Celtics General Thread 2019-20, "Re-Start"

[brackdan70]

Hi everyone here,

This is my first post in the Celtics forum - I normally follow the Bulls section.

Anyway, the reason I wanted to throw in my 5 cents is how well Boston has started the season.

This proves very well that basketball is a team sport.

Boston had a fantastic 2017-18 season, when its biggest star (with the biggest ego?) was injured and not playing.

When Kyrie came back for 2018-19, Boston suddenly did not play so well, although the expectations were very high.

Now, without Kyrie, Boston is continuing where it was left after season 2017-18.

Stars are needed in a NBA team, but also they need to commit to the team, on court and off court, if the objective is to achieve success as a team, and not just pad individual stats.

(I am sure this issue has been discussed in this forum dozens of times, but just wanted to add my view.)

Nah these are all new insights that we never thought about

[brackdan70]

Nothing Nugget of the Day: If the regular season ended today, the Celtics would have home court advantage throughout the playoffs. We own the tiebreaker against the Lakers (better record vs. teams in the same conference).

CHAMPIONSHIPS!

On pace for 73-9.

Will miss Hayward a little over the next two months. I think 68-14 is more realistic.

[zoyathedestroya]

Nothing Nugget of the Day: If the regular season ended today, the Celtics would have home court advantage throughout the playoffs. We own the tiebreaker against the Lakers (better record vs. teams in the same conference).

CHAMPIONSHIPS!

On pace for 73-9.

Will miss Hayward a little over the next two months. I think 68-14 is more realistic.

I think it's interesting that if we beat all the teams with worse than or same record as ours, we could go 81-1.

[BigTrade92]

How long until we cut Poirier and re-sign Vitor Faverani?

[Parliament10]

Repost:

Read on Twitter

This team sucks, huh?

[yeahM8]

How long until we cut Poirier and re-sign Vitor Faverani?

Then let’s cut vitor and bring back Gigi

[Fencer reregistered]

Three guys played 35+ minutes tonight, and almost everybody got some run. So there are definitely minutes to seize if guys can earn them.

Kanter is an obvious candidate for some of them. He, RobWill and Theis already combined for 44, but our previous discussion of two-bigs lineups still applies.

[Fencer reregistered]

After years of preserving optionality, the Celtics may have gotten themselves committed to a single strategy.
-- They don't have an MVP candidate or a likely path to getting one.
-- They do have 5 very, very good players ...
-- ... each of whom is making an 8-digit salary ...
-- ... none of whom is a center ...
-- ... who collectively have a lot of positional versatility.
-- They have been reminded that team chemistry matters a LOT, at least when attempting to play in styles that the coaching staff has determined are appropriate for this group of players.
-- They have a deep set of currently cheap role players who started the season with 0-2 years of experience in the league, a bunch of whom either or or look like they soon may be contributors.

Put all that together, and the only reasonable strategy may be Stay The Course! It's hard to trade for impactful players without greatly damaging what's already in place. The kinds of schemes this roster structure seem to call for seem pretty well suited for today's league. Depth and chemistry fit well with high-energy play which fits well with team-first play which fits well with the lack of transcendent stars.

And by the way -- we think of Red as this great wheeler-dealer because of how he put the 80s team together. But really, almost all his important players were guys he developed from their rookie season. Chief and DJ were major trade acquisitions, as we some major 80s reserves (Wedman, Walton). But who else? He traded or otherwise cleverly maneuvered for the draft rights to Russell, Bird, McHale and Ainge. He lucked into Cousy. But he did get all those guys as rookies (I think even Cooz).

Obviously, that was before the free agency era. Ainge already got one championship by trading for two obvious HoFers the same offseason, and even the current Celtics have two all-star-caliber players who arrived via FA. But the idea of proceeding from here mainly via internal development has a lot of historical merit.

[cloverleaf]

After years of preserving optionality, the Celtics may have gotten themselves committed to a single strategy.
-- They don't have an MVP candidate or a likely path to getting one.
-- They do have 5 very, very good players ...
-- ... each of whom is making an 8-digit salary ...
-- ... none of whom is a center ...
-- ... who collectively have a lot of positional versatility.
-- They have been reminded that team chemistry matters a LOT, at least when attempting to play in styles that the coaching staff has determined are appropriate for this group of players.
-- They have a deep set of currently cheap role players who started the season with 0-2 years of experience in the league, a bunch of whom either or or look like they soon may be contributors.

Put all that together, and the only reasonable strategy may be Stay The Course! It's hard to trade for impactful players without greatly damaging what's already in place. The kinds of schemes this roster structure seem to call for seem pretty well suited for today's league. Depth and chemistry fit well with high-energy play which fits well with team-first play which fits well with the lack of transcendent stars.

And by the way -- we think of Red as this great wheeler-dealer because of how he put the 80s team together. But really, almost all his important players were guys he developed from their rookie season. Chief and DJ were major trade acquisitions, as we some major 80s reserves (Wedman, Walton). But who else? He traded or otherwise cleverly maneuvered for the draft rights to Russell, Bird, McHale and Ainge. He lucked into Cousy. But he did get all those guys as rookies (I think even Cooz).

Obviously, that was before the free agency era. Ainge already got one championship by trading for two obvious HoFers the same offseason, and even the current Celtics have two all-star-caliber players who arrived via FA. But the idea of proceeding from here mainly via internal development has a lot of historical merit.

Fair point, except most of those players were great because of who they were, not out of some special "development" on the team.

[sam_I_am]

After years of preserving optionality, the Celtics may have gotten themselves committed to a single strategy.
-- They don't have an MVP candidate or a likely path to getting one.
-- They do have 5 very, very good players ...
-- ... each of whom is making an 8-digit salary ...
-- ... none of whom is a center ...
-- ... who collectively have a lot of positional versatility.
-- They have been reminded that team chemistry matters a LOT, at least when attempting to play in styles that the coaching staff has determined are appropriate for this group of players.
-- They have a deep set of currently cheap role players who started the season with 0-2 years of experience in the league, a bunch of whom either or or look like they soon may be contributors.

Put all that together, and the only reasonable strategy may be Stay The Course! It's hard to trade for impactful players without greatly damaging what's already in place. The kinds of schemes this roster structure seem to call for seem pretty well suited for today's league. Depth and chemistry fit well with high-energy play which fits well with team-first play which fits well with the lack of transcendent stars.

And by the way -- we think of Red as this great wheeler-dealer because of how he put the 80s team together. But really, almost all his important players were guys he developed from their rookie season. Chief and DJ were major trade acquisitions, as we some major 80s reserves (Wedman, Walton). But who else? He traded or otherwise cleverly maneuvered for the draft rights to Russell, Bird, McHale and Ainge. He lucked into Cousy. But he did get all those guys as rookies (I think even Cooz).

Obviously, that was before the free agency era. Ainge already got one championship by trading for two obvious HoFers the same offseason, and even the current Celtics have two all-star-caliber players who arrived via FA. But the idea of proceeding from here mainly via internal development has a lot of historical merit.

Stay the course for sure....but with Hayward, Tatum, Brown, Smart and Romeo all best suited to 2/3 ... and plenty of depth there with Grant, Green.... I think we should try to balance the roster by getting a much better swing PF than Semi who has more length than Grant. If we can somehow swap one of our talented wings for a talented 4 in the mold of Siakam .... even if that guy is also not a future HOFer but just very good.....I think this team can have a really fun 4-8 year run.

Tatum, Hayward and Brown together is just killing it this year together. Their offensive and defensive rating together is off the charts. But when one of Brown or Hayward is out, the team doesn’t miss a beat. It means Danny can afford to make a move of a great one comes along or can stand pat.

[zoyathedestroya]

Just gonna drop this question here...

[BillTheGOAT]

That west coast trip will either expose this team or prove they’re legit.

Some losable games, PHX, LAC with Kawhi and maybe PG back, Denver.

[Fencer reregistered]

Enes doing Enes things.

Read on Twitter

[Homerclease]

After years of preserving optionality, the Celtics may have gotten themselves committed to a single strategy.
-- They don't have an MVP candidate or a likely path to getting one.
-- They do have 5 very, very good players ...
-- ... each of whom is making an 8-digit salary ...
-- ... none of whom is a center ...
-- ... who collectively have a lot of positional versatility.
-- They have been reminded that team chemistry matters a LOT, at least when attempting to play in styles that the coaching staff has determined are appropriate for this group of players.
-- They have a deep set of currently cheap role players who started the season with 0-2 years of experience in the league, a bunch of whom either or or look like they soon may be contributors.

Put all that together, and the only reasonable strategy may be Stay The Course! It's hard to trade for impactful players without greatly damaging what's already in place. The kinds of schemes this roster structure seem to call for seem pretty well suited for today's league. Depth and chemistry fit well with high-energy play which fits well with team-first play which fits well with the lack of transcendent stars.

And by the way -- we think of Red as this great wheeler-dealer because of how he put the 80s team together. But really, almost all his important players were guys he developed from their rookie season. Chief and DJ were major trade acquisitions, as we some major 80s reserves (Wedman, Walton). But who else? He traded or otherwise cleverly maneuvered for the draft rights to Russell, Bird, McHale and Ainge. He lucked into Cousy. But he did get all those guys as rookies (I think even Cooz).

Obviously, that was before the free agency era. Ainge already got one championship by trading for two obvious HoFers the same offseason, and even the current Celtics have two all-star-caliber players who arrived via FA. But the idea of proceeding from here mainly via internal development has a lot of historical merit.

You raise good points but I’ll counter with this. I think this team is as close to the Chauncey Billups/Rip Hamilton pistons as you’re gonna get. They had four borderline all stars on that team and a slew of quality role players. Sounds awful familiar. The only thing that separates the two is one of those four borderline all stars was Ben Wallace who was DPOY.

[zoyathedestroya]

Posting without comment.

Spoiler:

CHAMPIONSHIPS!

[Fencer reregistered]

After years of preserving optionality, the Celtics may have gotten themselves committed to a single strategy.
-- They don't have an MVP candidate or a likely path to getting one.
-- They do have 5 very, very good players ...
-- ... each of whom is making an 8-digit salary ...
-- ... none of whom is a center ...
-- ... who collectively have a lot of positional versatility.
-- They have been reminded that team chemistry matters a LOT, at least when attempting to play in styles that the coaching staff has determined are appropriate for this group of players.
-- They have a deep set of currently cheap role players who started the season with 0-2 years of experience in the league, a bunch of whom either or or look like they soon may be contributors.

Put all that together, and the only reasonable strategy may be Stay The Course! It's hard to trade for impactful players without greatly damaging what's already in place. The kinds of schemes this roster structure seem to call for seem pretty well suited for today's league. Depth and chemistry fit well with high-energy play which fits well with team-first play which fits well with the lack of transcendent stars.

And by the way -- we think of Red as this great wheeler-dealer because of how he put the 80s team together. But really, almost all his important players were guys he developed from their rookie season. Chief and DJ were major trade acquisitions, as we some major 80s reserves (Wedman, Walton). But who else? He traded or otherwise cleverly maneuvered for the draft rights to Russell, Bird, McHale and Ainge. He lucked into Cousy. But he did get all those guys as rookies (I think even Cooz).

Obviously, that was before the free agency era. Ainge already got one championship by trading for two obvious HoFers the same offseason, and even the current Celtics have two all-star-caliber players who arrived via FA. But the idea of proceeding from here mainly via internal development has a lot of historical merit.

Fair point, except most of those players were great because of who they were, not out of some special "development" on the team.

I don't disagree. Certainly it wasn't my point to disagree. That said, not meddling is an art in itself, and was probably really important at least in the cases of Russell, Cooz and Cowens. So is setting the tone for run-run-run.

[Fencer reregistered]

After years of preserving optionality, the Celtics may have gotten themselves committed to a single strategy.
-- They don't have an MVP candidate or a likely path to getting one.
-- They do have 5 very, very good players ...
-- ... each of whom is making an 8-digit salary ...
-- ... none of whom is a center ...
-- ... who collectively have a lot of positional versatility.
-- They have been reminded that team chemistry matters a LOT, at least when attempting to play in styles that the coaching staff has determined are appropriate for this group of players.
-- They have a deep set of currently cheap role players who started the season with 0-2 years of experience in the league, a bunch of whom either or or look like they soon may be contributors.

Put all that together, and the only reasonable strategy may be Stay The Course! It's hard to trade for impactful players without greatly damaging what's already in place. The kinds of schemes this roster structure seem to call for seem pretty well suited for today's league. Depth and chemistry fit well with high-energy play which fits well with team-first play which fits well with the lack of transcendent stars.

And by the way -- we think of Red as this great wheeler-dealer because of how he put the 80s team together. But really, almost all his important players were guys he developed from their rookie season. Chief and DJ were major trade acquisitions, as we some major 80s reserves (Wedman, Walton). But who else? He traded or otherwise cleverly maneuvered for the draft rights to Russell, Bird, McHale and Ainge. He lucked into Cousy. But he did get all those guys as rookies (I think even Cooz).

Obviously, that was before the free agency era. Ainge already got one championship by trading for two obvious HoFers the same offseason, and even the current Celtics have two all-star-caliber players who arrived via FA. But the idea of proceeding from here mainly via internal development has a lot of historical merit.

You raise good points but I’ll counter with this. I think this team is as close to the Chauncey Billups/Rip Hamilton pistons as you’re gonna get. They had four borderline all stars on that team and a slew of quality role players. Sounds awful familiar. The only thing that separates the two is one of those four borderline all stars was Ben Wallace who was DPOY.

The Celtics have 5 borderline all-stars and one is DPOY candidate.

There's a thread in the General Forum about ranking your team's top 5 players in order, and it's hilarious how difficult that task is in the case of the Celtics. There's another one about DPOY candidates, and while a majority feel the defensive bigs are good enough this year that one should get the award, there's also a lot of sentiment for Smart.

[denmuscles]

Guys who else is tired of Enes Kanter and his non stop social media rants about his president and the regime he imposed. Can this guy focus on basketball more than politics ? For gods sake, he is making millions of dollars, in my opinion nothing more than a back up center off the bench. It just seems like he cares more about politics than actual basketball. He could get killed over this. I know it sucks how Turkey is under regime but the way he talks to as if he lived in North Korea. I have a lot of friends from Turkey and they flat out say he’s delusional. The only way his name stays relevant is if he uses these politics as his source of fame.

In your honest opinion, what do you think of him anyways as a player ?

[Curmudgeon]

Kanter's rants against Ergodan are the best thing about him. Someone has to speak up against autocracy.

[Fencer reregistered]

Guys who else is tired of Enes Kanter and his non stop social media rants about his president and the regime he imposed. Can this guy focus on basketball more than politics ? For gods sake, he is making millions of dollars, in my opinion nothing more than a back up center off the bench. It just seems like he cares more about politics than actual basketball. He could get killed over this. I know it sucks how Turkey is under regime but the way he talks to as if he lived in North Korea. I have a lot of friends from Turkey and they flat out say he’s delusional. The only way his name stays relevant is if he uses these politics as his source of fame.

In your honest opinion, what do you think of him anyways as a player ?

Erdogan is an evil dictator, and every Turk in my circle agrees. It's tragic what he's doing there.

Other than the equation of Erdogan with Hitler, which is a little over the top, I'm not aware of Kanter saying anything wrong. And by the way ... unlike too many Turks, Kanter actually acknowledges the Armenian genocide, so the Hitler exaggeration isn't as extreme coming from him as it otherwise might be.