Nobody is going to turn away one of the best scorers in the game but it isn't like the Warriors can win more regular season games Curry, Durant, and Thompson are all going to watch their scoring avgs drop significantly so they can win 1 more game against the Cavs in June. Bottom line it is the most important thing but its about stopping Lebron James not scoring more points.
I don't know how they lost last year but I would not be shocked if Durant's stay in GS is short.
Got any examples of that of teams in their prime which don't involve them losing in the Finals?
8 of the last 9 Eastern Conference champs were from three different super teams, all of whom doing it in their first year together and again at least one time after that.
Shaq added to a Wade Heat and they win Year 1.
Duncan added to a team with DRob and they win Year 1.
Magic added to Kareem and they win Year 1.
McHale and Parish added to Larry and they win Year 1.
Bulls assemble a super team for 1996 and win Year 1.
These are all terrible examples Duncan, Magic, The Bulls were all draft picks and to some extent ancient history. The modern era of Free Agency essentially began with Shaq going to the Lakers.
In that era the Portland Trail Blazers spent a ton of money and won a lot of games but never got to the Finals.
It is a small stretch to call the Kings of that era superteam but they ended up with a very good team that won lots of games after acquiring Webber but again never made the Finals.
Bird's Pacers with Reggie Miller, Mark Jackson, Chris Mullin, and Jalen Rose had a good run but it them 3 years to get to the Finals.
The Rockets with Hakeem, Pippen, and Barkley was a flame out.
The Pistons with Billups, the two Wallaces, and Hamilton is always a very underrated but excellent example of early success and a pretty good run.
This current situation with Durant is somewhat unique because rarely do legit top 5 guys go somewhere there is so little upside for their reputation and so much risk that basically anything but a championship is a failure.
Captain_Caveman wrote:sully00 wrote:Captain_Caveman wrote:
Got any examples of that of teams in their prime which don't involve them losing in the Finals?
8 of the last 9 Eastern Conference champs were from three different super teams, all of whom doing it in their first year together and again at least one time after that.
Shaq added to a Wade Heat and they win Year 1.
Duncan added to a team with DRob and they win Year 1.
Magic added to Kareem and they win Year 1.
McHale and Parish added to Larry and they win Year 1.
Bulls assemble a super team for 1996 and win Year 1.
These are all terrible examples Duncan, Magic, The Bulls were all draft picks and to some extent ancient history. The modern era of Free Agency essentially began with Shaq going to the Lakers.
In that era the Portland Trail Blazers spent a ton of money and won a lot of games but never got to the Finals.
It is a small stretch to call the Kings of that era superteam but they ended up with a very good team that won lots of games after acquiring Webber but again never made the Finals.
Bird's Pacers with Reggie Miller, Mark Jackson, Chris Mullin, and Jalen Rose had a good run but it them 3 years to get to the Finals.
The Rockets with Hakeem, Pippen, and Barkley was a flame out.
The Pistons with Billups, the two Wallaces, and Hamilton is always a very underrated but excellent example of early success and a pretty good run.
This current situation with Durant is somewhat unique because rarely do legit top 5 guys go somewhere there is so little upside for their reputation and so much risk that basically anything but a championship is a failure.
Terrible examples? For a pretty rare occurrence, I gave you *three* different examples within the last 9 years of super teams making the Finals in their first year, plus half a dozen more over the last 30-40 years.
I guess we should define what a super team is? IMO, it isn't the Barkley/Pippen Rockets team that had a bunch of 35yos who were deep into their back nine. Chris Mullin was also never on the Pacers until 1998, the year they took the Jordan Bulls to 7 in the ECFs. Hardly a failure, even if you think that team does in fact qualify as a "super team", which they don't IMO. Mark Jackson... really?
I don't know that I would include the Pistons as a super team, but either way, we both know they won a title within months of adding Sheed.
When talking about *actual* super teams full of elite players in their primes, and not a bunch of washed-up former stars who got thrown together, pretty much every super team, in fact, succeeds in their first year.
Further, you are saying above that the Ws would probably have been better off with Al Horford instead of KD?
***sound of screeching tires***
Ummm... what? The hell planet are we on right now?
Golden State had that option, and it never came up. Why would it?
And there isn't a single person here who would have taken KD over Horford on our team during free agency, despite our having perhaps the worst frontcourt in the league and already being pretty well set at SF with Crowder and Brown.
You guys are trying way too hard right now. There is every reason to think the Ws will smash teams left and right and coast to the Finals in cruise control if they can stay healthy.
sully00 wrote: If the Warriors win 63 games and get beat in the Conference Finals Durant's brand is crushed. Durant is just in an impossible situation that can only end well with a Larry O'Brien trophy.
sully00 wrote:Captain_Caveman wrote:sully00 wrote:
These are all terrible examples Duncan, Magic, The Bulls were all draft picks and to some extent ancient history. The modern era of Free Agency essentially began with Shaq going to the Lakers.
In that era the Portland Trail Blazers spent a ton of money and won a lot of games but never got to the Finals.
It is a small stretch to call the Kings of that era superteam but they ended up with a very good team that won lots of games after acquiring Webber but again never made the Finals.
Bird's Pacers with Reggie Miller, Mark Jackson, Chris Mullin, and Jalen Rose had a good run but it them 3 years to get to the Finals.
The Rockets with Hakeem, Pippen, and Barkley was a flame out.
The Pistons with Billups, the two Wallaces, and Hamilton is always a very underrated but excellent example of early success and a pretty good run.
This current situation with Durant is somewhat unique because rarely do legit top 5 guys go somewhere there is so little upside for their reputation and so much risk that basically anything but a championship is a failure.
Terrible examples? For a pretty rare occurrence, I gave you *three* different examples within the last 9 years of super teams making the Finals in their first year, plus half a dozen more over the last 30-40 years.
I guess we should define what a super team is? IMO, it isn't the Barkley/Pippen Rockets team that had a bunch of 35yos who were deep into their back nine. Chris Mullin was also never on the Pacers until 1998, the year they took the Jordan Bulls to 7 in the ECFs. Hardly a failure, even if you think that team does in fact qualify as a "super team", which they don't IMO. Mark Jackson... really?
I don't know that I would include the Pistons as a super team, but either way, we both know they won a title within months of adding Sheed.
When talking about *actual* super teams full of elite players in their primes, and not a bunch of washed-up former stars who got thrown together, pretty much every super team, in fact, succeeds in their first year.
Further, you are saying above that the Ws would probably have been better off with Al Horford instead of KD?
***sound of screeching tires***
Ummm... what? The hell planet are we on right now?
Golden State had that option, and it never came up. Why would it?
And there isn't a single person here who would have taken KD over Horford on our team during free agency, despite our having perhaps the worst frontcourt in the league and already being pretty well set at SF with Crowder and Brown.
You guys are trying way too hard right now. There is every reason to think the Ws will smash teams left and right and coast to the Finals in cruise control if they can stay healthy.
The Warriors would likely do that without Durant. While I agree I would take Durant over Horford, Boston is desperate to score the ball. If I was the Warriors I would then probably move Thompson for a front court player which the Warriors haven't done. The Warriors don't need 30 ppg they needed another option with an all around game, now they will have to turn a top 10 scorer into a role player. Al Horford has always been that guy.
The bottom line is that getting to the Finals is the minimum this is what you are ignoring in what at least I am talking about. If the Warriors win 63 games and get beat in the Conference Finals Durant's brand is crushed. I think it was an overkill move by the Warriors but who cares that is what they should try and do. Durant is just in an impossible situation that can only end well with a Larry O'Brien trophy.
Andrew McCeltic wrote:Captain_Caveman wrote:Andrew McCeltic wrote:My point is they might not win the title this year. They're thinner up front. They have an unusual mix of personalities. And they were tested last year by the Thunder, who had a ton of size, and lost to Cleveland, who had a ton of size. It's a huge gamble on the new, pace and space NBA.
Saying that it doesn't work out because of the presence of other, comparable elite teams. Well, yeah. That means you've lost to another comparable, elite team. Why did the Warriors lose in this last season? They didn't really have injuries, they won 73, and I don't even think the Cavs were a "comparable" team.
I'm not sure what we're really arguing about, except whether you're absolutely right and infallible and everything else is crazy talk. Because we are like 90 percent in agreement on this.
I do disagree on Klay, I think he's overrated by playing next to Curry on a winning team, in a great system. He's top 10, but I remember having this argument about where Pierce ranked 15 years ago. Longevity and situation do a lot to separate the wheat from the chaff. I wouldn't say he's head and shoulders above other top 10 shooting guards, but he's playing to his highest potential right now in a good situation.
I don't think they are thinner up front at all. They played Barnes a lot at PF, and will do the same with KD, who is taller, longer, heavier and about 100x more talented. They also added David West, in case you missed it. Recent draft pick Kevan Looney is finally healthy as well.
For the roughly 44 minutes a game that was essentially played by Bogut, Ezeli and Speights at center, they are now looking at Zaza, Varejao, McGee and Damian Jones. Can easily add a buyout deadline guy as well if needed.
To me, it sure looks like they improved tremendously at SF, very much so at PF, and are comparable at C, with more depth all around.
As to Klay, he's not a franchise guy but is the best SG in the game and a two-way player with amazing range.
Are you sh*tting me? Didn't realize they'd fleshed out their front court like that. I don't love the idea of KD at the 4, but didn't know they had West, Varejao, McGee. And Damian Jones. Thought they were just going small overall.
Still hold to what I said about Durant/Thompson/Steph having to make it fit, but I thought they'd actually gutted their power forward and center depth in order to make cap room for Durant.
London2Boston wrote:Klay is a beast. Dude was the Warriors' best player in the post season. The things I would do to have him here. Like I said though, it's not happening, because any tension between them will be solved by wiping the floor with the whole Western Conference all year. I can just see it now.. Their over the top celebrations and early three pointer celebrations. If you thought it was bad last year..:
FakeScreenName123 wrote:sully00 wrote: If the Warriors win 63 games and get beat in the Conference Finals Durant's brand is crushed. Durant is just in an impossible situation that can only end well with a Larry O'Brien trophy.
are you saying Durant is cool/a great competitor by pointing this out? I'm confused. I don't understand if yer complimenting him or crushin him by saying this.