Official Celtics 2021-22 Season Thread

[ballup]

Adding Beal is possible if he opts out, but Fournier would have to be off the books or be making substantially less than the MLE. Plus the likely use of the BAE/MLE this upcoming offseason would further complicate that. There would be 10 roster slots filled not including Smart and Edwards.

Now in terms of roster fit, it's not as easy as putting it in 2K. Having three 20+ ppg scorers on the same team without one of them dropping below that threshold is rare. The Warriors did it because they had two of the best sharpshooters of all time and one of the best scoring talents of all time. The Heatles couldn't even accomplish that. If Beal does team up with the Jays, someone has to give up their game and it's tough to get a wing to completely change styles on the go.

Going for Beal may be worth it, but we have to remember playing GM is much more conplex than just asking if a player is available.

Sent from my Pixel 3a using Tapatalk

[CeltsfanSinceBirth]

Imagine if the Nets turned down the deal for Harden because they didn’t want to hurt Kyrie’s feelings. Lol

[GoCeltics123]

"Stevens, according to multiple league sources, is spending some time in Las Vegas this week at Team USA training camp along with new coach Ime Udoka and countless other coaches and executives from around the league ahead of the team’s trip to Tokyo. Udoka will be part of the Team USA group heading to Tokyo as an assistant, passing along his Celtics summer league coaching duties to a member of his new staff that is still in the process of being fully put together according to league sources."

"However, according to league sources, Stevens handled interviews for the head coaching position individually before the final round of interviews. At that point, Boston’s director of player development Alison Feaster was the only member of the team’s front office that was a part of the final round of interviews with Stevens along with co-owners Wyc Grousbeck and Steve Pagliuca.

The 45-year-old Feaster has received rave reviews internally for her role since joining Boston’s front office two years ago, accompanying the team to the Orlando bubble last season. She’s been considered as a candidate for the general manager position according to Jake Fischer of Bleacher Report, who also lists Hawks assistant general manager Landry Fields as a potential top choice to be pursued by the Celtics."

B Robb

[Curmudgeon]

Imagine if the Nets turned down the deal for Harden because they didn’t want to hurt Kyrie’s feelings. Lol

[Curmudgeon]

So how did the deal for Harden work out for the Nets? They have no championship, a massive luxury tax bill and no first round picks for the foreseeable future. They have no way to sign or resign good players (e.g. Dinwiddie) except ageing ring whores. This could be worse for the nets than the Pierce/Garnett deal. Certainly it will be worse financially.

[CeltsfanSinceBirth]

So how did the deal for Harden work out for the Nets? They have no championship, a massive luxury tax bill and no first round picks for the foreseeable future. They have no way to sign or resign good players (e.g. Dinwiddie) except ageing ring whores. This could be worse for the nets than the Pierce/Garnett deal. Certainly it will be worse financially.

It took injuries to 2 of their big 3 just for Milwaukee to beat them in 7 games, and even then, if KD’s foot was a few inches smaller, we would be talking about how many games this Suns/Nets Finals would be going instead. I think they did pretty damn well. And you’ll see when they get a bunch of vets for the minimum on how easy it is to sign role players when you have All-Stars on your team.

[Curmudgeon]

Well, that's what happens when you put all of your eggs into fragile baskets. Durant was coming off a major injury that caused him to miss an entire year, and Kyrie has been injured off and on since his freshman year at Duke-- not counting the games he misses because he just doesn't feel like playing. Harden is 31 and is not a guy who spends his free time in the weight room. It was odds on that at least one of them was going to get hurt later in the season, and those odds will be even worse next year.

[Tyakack]

So how did the deal for Harden work out for the Nets? They have no championship, a massive luxury tax bill and no first round picks for the foreseeable future. They have no way to sign or resign good players (e.g. Dinwiddie) except ageing ring whores. This could be worse for the nets than the Pierce/Garnett deal. Certainly it will be worse financially.

So disingenuous to make this post without mentioning the injuries to their star players. Obviously if 2 of your 3 star players gets hurt and 1 can't play AT ALL then yeah, it changes things. Injuries happen, bad luck is a part of the game. You can't plan for bad luck.

Even if they somehow someway don't win a championship, any chance you get to pair harden durant and kyrie together you take every damn time and live with whatever happens. Nobody is going to look back at this and say damn, "what were we thinking pairing two top 5 players and an all star together."

[Curmudgeon]

So how did the deal for Harden work out for the Nets? They have no championship, a massive luxury tax bill and no first round picks for the foreseeable future. They have no way to sign or resign good players (e.g. Dinwiddie) except ageing ring whores. This could be worse for the nets than the Pierce/Garnett deal. Certainly it will be worse financially.

So disingenuous to make this post without mentioning the injuries to their star players.

I just did. The odds are that there would be injuries to these older stars, not that there wouldn't be. And sure you can plan for bad luck. It's called depth.

[ICeeYou]

Everyone should know by now how difficult it is to find quality off the scrap heap. The Celtics tried it for years during the big 3 era and it always felt really thin.

That's my only hesitancy in looking at trios with this Celtics team. It's flashy names but guys with a lot of miles on the tires and very few upside young players left to off-set it.

The Celtics were lucky to hang onto Rondo and Perk and TA (though they royally screwed that situation up) when they made their move. Questionable whether Joe Harris was the right guy to keep. Should be interesting what happens with Dinwiddie.

Of course, no one is going to scoff at the Nets top three but I agree with Curmudgeon, it's not exactly a shock that 1-2 of those guys ended up hurt. They have a massive load to carry and will have to actually play defense since there isn't a lot of defensive depth on the roster.

[Tyakack]

So how did the deal for Harden work out for the Nets? They have no championship, a massive luxury tax bill and no first round picks for the foreseeable future. They have no way to sign or resign good players (e.g. Dinwiddie) except ageing ring whores. This could be worse for the nets than the Pierce/Garnett deal. Certainly it will be worse financially.

So disingenuous to make this post without mentioning the injuries to their star players.

I just did. The odds are that there would be injuries to these older stars, not that there wouldn't be. And sure you can plan for bad luck. It's called depth.

Depth means nothing if your star players are injured. Or if you don't have enough star power to begin with.

[chrisab123]

Just don’t think the timing is great for Beal.. ideally you let Romeo/Nesmith develop another year, “win” a couple of trades (Smart, Fournier, TT or Al) and make a play in the summer..

Thats another year of telling Brown and Tatum to wait. If you don't make a play this year to improve such as getting a Bradley Beal you're that much closer to being a 15 win team built around Romeo Langford, Nesmith, Prichard, Smart, RW3 and picks. Probably not even Langford at this point since he's probably closer to playing in China in 3 years than actually getting a 2nd contract in the NBA. Dude sucks. If they go the bridge route this offseason Tatum and Brown become flight risks when their contracts are up or before.

[Tyakack]

Everyone should know by now how difficult it is to find quality off the scrap heap. The Celtics tried it for years during the big 3 era and it always felt really thin.

That's my only hesitancy in looking at trios with this Celtics team. It's flashy names but guys with a lot of miles on the tires and very few upside young players left to off-set it.

The Celtics were lucky to hang onto Rondo and Perk and TA (though they royally screwed that situation up) when they made their move. Questionable whether Joe Harris was the right guy to keep. Should be interesting what happens with Dinwiddie.

Of course, no one is going to scoff at the Nets top three but I agree with Curmudgeon, it's not exactly a shock that 1-2 of those guys ended up hurt. They have a massive load to carry and will have to actually play defense since there isn't a lot of defensive depth on the roster.

Do you think it's more difficult to find quality "scrap heap" or star players?

EDIT: You're looking at this backwards. You're worrying about depth and role players before stars. That's not the way you do it. You get the stars and worry about the rest after.

[ICeeYou]

Everyone should know by now how difficult it is to find quality off the scrap heap. The Celtics tried it for years during the big 3 era and it always felt really thin.

That's my only hesitancy in looking at trios with this Celtics team. It's flashy names but guys with a lot of miles on the tires and very few upside young players left to off-set it.

The Celtics were lucky to hang onto Rondo and Perk and TA (though they royally screwed that situation up) when they made their move. Questionable whether Joe Harris was the right guy to keep. Should be interesting what happens with Dinwiddie.

Of course, no one is going to scoff at the Nets top three but I agree with Curmudgeon, it's not exactly a shock that 1-2 of those guys ended up hurt. They have a massive load to carry and will have to actually play defense since there isn't a lot of defensive depth on the roster.

Do you think it's more difficult to find quality "scrap heap" or star players?

EDIT: You're looking at this backwards. You're worrying about depth and role players before stars. That's not the way you do it. You get the stars and worry about the rest after.

Stars of course, but, it's not easy to convince good players to play for less than they're worth. So while it's really difficult to get All NBA top 20-25 guys it's also near impossible to convince a guy who could make 10 to play for 5 or a guy who could make 5 play for 2. And then there is the whole salary cap, repeater tax issue that dooms teams. Those are reasons that Kevin Durant gave for leaving Golden State for example (that it would be difficult for them to improve the roster).

It's a real fact that teams face which is why guys who you have under contract are valuable and why it's a dangerous game giving up too much in trades for the second/third star, either through trades or who you have to renounce in free agency to sign one.

The Celtics should've won 2-3 rings with their big three easy. But they had injuries and really only had a full roster the 1 season. Let's see how Brooklyn fares but in a sport where stars and key players routinely get injured, not having quality depth can absolutely kill your upside.

Thankfully, the Celtics already have 2 of their three stars and have all their future assets on the table along with a bunch of first round talents in development. This gives them a bunch of different paths forward, including going for a third star in trade or free agency.

[Parliament10]

Well, that's what happens when you put all of your eggs into fragile baskets. Durant was coming off a major injury that caused him to miss an entire year, and Kyrie has been injured off and on since his freshman year at Duke-- not counting the games he misses because he just doesn't feel like playing. Harden is 31 and is not a guy who spends his free time in the weight room. It was odds on that at least one of them was going to get hurt later in the season, and those odds will be even worse next year.

Can you please Tag people, when you're responding to their posts?
It makes it a lot easier for Everybody, and that's how we're supposed to do it.

~ Parl

[Slax]

Well, that's what happens when you put all of your eggs into fragile baskets. Durant was coming off a major injury that caused him to miss an entire year, and Kyrie has been injured off and on since his freshman year at Duke-- not counting the games he misses because he just doesn't feel like playing. Harden is 31 and is not a guy who spends his free time in the weight room. It was odds on that at least one of them was going to get hurt later in the season, and those odds will be even worse next year.

I disagree pretty strongly on this - it was absolutely the correct move for the Nets to at least take a shot at a championship, and if it didn't/doesn't work out, at least they tried something that has a chance at succeeding. But even if what you're saying is true, I think we're getting pretty far away from the original formulation that Brown would like to take a lot of shots so he can score a lot of points and therefore we're better off keeping the status quo instead of acquiring good players like Bradley Beal who might take those shots from Brown.

[Curmudgeon]

Well, that's what happens when you put all of your eggs into fragile baskets. Durant was coming off a major injury that caused him to miss an entire year, and Kyrie has been injured off and on since his freshman year at Duke-- not counting the games he misses because he just doesn't feel like playing. Harden is 31 and is not a guy who spends his free time in the weight room. It was odds on that at least one of them was going to get hurt later in the season, and those odds will be even worse next year.

I disagree pretty strongly on this - it was absolutely the correct move for the Nets to at least take a shot at a championship

You understand, yes, that it was a gamble? It's the same gamble the Nets took when they acquired Pierce and Garnett. Look at the Net's roster in 2013. Absolutely loaded with stars: Pierce, Garnett, Deron Williams, Kirilenko... household names all. And they couldn't win squat.

Betting that your young players will improve and trying to spot the next guy who will outperform his contract is also a gamble, but it's no worse than the other type and it sure is more cost efficient.

Putting three stars together is high percentage when one of them is LeBron. Otherwise it's no better than other routes. The right way to do it, in my opinion, is the way Golden State did it. When the Warriors won their first championship, Curry and Thompson were second tier stars, but no one thought Draymond was a third big star, or Bogut or Iguodala or Barnes. They were just good players, and Steph and Klay became first tier stars by continuing to win.

[moonie_mcgee]

Everyone should know by now how difficult it is to find quality off the scrap heap. The Celtics tried it for years during the big 3 era and it always felt really thin.

That's my only hesitancy in looking at trios with this Celtics team. It's flashy names but guys with a lot of miles on the tires and very few upside young players left to off-set it.

The Celtics were lucky to hang onto Rondo and Perk and TA (though they royally screwed that situation up) when they made their move. Questionable whether Joe Harris was the right guy to keep. Should be interesting what happens with Dinwiddie.

Of course, no one is going to scoff at the Nets top three but I agree with Curmudgeon, it's not exactly a shock that 1-2 of those guys ended up hurt. They have a massive load to carry and will have to actually play defense since there isn't a lot of defensive depth on the roster.

Really good thread. Two things.

There was tons of quality talent to reinforce a team. Look at all the players who were scoffed at as undesirable and contributing.

Contingency plans are vital to a successful GM. The Celts have been abhorrent at them. Other teams too. The Bucks if they lose this series will be from lack of depth. They made great additions yes but they appear to be a hair short. Almost cost them ATL too.

[moonie_mcgee]

Everyone should know by now how difficult it is to find quality off the scrap heap. The Celtics tried it for years during the big 3 era and it always felt really thin.

That's my only hesitancy in looking at trios with this Celtics team. It's flashy names but guys with a lot of miles on the tires and very few upside young players left to off-set it.

The Celtics were lucky to hang onto Rondo and Perk and TA (though they royally screwed that situation up) when they made their move. Questionable whether Joe Harris was the right guy to keep. Should be interesting what happens with Dinwiddie.

Of course, no one is going to scoff at the Nets top three but I agree with Curmudgeon, it's not exactly a shock that 1-2 of those guys ended up hurt. They have a massive load to carry and will have to actually play defense since there isn't a lot of defensive depth on the roster.

Do you think it's more difficult to find quality "scrap heap" or star players?

EDIT: You're looking at this backwards. You're worrying about depth and role players before stars. That's not the way you do it. You get the stars and worry about the rest after.

Stars of course, but, it's not easy to convince good players to play for less than they're worth. So while it's really difficult to get All NBA top 20-25 guys it's also near impossible to convince a guy who could make 10 to play for 5 or a guy who could make 5 play for 2. And then there is the whole salary cap, repeater tax issue that dooms teams. Those are reasons that Kevin Durant gave for leaving Golden State for example (that it would be difficult for them to improve the roster).

It's a real fact that teams face which is why guys who you have under contract are valuable and why it's a dangerous game giving up too much in trades for the second/third star, either through trades or who you have to renounce in free agency to sign one.

The Celtics should've won 2-3 rings with their big three easy. But they had injuries and really only had a full roster the 1 season. Let's see how Brooklyn fares but in a sport where stars and key players routinely get injured, not having quality depth can absolutely kill your upside.

Thankfully, the Celtics already have 2 of their three stars and have all their future assets on the table along with a bunch of first round talents in development. This gives them a bunch of different paths forward, including going for a third star in trade or free agency.

With respect you're over rating JB here. 1 he's not at that level and 2 he fills the same role as Tatum as a purer scorer off the wing.

[Slax]

Well, that's what happens when you put all of your eggs into fragile baskets. Durant was coming off a major injury that caused him to miss an entire year, and Kyrie has been injured off and on since his freshman year at Duke-- not counting the games he misses because he just doesn't feel like playing. Harden is 31 and is not a guy who spends his free time in the weight room. It was odds on that at least one of them was going to get hurt later in the season, and those odds will be even worse next year.

I disagree pretty strongly on this - it was absolutely the correct move for the Nets to at least take a shot at a championship

You understand, yes, that it was a gamble? It's the same gamble the Nets took when they acquired Pierce and Garnett. Look at the Net's roster in 2013. Absolutely loaded with stars: Pierce, Garnett, Deron Williams, Kirilenko... household names all. And they couldn't win squat.

Obviously trading for 31-year-old Harden was a gamble. It was a better gamble than giving up more value to add KG and Pierce in their late 30's.

The funny thing though is that they **** up that bad gamble when they traded for Pierce and KG and ate **** for a few years while we drained their high draft picks, but they are now way more likely than us to win a championship at some point in the next couple years. Go figure.

Betting that your young players will improve and trying to spot the next guy who will outperform his contract is also a gamble, but it's no worse than the other type and it sure is more cost efficient.

If the young players project to be possible future stars who could be better than Beal then sure. You have to weigh the actual value and composition of outgoing and incoming talent. Abstracting things like "betting on young guys is better than signing or trading for vets" makes no sense - who are the young guys, and which vets? Sometimes it's true, sometimes it's not. We did great trading draft picks, Al Jefferson, and Gerald Green for Ray and KG.

Putting three stars together is high percentage when one of them is LeBron. Otherwise it's no better than other routes. The right way to do it, in my opinion, is the way Golden State did it. When the Warriors won their first championship, Curry and Thompson were second tier stars, but no one thought Draymond was a third big star, or Bogut or Iguodala or Barnes. They were just good players, and Steph and Klay became first tier starts by continuing to win.

Ok but is your contention that the Warriors should have kept Barnes and held together the team that lost to the Cavs instead of signing KD and cruising to the next two championships and another finals appearance, because home grown players are the "right way to do it"?