Moderators: bisme37, Parliament10, canman1971, shackles10, snowman, Froob, Darthlukey, Shak_Celts
Celts17Pride wrote:Springer will be gone by the end of the year as soon as Brad Stevens can find a taker. Springer is a square peg for a round hole on the Celtics. Completely lost on offense and a career 23% three point shooter. Tons of DNPs in his Celtics future
Celts17Pride wrote:Springer will be gone by the end of the year as soon as Brad Stevens can find a taker. Springer is a square peg for a round hole on the Celtics. Completely lost on offense and a career 23% three point shooter. Tons of DNPs in his Celtics future
Dogen wrote:Celts17Pride wrote:Springer will be gone by the end of the year as soon as Brad Stevens can find a taker. Springer is a square peg for a round hole on the Celtics. Completely lost on offense and a career 23% three point shooter. Tons of DNPs in his Celtics future
Celt17Pride, your Springerstan visa is about to be revoked! The Ministry of Full Metal Springer is taking names!
darrendaye wrote:
Dogen wrote:darrendaye wrote:
Jaden is in good company on that list. And I contend that as such, he is good compliment to bench of Pritchard and Hauser (and maybe Walsh!).
playa-hater wrote:Dogen wrote:darrendaye wrote:
Jaden is in good company on that list. And I contend that as such, he is good compliment to bench of Pritchard and Hauser (and maybe Walsh!).
Well defense is his calling card. So he still can use that to get/keep teams interested. But in the 1990s he would have been valued more IMO., This ERA is so 3 point happy and Springer doesn't have enough sample size of being a trusted shooter/offensive player yet. Problem is, I think it is so hard to play occasionally or not at all and build/prove to be a shooter. Nesmith, PP and even Hauser went through that and they were always skillful shooters.
Point I am trying to make is the NBA is so talented that Fringe players sometimes never truly get a chance. Springer has a tough road ahead wherever he ends up.
playa-hater wrote:Well defense is his calling card. So he still can use that to get/keep teams interested. But in the 1990s he would have been valued more IMO., This ERA is so 3 point happy and Springer doesn't have enough sample size of being a trusted shooter/offensive player yet. Problem is, I think it is so hard to play occasionally or not at all and build/prove to be a shooter. Nesmith, PP and even Hauser went through that and they were always skillful shooters.
Point I am trying to make is the NBA is so talented that Fringe players sometimes never truly get a chance. Springer has a tough road ahead wherever he ends up.
Hal14 wrote:playa-hater wrote:Well defense is his calling card. So he still can use that to get/keep teams interested. But in the 1990s he would have been valued more IMO., This ERA is so 3 point happy and Springer doesn't have enough sample size of being a trusted shooter/offensive player yet. Problem is, I think it is so hard to play occasionally or not at all and build/prove to be a shooter. Nesmith, PP and even Hauser went through that and they were always skillful shooters.
Point I am trying to make is the NBA is so talented that Fringe players sometimes never truly get a chance. Springer has a tough road ahead wherever he ends up.
Let's remember that Springer is still very young. Every real NBA game he's played in was before his 22nd birthday, when many players are still in college.
I'd also say that comparing him to guys like Nesmith, Pritchard and Hauser isn't very useful since those guys are all shooters. Each of them get most of their value from 3 pt shooting, so their 3 ball *needs* to fall. But a guy like Springer is able to provide a lot of value from things other than 3 pt shooting (defense, hustle, energy, rebounding, cutting, etc.) so his 3 ball doesn't necessarily *need* to be great all the time.
Also, guys (like Springer, like Herb Jones, etc.) who don't come into the league as shooters, typically need a little bit more time and development to improve that area of their game..especially if they're a guy (like Springer) who came into the league at such a young age.
Now, one player who comes to mind who is kind of like Springer (young...on a good team, really good defender but limited on offense, limited as a shooter) is Peyton Watson. He has yet to shoot the 3 ball well in the NBA, but was still able to carve out a role last season as a solid rotational player for one of the best teams in the league - he did by being a really good wing defender, being active on the boards, scoring in transition and providing hustle/energy.
Let's take a look at Watson and some other players who are really good defenders but didn't start off their careers as good 3 pt shooters:
Peyton Watson: G league at age 20, 29% at age 21. This season he'll be 22
Dyson Daniels: 31% at age 19, 31% at age 20, this season will be 21
Jalen Suggs: 21% at age 20, 32% at age 21, 39% at age 22
Miles McBride: 25% at age 21, 29% at age 22, 41% at age 23
Herb Jones: 33% at age 23, 33% at age 24, 41% at age 25
Jalen Johnson: 23% at age 20, 28% at age 21, 35% at age 22
Nickeil Walker-Alexander: 1st 3 seasons (age 21-23) was combined 32.8%. Then 38.4% at age 24, 39.1% at age 25
Kris Dunn: 28% at age 22, 32% at age 23, 35% at age 24. Last season 36.9% at age 29
Gabe Vincent: G league at age 23, 30% at age 24, 36% at age 25
Delon Wright: G league at age 23, 33% at age 24, 36% at age 25
Avery Bradley: G league at age 20, 40% at age 21 (but on VERY low volume), 31% at age 22, 39% at age 23
Kenrich Williams: 33% at age 24, 25% at age 25, 44% at age 26
Derrick White: G league at age 23, 33% at age 24, 36% at age 25. Then the next few years was around 30-34% until 38% at age 28, 39% at age 29
Alex Caruso: 30% at age 23, 48% at age 24 (but low volume and only played 25 games), 33% (27% in playoffs) at age 25
Looking at these numbers, remember - this will be Springer's age 22 season. And these other guys listed above didn't start shooting the 3 ball well until age 22 or 23 at the earliest. I listed 14 players here and *none* of them were a good 3 pt shooter prior to their age 22 season.
Suggs made a shooting leap at age 22. McBride made a shooting leap at age 23. Kenrich made a shooting leap at age 26. Vincent and Herb Jones made a shooting leap at age 25. Jalen Johnson made a shooting leap at age 22. Walker-Alexander made a shooting leap at age 24.
Lastly, there's a few things that indicate Springer might have a shooting leap soon:
-9/18 from 3 (50%) if you include his 3 preseason games this year, his 1 summer league game this year, the 1 G league game he played in for us late last season and the 2 games for Boston he got decent playing time in late in the reg season, so 7 game sample size, about 2.5 attempts per game)
-Noa Dalzell tweeted a clip of Springer knocking down 10/12 (83%) on corner 3's in practice, this past March
-82% FT shooter for his NBA career
-81% FT shooter in college...
-43.5% from 3 in college
-Celtics over the past few years have had a track record of helping guys improve their 3 pt shot (Grant Williams, Derrick White, J-rich, Walsh, Tillman, Horford (wasn't much of a shooter before he got to Boston), etc.
playa-hater wrote:My point on PP Nesmith and Hauser was slightly missed. I was trying to say that even highly skilled "shooters" as PP Sam and Nee can struggle finding their shots, can you imagine someone who has less shooting "skill" and gets even less playing time (Springer) makes the challenge of knocking down shots far more difficult.
playa-hater wrote:Watson, while like Springer, is a D specialist, but Watson is good notch better at finishing and certainly has better size for switching Versatility. And will be getting far greater time on the court to work on his shooting. Springer will be coming in cold almost every night. Again. So much harder to do..
Hal14 wrote:playa-hater wrote:My point on PP Nesmith and Hauser was slightly missed. I was trying to say that even highly skilled "shooters" as PP Sam and Nee can struggle finding their shots, can you imagine someone who has less shooting "skill" and gets even less playing time (Springer) makes the challenge of knocking down shots far more difficult.
I got your point. But I also think that getting low/inconsistent playing time, coming in cold off the bench is something is going to probably affect the shooting performance of all players equally - regardless of how good of a shooter they are normally. Pritchard had the worst shooting season in his career during the 22-23 season, when his playing time was so low and inconsistent. That was also the case for Nesmith during the 21-22 season.
Hauser and Grant both had stretches during the 22-23 season when their playing time was sporadic - and when that happened, their shooting wasn't as good.
The difference is though, when those guys struggled to hit shots, they were basically unplayable since they weren't good enough at other things.
With Springer, at least the hope is that he will be good enough at other stuff (like defense, hustle, energy, crashing the boards and getting some easy buckets in transition) that even if the shooting isn't great, he is still making a positive impact.
Kind of like what Brissett did last season. His offense (shooting, driving, finishing) were not good. But we usually did pretty well with him on the floor..for the most part, he made a positive impact when he was out there with his hustle, energy, defense and rebounding and the way he enabled us to play faster - more up tempo.
But I do think that that even if his mins are sporadic, there is hope that Springer's shootng can improve a bit, for reasons I mentioned in my previous post.
To take it a step further, if you look at what Brad has done over the past couple of years, he's put a lot of guys on this roster (especially guys who are outside of the top 8 rotation guys who are gonna play a lot) who are questionable shooters. You've got Banton, Brissett, Lamar Stevens, Queta, Kornet, Griffin, Vonleh, Springer, Walsh, Watson, Tillman, etc.
Maybe he did that (added so many suspect shooters for the end of the bench) because he knows that guys are in and out of the lineup are probably not going to shoot the ball great - so he gets players who are good at other things besides shooting. So that way, their value on the court isn't tied to their shooting..even if they shoot poorly, the hop is that they are still helping the team in other ways.
But in the meantime, our staff works with these guys on their shooting so that hopefully they can eventually shoot it at a respectable clip - especially if they're a younger guy (like Springer and Walsh) who are earlier in their development as shooters..
You compare that to a guy like Lonnie Walker. He does nothing except shoot, basically. That's a scary (in a bad way) type of player to have at the end of your bench, who is not going to be in lineup every night, will be coming in cold off the bench most of the time.
At least Svi had some legit playmaking juice to him. And he was our 14th man..we could have Svi on the roster and still leave the 15th spot open to save $ and have flexibility. That wasn't the case for Walker..playa-hater wrote:Watson, while like Springer, is a D specialist, but Watson is good notch better at finishing and certainly has better size for switching Versatility. And will be getting far greater time on the court to work on his shooting. Springer will be coming in cold almost every night. Again. So much harder to do..
It's a fair point that Watson (reminder to other folks following along that we're talking about Peyton Watson, not Anton) will likely get more consustent playing time than Springer which could help him shoot better (plus Watson has more size).
But on the flip side, Springer shot the 3 better in college than Watson. Springer has a much higher FT% in the NBA (and in college) than Watson. Watson was 22% from 3 in college, 24% in the G league, 14% across 2 summer league seasons, 27% during this year's preseasn, 28% during preseason the year before that. Only 66% FT shooting across both preseasons, so even with more consistent playing time than Springer will likely get, I still feel more confident in Springer's shooting potential than Watson's.
Plus, the Celtics have a good track record for improving player's shooting. Denver doesn't have that as much.
playa-hater wrote:Hal14 wrote:playa-hater wrote:My point on PP Nesmith and Hauser was slightly missed. I was trying to say that even highly skilled "shooters" as PP Sam and Nee can struggle finding their shots, can you imagine someone who has less shooting "skill" and gets even less playing time (Springer) makes the challenge of knocking down shots far more difficult.
I got your point. But I also think that getting low/inconsistent playing time, coming in cold off the bench is something is going to probably affect the shooting performance of all players equally - regardless of how good of a shooter they are normally. Pritchard had the worst shooting season in his career during the 22-23 season, when his playing time was so low and inconsistent. That was also the case for Nesmith during the 21-22 season.
Hauser and Grant both had stretches during the 22-23 season when their playing time was sporadic - and when that happened, their shooting wasn't as good.
The difference is though, when those guys struggled to hit shots, they were basically unplayable since they weren't good enough at other things.
With Springer, at least the hope is that he will be good enough at other stuff (like defense, hustle, energy, crashing the boards and getting some easy buckets in transition) that even if the shooting isn't great, he is still making a positive impact.
Kind of like what Brissett did last season. His offense (shooting, driving, finishing) were not good. But we usually did pretty well with him on the floor..for the most part, he made a positive impact when he was out there with his hustle, energy, defense and rebounding and the way he enabled us to play faster - more up tempo.
But I do think that that even if his mins are sporadic, there is hope that Springer's shootng can improve a bit, for reasons I mentioned in my previous post.
To take it a step further, if you look at what Brad has done over the past couple of years, he's put a lot of guys on this roster (especially guys who are outside of the top 8 rotation guys who are gonna play a lot) who are questionable shooters. You've got Banton, Brissett, Lamar Stevens, Queta, Kornet, Griffin, Vonleh, Springer, Walsh, Watson, Tillman, etc.
Maybe he did that (added so many suspect shooters for the end of the bench) because he knows that guys are in and out of the lineup are probably not going to shoot the ball great - so he gets players who are good at other things besides shooting. So that way, their value on the court isn't tied to their shooting..even if they shoot poorly, the hop is that they are still helping the team in other ways.
But in the meantime, our staff works with these guys on their shooting so that hopefully they can eventually shoot it at a respectable clip - especially if they're a younger guy (like Springer and Walsh) who are earlier in their development as shooters..
You compare that to a guy like Lonnie Walker. He does nothing except shoot, basically. That's a scary (in a bad way) type of player to have at the end of your bench, who is not going to be in lineup every night, will be coming in cold off the bench most of the time.
At least Svi had some legit playmaking juice to him. And he was our 14th man..we could have Svi on the roster and still leave the 15th spot open to save $ and have flexibility. That wasn't the case for Walker..playa-hater wrote:Watson, while like Springer, is a D specialist, but Watson is good notch better at finishing and certainly has better size for switching Versatility. And will be getting far greater time on the court to work on his shooting. Springer will be coming in cold almost every night. Again. So much harder to do..
It's a fair point that Watson (reminder to other folks following along that we're talking about Peyton Watson, not Anton) will likely get more consustent playing time than Springer which could help him shoot better (plus Watson has more size).
But on the flip side, Springer shot the 3 better in college than Watson. Springer has a much higher FT% in the NBA (and in college) than Watson. Watson was 22% from 3 in college, 24% in the G league, 14% across 2 summer league seasons, 27% during this year's preseasn, 28% during preseason the year before that. Only 66% FT shooting across both preseasons, so even with more consistent playing time than Springer will likely get, I still feel more confident in Springer's shooting potential than Watson's.
Plus, the Celtics have a good track record for improving player's shooting. Denver doesn't have that as much.
You have made some good points, especially the Bolded. I didn't mention earlier that both Walker and Springer do suffer from being slightly undersized shooting guards. And I believe SGs are the most saturated position in the NBA. Even a highly proven shooter like Gary Trent Jr just got paid in pennies. And he is a proven playoff performer and starter.
I will stick to my Original assessment that Springer has some huge challenges staying in the NBA for more than the immediate short term. By next Summer another batch of draft picks will come flooding in an already oversaturated league talent wise.
hugepatsfan wrote:If I had to put money on it though, my guess is that he doesn't make it here and is dumped at the deadline for cost savings.
Hal14 wrote:hugepatsfan wrote:If I had to put money on it though, my guess is that he doesn't make it here and is dumped at the deadline for cost savings.
That might happen.
At this point, there's 3 possibilities for Springer:
1) He gets traded at the deadline (either for cost savings or perhaps we're able to get a better player in return who makes the same salary or less)
2) He enters restricted free agency this summer and we resign him
3) He enters restricted free agency next summer and we don't resign him
I think all 3 of those scenarios are a possibility. Which one do I think will happen? Idk, too soon to tell. We're still 4 months away from the trade deadline and 9 months away from free agency.
A lot can happen and a lot can change between now and then.
I'll just say that scenario #2 wouldn't shock me. We traded for Springer for a reason. Brad has made it known that he sees something in him. Springer has said that the team believes in him.
And people on here (and in the media) keep talking about the new CBA, the celtics being a 2nd apron team, the huge tax bill that we are looking at over these next few years, and how difficult it will be for us to add talent to the roster moving forward. And how people think that sometime in these next few years, we might end up trimming payroll.
Well, if all of that is true..and if he plays well this season and is developing nicely, it might end up looking foolish to just let him walk in free agency next summer..especially when you look at what Brad did this past offseason, resigning Tillman, Kornet and Queta on dirt cheap contracts. All 3 of them are basically making the minimum (Queta 3 year deal, Tillman 2 years, Kornet 1 year).
Perhaps Springer ends up signing a deal similar to the one that Queta got (3 years, $7.1 mil). Also, as a point of reference (and a player that is somewhat similar to Springer but has gotten more playing time, including playoff rotation mins), Jose Alvarado signed a 2 year, $9 mil extension with the Pelicans a few weeks ago. So Springer could be looking at a deal like Queta's or a deal like Alvarado's, or peerhaps something in between.
And that way, the Celtics lock in a guy who can be the 4th guard (behind Jrue, white, Pritchard) but could perhaps move up in the rotation eventually to 3rd guard as Jrue ages/declines (and possibly gets traded at some point to save $)..
hugepatsfan wrote:We'll see what happens this year. They obviously like his developmental potential but the success rate of players like Springer is always going to be low. Not too many guys drafted where he was make it as rotation players so it's hardly some grave disappointment or failure if he flops. I think it's aggressive to expect that Springer makes it at this point, but we'll see.
phincsfan wrote:I believe Brad when he says they looked at Springer before the 21' draft, but considering how terrible Morey has been in the draft with Philly and when he was at Hou, I'm not surprised he whiffed on the Springer pick.
As a C's fan I look at all the players they draft, trade for and sign with naive hope, and that's what I did with Springer. I loved the defensive potential and the age. But looking at the 21 draft there's a reason why he's played the 2nd fewest games from the 1st rounders selected and 11 of the 2nd rounders played in at least 100 games.
Springer was expected to be a potential factor in Joe Mazzulla’s rotation per sources entering training camp but he did not make much of an impact in preseason action. Springer’s role actually faded as the exhibition season rolled on as he failed to appear in two of Boston’s final three games.
GoCeltics123 wrote:Springer was expected to be a potential factor in Joe Mazzulla’s rotation per sources entering training camp but he did not make much of an impact in preseason action. Springer’s role actually faded as the exhibition season rolled on as he failed to appear in two of Boston’s final three games.
Per B Robb. Yeah Springer is done here