Hayward Undecided

[Homerclease]

That's where I disagree. Losing bradley and Crowder isn't that big of a deal in my opinion. Well worth the risk

Were talking about dealing Thomas in this thread though. I have Thomas considerably better than role players like Bradley and Crowder.

Ahh that's right. Well you already know my take on him

Seeing how I think we shouldn't sign him long term then it's a no brainer getting a lottery pick for him. I think he'll hurt us more long term being here than just losing him for a bust pick

The problem is you've laid out the exact arguement as to why to not trade for him. Why should any team deal a lotto pick for a guy you doesn't think pushes you into contention that you then have to pay?

[Stadium5]

Were talking about dealing Thomas in this thread though. I have Thomas considerably better than role players like Bradley and Crowder.

Ahh that's right. Well you already know my take on him

Seeing how I think we shouldn't sign him long term then it's a no brainer getting a lottery pick for him. I think he'll hurt us more long term being here than just losing him for a bust pick

The problem is you've laid out the exact arguement as to why to not trade for him. Why should any team deal a lotto pick for a guy you doesn't think pushes you into contention that you then have to pay?

Because not everybody thinks like me (as evidenced on this forum). Different teams, different situations too. Some teams might have better defensive situations that could help play off him better than we can. Some want that instant scoring spark that might push them to the next level.

[greenmachine_2849]

Jesus, these Finals are an absolute joke. I know we're all supposed to be all in on Hayward and everything but is it worth it right now? And I LOVE Hayward but how much does he move the needle? I don't know what the rationale would be in going over the tax for a team that right now has ZERO shot at beating Golden State. When do we have to worry about the repeater tax?

I wonder what the television ratings are going to look like league wide in a couple of years. Yeah, if your sole objective as a fan is to root for a champion, I could see a lot of the audience growing bored and leaving the game in the near future.

It usually is the opposite people love to watch greatness. Nobody got tired of watching the Lakers or the Celtics win, nobody stopped watching Jordan stomp everyone, ratings were great for Shaq and Kobe. Perhaps more than any other sport the NBA needs stars heroes or villains they want stars and greatness. You might be rooting for anyone to beat them but your still watching.

Yeah, but let's not confuse dominance and greatness. The Celtics and Lakers were not dominant teams in the 1980s, as they always had each other to contend with at a minimum. And while one of them or the other got to the NBA finals every year from 1980 to 1988, 66% of the time one of them got beat on the way to the Finals. I think we might be in the middle of a six or seven year run where it is the Cavs/Warriors EVERY SINGLE year. Compared to that, the 1980s was oozing with parity.

And as great as the 90s Bulls and early 00s Lakers were, at least they got pushed to the occasional game 7. Hell, the Lakers actually lost a playoff series in 2003. The Warriors, if they stay healthy and together, might not see a game 7 for half a decade.

I also think that the idea of manufactured greatness is going to wear thin after a while. I think, if Shaquille O'Neal had gone and joined the Seattle Supersonics in 1996 as a free agent and they ran roughshod over the league for the next five years, I don't think fans would view the latter half of the 90s quite as fondly.

But I get your point, and maybe you're right. Maybe the average fan doesn't care about competitiveness as long as one of the teams playing is one of the all-time greats. Time will tell. But Dale & Holley had a story a couple of weeks ago about how the regular season viewership was down this year in all but a handful of the NBA markets. If true, I think that could be the canary in the coal mine....

Not positive, but I think this is the story they were referring to: http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Journal/Issues/2017/02/20/Media/NBA-RSNs.aspx

[greenmachine_2849]

I wonder what the television ratings are going to look like league wide in a couple of years. Yeah, if your sole objective as a fan is to root for a champion, I could see a lot of the audience growing bored and leaving the game in the near future.

I'm not sure if you're old enough to remember the NBA in the 90s.

Jordan's Bulls dominated every year. From 1991-1998, only two franchises won titles...and the league benefitted greatly from that dominance.

As LeBron declines, it's quite possible that KD/Steph become not only the new faces of the NBA...

But the biggest sport stars on the planet.

It wasn't even close to like this though, save the one year the Bulls won 72 games, and even then they were taken to 6 by the Sonics. The Bulls were always challenged. The closest they ever came to going 16-0 was in 90-91 when they went 15-2 and I wouldn't be surprised if they weren't favored in the finals.

Exactly. And you felt that Jordan paid his dues for his first six seasons in the league and earned that championship with the Bulls. A lot of people feel that Durant kind of cut to the front of the line.

And, while it may be an unpopular opinion around here, I think the 2008 Celtics were kind of the precursor to what we have now in Golden State. Not exactly the same thing, but if you squint hard enough they do have a definite resemblance. Don't think you have the latter without the former.

[jirrit]

Is it wrong to want to use our cap space as a trade asset and take on a bad contract for a team while being giving back an asset for the trouble? Rather than going out and getting Hayward who isn't going to get us where we need to be regardless

If we strike out on Hayward maybe we should use the cap space to bring in a bad contract and get a good pick out of it. Maybe Noah?

It's pretty wrong to me. What's the point of playing if all of this you reduce to is trying to being able to have the biggest chance of winning because someone else is the biggest king at the moment. There's also a fun factor in this whole thing. Like playing basketball, watching players grow up, get a bond with guys, get a bond with a nice win you get or a eastern conference finals you've reached. Sometimes you just gotta give it a chance and just play and don't go sit there 'crying' the I want more or I want the biggest part of the cake otherwise I might be starving sooner than others. Or make people look like they're crazy 'cause yeah, we should aim for the biggest picture and not take Hayward cause he's not gonna do it against the 'bad warriors'.

[sully00]

I wonder what the television ratings are going to look like league wide in a couple of years. Yeah, if your sole objective as a fan is to root for a champion, I could see a lot of the audience growing bored and leaving the game in the near future.

It usually is the opposite people love to watch greatness. Nobody got tired of watching the Lakers or the Celtics win, nobody stopped watching Jordan stomp everyone, ratings were great for Shaq and Kobe. Perhaps more than any other sport the NBA needs stars heroes or villains they want stars and greatness. You might be rooting for anyone to beat them but your still watching.

Yeah, but let's not confuse dominance and greatness. The Celtics and Lakers were not dominant teams in the 1980s, as they always had each other to contend with at a minimum. And while one of them or the other got to the NBA finals every year from 1980 to 1988, 66% of the time one of them got beat on the way to the Finals. I think we might be in the middle of a six or seven year run where it is the Cavs/Warriors EVERY SINGLE year. Compared to that, the 1980s was oozing with parity.

And as great as the 90s Bulls and early 00s Lakers were, at least they got pushed to the occasional game 7. Hell, the Lakers actually lost a playoff series in 2003. The Warriors, if they stay healthy and together, might not see a game 7 for half a decade.

I also think that the idea of manufactured greatness is going to wear thin after a while. I think, if Shaquille O'Neal had gone and joined the Seattle Supersonics in 1996 as a free agent and they ran roughshod over the league for the next five years, I don't think fans would view the latter half of the 90s quite as fondly.

But I get your point, and maybe you're right. Maybe the average fan doesn't care about competitiveness as long as one of the teams playing is one of the all-time greats. Time will tell. But Dale & Holley had a story a couple of weeks ago about how the regular season viewership was down this year in all but a handful of the NBA markets. If true, I think that could be the canary in the coal mine....

Not positive, but I think this is the story they were referring to: http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Journal/Issues/2017/02/20/Media/NBA-RSNs.aspx

I would argue that the cause of a lack of fan interest is the tanking bs. That teams have no direction there is what 8 or 9 teams in both conferences that seemed to be actually trying to win games and compete.

The other piece is streaming, there were plenty of eyeballs on the Celtics this year but CSNNE streams games, and is on PS Vue. I don't know how they quantify that yet but Boston has to be a huge cord cutter market. There is just no way Celtic viewership was down 15%.

[shackles10]

Ahh that's right. Well you already know my take on him

Seeing how I think we shouldn't sign him long term then it's a no brainer getting a lottery pick for him. I think he'll hurt us more long term being here than just losing him for a bust pick

The problem is you've laid out the exact arguement as to why to not trade for him. Why should any team deal a lotto pick for a guy you doesn't think pushes you into contention that you then have to pay?

Because not everybody thinks like me (as evidenced on this forum). Different teams, different situations too. Some teams might have better defensive situations that could help play off him better than we can. Some want that instant scoring spark that might push them to the next level.

Teams that fit that mold are not lottery teams though.

[Stadium5]

The problem is you've laid out the exact arguement as to why to not trade for him. Why should any team deal a lotto pick for a guy you doesn't think pushes you into contention that you then have to pay?

Because not everybody thinks like me (as evidenced on this forum). Different teams, different situations too. Some teams might have better defensive situations that could help play off him better than we can. Some want that instant scoring spark that might push them to the next level.

Teams that fit that mold are not lottery teams though.

Then you target picks 2-3 years down the line. Try predicting the drop off

[greenmachine_2849]

I would argue that the cause of a lack of fan interest is the tanking bs. That teams have no direction there is what 8 or 9 teams in both conferences that seemed to be actually trying to win games and compete.

The other piece is streaming, there were plenty of eyeballs on the Celtics this year but CSNNE streams games, and is on PS Vue. I don't know how they quantify that yet but Boston has to be a huge cord cutter market. There is just no way Celtic viewership was down 15%.

Certainly, I would agree that part of the drop is just the continuation of the long term trend of the population moving away from traditional, live viewing of television. And maybe you are right that the rest of it is exasperation with teams tanking, though I think in many cases the teams are just bad (be tough to argue that Brooklyn had the worst record in the league due to tanking). But how is an increase in the number of teams tanking not highly negatively correlated with a decrease in the number of teams that are legitimate contenders? Going into last season, there were three teams that were considered legitimate contenders, and I don't see the outlook being any rosier going into next season. Heck, the Celtics won the conference, and you still have a fair portion of the board that wants to blow things up. I see that sentiment growing each year throughout the league with every uncompetitive Warriors championship, assuming it plays out that way.

[Jamaaliver]

...I think the 2008 Celtics were kind of the precursor to what we have now in Golden State. Not exactly the same thing, but if you squint hard enough they do have a definite resemblance. Don't think you have the latter without the former.

This is absolutely the case.

Ainge accumulated over-the-hill superstars, hungry for the chance at greatness.

Years later, top free agents would choose to replicate this approach repeatedly.

[Froob]

If Kyler is right and the Celtics have a 40% chance on paper that's not bad at all.

Also I'm not sure on the Gallinari idea for the backup to Hayward since he might want long-term money and he can't stay healthy. Not a bad idea though

Kevin O'Connor (who is pretty plugged in) and Bill Simmons (okay bit of a homer) are guessing it's 50-50 Hayward is coming.

[Froob]

Read on Twitter

Kyler also mentioned Gallinari could be our backup option to Hayward if he doesn't come to Boston, and that Ainge doesn't seem to have interest in Milsap/Ibaka.

All I want to see is the great skywalker's reaction if Ainge doesn't get Hayward but FINALLY get Gallo after all these years of rumors

Ibaka is actually a perfect fit for us, but not interested in giving him the years he'll likely want. Would be funny as **** to steal him from Toronto though .

[greenroom31]

If Kyler is right and the Celtics have a 40% chance on paper that's not bad at all.

Also I'm not sure on the Gallinari idea for the backup to Hayward since he might want long-term money and he can't stay healthy. Not a bad idea though

Kevin O'Connor (who is pretty plugged in) and Bill Simmons (okay bit of a homer) are guessing it's 50-50 Hayward is coming.

I actually found Mark Titus' comments re: Hayward and Stevens to be most compelling and convincing. He grew up playing with Hayward (Titus was a couple years older) and actually was coached by Stevens in like 3rd grade and told the story about how Stevens was the first guy to believe in Hayward and was tight with his whole family. Apparently Hayward was a late bloomer, so Stevens was on his side before he broke out. Also, Titus said Hayward's family is longtime Purdue fans and wanted him to go there, but Brad was able to get him to Butler despite that.

[Froob]

If Kyler is right and the Celtics have a 40% chance on paper that's not bad at all.

Also I'm not sure on the Gallinari idea for the backup to Hayward since he might want long-term money and he can't stay healthy. Not a bad idea though

Kevin O'Connor (who is pretty plugged in) and Bill Simmons (okay bit of a homer) are guessing it's 50-50 Hayward is coming.

I actually found Mark Titus' comments re: Hayward and Stevens to be most compelling and convincing. He grew up playing with Hayward (Titus was a couple years older) and actually was coached by Stevens in like 3rd grade and told the story about how Stevens was the first guy to believe in Hayward and was tight with his whole family. Apparently Hayward was a late bloomer, so Stevens was on his side before he broke out. Also, Titus said Hayward's family is longtime Purdue fans and wanted him to go there, but Brad was able to get him to Butler despite that.

Oh yeah, I remember that pod. Good call.

[jfs1000d]

It usually is the opposite people love to watch greatness. Nobody got tired of watching the Lakers or the Celtics win, nobody stopped watching Jordan stomp everyone, ratings were great for Shaq and Kobe. Perhaps more than any other sport the NBA needs stars heroes or villains they want stars and greatness. You might be rooting for anyone to beat them but your still watching.

Yeah, but let's not confuse dominance and greatness. The Celtics and Lakers were not dominant teams in the 1980s, as they always had each other to contend with at a minimum. And while one of them or the other got to the NBA finals every year from 1980 to 1988, 66% of the time one of them got beat on the way to the Finals. I think we might be in the middle of a six or seven year run where it is the Cavs/Warriors EVERY SINGLE year. Compared to that, the 1980s was oozing with parity.

And as great as the 90s Bulls and early 00s Lakers were, at least they got pushed to the occasional game 7. Hell, the Lakers actually lost a playoff series in 2003. The Warriors, if they stay healthy and together, might not see a game 7 for half a decade.

I also think that the idea of manufactured greatness is going to wear thin after a while. I think, if Shaquille O'Neal had gone and joined the Seattle Supersonics in 1996 as a free agent and they ran roughshod over the league for the next five years, I don't think fans would view the latter half of the 90s quite as fondly.

But I get your point, and maybe you're right. Maybe the average fan doesn't care about competitiveness as long as one of the teams playing is one of the all-time greats. Time will tell. But Dale & Holley had a story a couple of weeks ago about how the regular season viewership was down this year in all but a handful of the NBA markets. If true, I think that could be the canary in the coal mine....

Not positive, but I think this is the story they were referring to: http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Journal/Issues/2017/02/20/Media/NBA-RSNs.aspx

I would argue that the cause of a lack of fan interest is the tanking bs. That teams have no direction there is what 8 or 9 teams in both conferences that seemed to be actually trying to win games and compete.

The other piece is streaming, there were plenty of eyeballs on the Celtics this year but CSNNE streams games, and is on PS Vue. I don't know how they quantify that yet but Boston has to be a huge cord cutter market. There is just no way Celtic viewership was down 15%.

I went to streaming with Vu. If that isn't included, then the measurement is awful.




Sent from my iPhone using RealGM mobile app

[Almeida]

Read on Twitter

[GoCeltics123]

Read on Twitter

I hate Pat Riley so much

Why Miami besides the city?

[FakeScreenName123]

Hayward has a choice. He chooses his side this offseason. Either the alliance of basketball virtue or the lakers virus.

It's up to him. Hope he chooses wisely. It'll say everything about him either way.

[24istheLAW]

...I think the 2008 Celtics were kind of the precursor to what we have now in Golden State. Not exactly the same thing, but if you squint hard enough they do have a definite resemblance. Don't think you have the latter without the former.

This is absolutely the case.

Ainge accumulated over-the-hill superstars, hungry for the chance at greatness.

Years later, top free agents would choose to replicate this approach repeatedly.

Apples to oranges. The 2008 Celtics were built by trades.

[CeltsfaninDC]

If Kyler is right and the Celtics have a 40% chance on paper that's not bad at all.

Also I'm not sure on the Gallinari idea for the backup to Hayward since he might want long-term money and he can't stay healthy. Not a bad idea though

Kevin O'Connor (who is pretty plugged in) and Bill Simmons (okay bit of a homer) are guessing it's 50-50 Hayward is coming.

If he stays in Utah its because his family likes it there and wants to stay there (and there is no fault in that at all). Its certainly not because he thinks they can win anytime soon (which they cannot). If he comes to the Celts, its because he wants to win and the Coach. The money is almost a wash with the current system in place.