The weaknesses of the new team, and some good things too

[Fierce1]

So the season hinges on Simons? Got to be one of the dumbest statements I've seen in awhile.

I did not say the season hinges on Simons.

What's dumb is you jumping to conclusions.

So a guy that's a 20 ppg scorer will not make a difference when the the Cs are missing their #1 option and his 27 ppg?

No Simons means the Cs are most likely going to win 30+ games because JB and White are not enough to offset the missing 27 ppg from JT.

What's dumb is dumping Simons for a guy like Okogie.

Maybe that's why Brad has not been able to trade Simons because Brad does not do dumb trades.

You said the Celtics are a lottery team without Simons, the guy the Celtics have been trying to trade since the day they got him. Simons is probably not even going to be on the team by mid September.

If Simons is not with the Cs by opening night then yeah, the Cs will be a play-in team or a lottery team because they will only win 30+ games.

With Simons, the Cs will be a 45-win team and 45 wins will be enough for a 4th seed or 5th seed.

Cs will win more if JT returns in March.

You've been trying to trade Simons since the Cs got him.

Why trade him now when his trade value is low?

Brad does not do dumb trades.

Trade Simons when his trade value will rise on or before trade deadline.

[Celts17Pride]

I did not say the season hinges on Simons.

What's dumb is you jumping to conclusions.

So a guy that's a 20 ppg scorer will not make a difference when the the Cs are missing their #1 option and his 27 ppg?

No Simons means the Cs are most likely going to win 30+ games because JB and White are not enough to offset the missing 27 ppg from JT.

What's dumb is dumping Simons for a guy like Okogie.

Maybe that's why Brad has not been able to trade Simons because Brad does not do dumb trades.

You said the Celtics are a lottery team without Simons, the guy the Celtics have been trying to trade since the day they got him. Simons is probably not even going to be on the team by mid September.

If Simons is not with the Cs by opening night then yeah, the Cs will be a play-in team or a lottery team because they will only win 30+ games.

With Simons, the Cs will be a 45-win team and 45 wins will be enough for a 4th seed or 5th seed.

Cs will win more if JT returns in March.

You've been trying to trade Simons since the Cs got him.

Why trade him now when his trade value is low?

Brad does not do dumb trades.

Trade Simons when his trade value will rise on or before trade deadline.

So trading Niang and two 2nd round picks for a two way player (Luis Jr) is a great trade? Pretty sure Brad Stevens did that one.

[Fierce1]

Kemba was a defensive liability, but the Cs were on pace for a 50-win season in 2019-20.

Covid limited the Cs to 72 games that season.

Kyrie left and Ainge replaced him with Kemba.

With Al and Kyrie gone, Cs fans were expecting the Cs to be bad in 2019-20.

But the Cs were the surprise team that season.

So until Simons gets traded, we have to factor in Simons' impact with the Cs.

[Hal14]

You said the Celtics are a lottery team without Simons, the guy the Celtics have been trying to trade since the day they got him. Simons is probably not even going to be on the team by mid September.

If Simons is not with the Cs by opening night then yeah, the Cs will be a play-in team or a lottery team because they will only win 30+ games.

With Simons, the Cs will be a 45-win team and 45 wins will be enough for a 4th seed or 5th seed.

Cs will win more if JT returns in March.

You've been trying to trade Simons since the Cs got him.

Why trade him now when his trade value is low?

Brad does not do dumb trades.

Trade Simons when his trade value will rise on or before trade deadline.

So trading Niang and two 2nd round picks for a two way player (Luis Jr) is a great trade? Pretty sure Brad Stevens did that one.

Reports have indicated that Simons was harder to move than Niang, because of the size of Simons' contract. Pretty big difference between $27 mil and $8mil.

No one wants to trade for a guy who could just be a rental, who they have to pay that kind of money, for maybe just 1 year. Especially since the Celtics don't want to take back any salary in the deal, since our only motivation for trading Simons is $ savings.

So we need a team that has $27 mil in cap space *and* wants to trade for Simons with only 1 yr left on his deal.

Not happening.

Seems like our only chance of trading him is if he really balls out during the season to raise his trade value.

And even then there might not be any takers.

[Fierce1]

You said the Celtics are a lottery team without Simons, the guy the Celtics have been trying to trade since the day they got him. Simons is probably not even going to be on the team by mid September.

If Simons is not with the Cs by opening night then yeah, the Cs will be a play-in team or a lottery team because they will only win 30+ games.

With Simons, the Cs will be a 45-win team and 45 wins will be enough for a 4th seed or 5th seed.

Cs will win more if JT returns in March.

You've been trying to trade Simons since the Cs got him.

Why trade him now when his trade value is low?

Brad does not do dumb trades.

Trade Simons when his trade value will rise on or before trade deadline.

So trading Niang and two 2nd round picks for a two way player (Luis Jr) is a great trade? Pretty sure Brad Stevens did that one.

You're not seeing the big picture.

The KP trade is now complete with the trade of Niang.

Let's not forget the reason for the KP trade is financial.

The final result is the Cs traded KP and a couple of 2nd rounders for ZERO dollars, Luis, and a couple of TPEs.

So the objective was achieved.

As for Niang, he was a luxury, not a need because we already have a shooter in Hauser.

Like what some of us told you, the KCP for Simons trade was not real and it was just confirmed that was a bogus rumor.

Just like Simons for Okogie was laughable.

[Celts17Pride]

If Simons is not with the Cs by opening night then yeah, the Cs will be a play-in team or a lottery team because they will only win 30+ games.

With Simons, the Cs will be a 45-win team and 45 wins will be enough for a 4th seed or 5th seed.

Cs will win more if JT returns in March.

You've been trying to trade Simons since the Cs got him.

Why trade him now when his trade value is low?

Brad does not do dumb trades.

Trade Simons when his trade value will rise on or before trade deadline.

So trading Niang and two 2nd round picks for a two way player (Luis Jr) is a great trade? Pretty sure Brad Stevens did that one.

Reports have indicated that Simons was harder to move than Niang, because of the size of Simons' contract. Pretty big difference between $27 mil and $8mil.

No one wants to trade for a guy who could just be a rental, who they have to pay that kind of money, for maybe just 1 year. Especially since the Celtics don't want to take back any salary in the deal, since our only motivation for trading Simons is $ savings.

So we need a team that has $27 mil in cap space *and* wants to trade for Simons with only 1 yr left on his deal.

Not happening.

Seems like our only chance of trading him is if he really balls out during the season to raise his trade value.

And even then there might not be any takers.

Simons gone by mid September once trade restrictions are lifted.

[Fierce1]

So trading Niang and two 2nd round picks for a two way player (Luis Jr) is a great trade? Pretty sure Brad Stevens did that one.

Reports have indicated that Simons was harder to move than Niang, because of the size of Simons' contract. Pretty big difference between $27 mil and $8mil.

No one wants to trade for a guy who could just be a rental, who they have to pay that kind of money, for maybe just 1 year. Especially since the Celtics don't want to take back any salary in the deal, since our only motivation for trading Simons is $ savings.

So we need a team that has $27 mil in cap space *and* wants to trade for Simons with only 1 yr left on his deal.

Not happening.

Seems like our only chance of trading him is if he really balls out during the season to raise his trade value.

And even then there might not be any takers.

Simons gone by mid September once trade restrictions are lifted.

If Simons is still a Celtic by October 1, I hope you're man enough to admit you were wrong.

[playa-hater]

Just a reminder, I was/am a bigger fan of Queta than most. And Yes I think he will show a reasonable/respectable improvement as a starter. But even I do not believe he will be making a major gain. One reason for that is, based on his sample size to date, he gets a lot of "Daniel Theis" treatment from the Refs. Sure I will hope/expect some improvement on his behalf from committing unnecessary fouls. But will it be enough? Time will tell.

[Celts17Pride]

Reports have indicated that Simons was harder to move than Niang, because of the size of Simons' contract. Pretty big difference between $27 mil and $8mil.

No one wants to trade for a guy who could just be a rental, who they have to pay that kind of money, for maybe just 1 year. Especially since the Celtics don't want to take back any salary in the deal, since our only motivation for trading Simons is $ savings.

So we need a team that has $27 mil in cap space *and* wants to trade for Simons with only 1 yr left on his deal.

Not happening.

Seems like our only chance of trading him is if he really balls out during the season to raise his trade value.

And even then there might not be any takers.

Simons gone by mid September once trade restrictions are lifted.

If Simons is still a Celtic by October 1, I hope you're man enough to admit you were wrong.

Ditto!

[Fierce1]

Simons gone by mid September once trade restrictions are lifted.

If Simons is still a Celtic by October 1, I hope you're man enough to admit you were wrong.

Ditto!

You were quiet when the Spurs extended Fox.

[Celts17Pride]

If Simons is still a Celtic by October 1, I hope you're man enough to admit you were wrong.

Ditto!

You were quiet when the Spurs extended Fox.

That was the dumbest move of the NBA off-season. Set back the Spurs rebuild even before it began.

[Fierce1]

Ditto!

You were quiet when the Spurs extended Fox.

That was the dumbest move of the NBA off-season. Set back the Spurs rebuild even before it began.

It's not about the effect of the move to extend Fox, it's about what some of us told you that the Spurs gave up a lot for Fox in the trade so it's only natural they extend him.

[phincsfan]

Ditto!

You were quiet when the Spurs extended Fox.

That was the dumbest move of the NBA off-season. Set back the Spurs rebuild even before it began.

I sometimes wonder if certain deals have a predetermined end game regardless how good or bad it may look.

If a guy like Zion gets traded, he may never get another big deal again.

The second that Fox trade went down you know the Spurs were on the hook to sign that contract whatever the cost.

[Fierce1]

You were quiet when the Spurs extended Fox.

That was the dumbest move of the NBA off-season. Set back the Spurs rebuild even before it began.

I sometimes wonder if certain deals have a predetermined end game regardless how good or bad it may look.

If a guy like Zion gets traded, he may never get another big deal again.

The second that Fox trade went down you know the Spurs were on the hook to sign that contract whatever the cost.

Bingo!

[Celts17Pride]

You were quiet when the Spurs extended Fox.

That was the dumbest move of the NBA off-season. Set back the Spurs rebuild even before it began.

I sometimes wonder if certain deals have a predetermined end game regardless how good or bad it may look.

If a guy like Zion gets traded, he may never get another big deal again.

The second that Fox trade went down you know the Spurs were on the hook to sign that contract whatever the cost.

Still doesn't make it a good signing. Fox has made one all-star appearance and is making $57 million per year. I would rather have Derrick White.

[Hal14]

That was the dumbest move of the NBA off-season. Set back the Spurs rebuild even before it began.

I sometimes wonder if certain deals have a predetermined end game regardless how good or bad it may look.

If a guy like Zion gets traded, he may never get another big deal again.

The second that Fox trade went down you know the Spurs were on the hook to sign that contract whatever the cost.

Still doesn't make it a good signing. Fox has made one all-star appearance and is making $57 million per year. I would rather have Derrick White.

Even if the spurs don't keep Fox around long term, extending him increases his trade value.

Teams wouldn't really want to trade for him on an expiring contract. They wouldn't want to take a chance that they bring him into their org and then lose him in free agency.

The more years they tack onto the extension, the higher his trade value is.

And the more $ per year they give him on the extension, the more value they can get back in terms of salary matching in a trade.

So by extending him, they either keep him and it works out great. Or they trade him, but extending him means his trade value is higher and they egt more back in trade. It's a win-win.

Also, Derrick White is not very relevant here. It's not like White and Fox were both FA and Spurs chose to sign Fox instead of White. They have Fox on their team..and they have no path towards trading for White..

[Celts17Pride]

I sometimes wonder if certain deals have a predetermined end game regardless how good or bad it may look.

If a guy like Zion gets traded, he may never get another big deal again.

The second that Fox trade went down you know the Spurs were on the hook to sign that contract whatever the cost.

Still doesn't make it a good signing. Fox has made one all-star appearance and is making $57 million per year. I would rather have Derrick White.

Even if the spurs don't keep Fox around long term, extending him increases his trade value.

No one is trading for Fox making nearly $60 million per year unless they are trying to get rid of bad money themselves.

[31to6]

The Celtics have 8 new players (including 3 new 2-Ways) since the championship season. That's a lot of player turnover.

Assuming Simons stays with the team at least until the deadline, are there any other big men FA's that could sign without putting the team back over the apron?

For starters, I can't help but wonder if Al Horford is holding out to see what Brad can do, but would be willing to sign a sweat heart deal for The C's. Maybe unlikely, but possible. Thing is, does it make sense for him to come in for a year, make the team marginally better, but not enough to compete deep in the playoffs, and then by the end of the season he's 40 and really ready to retire.

Charles Bassey made a name for himself in summer league, but is oft-injured and maybe not an upgrade to Queta.

Mo Bamba heading to Europe? He'd be the consolation prize after losing Luke. Apparently the Spurs had some interest in him as a backup. He's had a few moments and I recall him hitting some threes, but wouldn't really move the needle much, and probably prefers to make more money overseas.

Slim pickins out there.

An upgrade to Queta for the minimum does not seem possible. The best guys available might be Bassey and Simmons. They reportedly preferred Boucher to Simmons, but that isn't to say they're not open to both.

Along with having a limited offensive game, Bassey's injury history is a major reason he's available. His production is very good, but he couldn't stay healthy. He'd probably be on the Spurs still if not for the physical setbacks, and could still end up getting Boston's final spot.

Bassey might be waiting on Horford, who's waiting on Kuminga. Horford's 99% gone, but the Celtics could very well want to keep that 1% open and not make a further move until post-Al. They have said things that make you think Bassey's still in play even though they've not rushed to sign him.

I'm a Bassey Believer, but going to say two names just for fun -- and they are *just* for fun, especially the second one:
Daniel Thies
Aron Baynes

Also let's get Jajuan Johnson and Jordan Mickey and Darren Morningstar into camp;)

[flintsky21]

I think Queta tops at 20 minutes per game. As somebody said, he's an energy big, and the more minutes he plays, the less impactful he's gonna be. He's probably still gonna start most games, similar to that Aron Baynes role that one season.

That means Boucher will be playing mostly at the 5. Garza will eat up whatever minutes left at that position. At the 4, I see a rotation of Hauser, Minnott, Brown, and even Walsh in small lineups. I'm optimistic on Minnott. He could be a poor man's Jalen Johnson for us. A very poor man.

Strengths? Lots of shooting. On a hot shooting night, this team can beat anybody.

Weakness? When the threes aren't falling in, it's gonna be really bad. Where's the offense gonna come from? JB middies? Garza post-ups?

Also, if they trade Simons and not get much in return, the non-JB minutes are gonna be ugly. You'd have a bunch of shooters and role players but no one to create for them or put pressure on opposing defense. Good for subtle tanking though.

[Hal14]

I think Queta tops at 20 minutes per game. As somebody said, he's an energy big, and the more minutes he plays, the less impactful he's gonna be. He's probably still gonna start most games, similar to that Aron Baynes role that one season.

That means Boucher will be playing mostly at the 5. Garza will eat up whatever minutes left at that position. At the 4, I see a rotation of Hauser, Minnott, Brown, and even Walsh in small lineups. I'm optimistic on Minnott. He could be a poor man's Jalen Johnson for us. A very poor man.

Boucher is more of a 4 than a 5.

I think it might be something like this for mins at the 5:

Queta: 24
Garza: 18
Boucher: 6

Then Boucher gets 10 MPG at the 4, so 16 total.

The min totals for all of them could end up slightly lower, depending on how many mins at the 5 Tillman and Amari get..