Jeff Green and Jarod Sullinger

[mctyson]

Not sure why anyone would want to trade either of these guys. I think they showed us today what they are capable of and how valuable they are to this team.  These guys need to be here with Rondo and Bradley, they are the future of this team. Guys we can build around. Just my opinion.

It is precisely the fact that they both are quality players which gets them involved in trade ideas on this forum. 

[hpantazo]

Lee can compensate for not having Bradley, there is no one that can give us what Cousins would give us.

This I very strongly disagree with.

The only difference in our starting lineup right now between this year and last year is that we havehad either  Terry or Lee (instead of Bradley) at the starting SG spot. Our defense from that starting unit has been nowhere near as good as it was last season with Bradley in there.

Doc has tried toying with Lee as the starting SG (as he likes Terry's scoring off the bench) but when Lee has started our team has looked considerably worse.

I can't see any evidence (statistical or eye test) to suggest that Lee can even come close to making up for what we'd lose if Bradley was gone.  Lee is nowhere near the defender Bradley was last season, while Bradley was also more consistent offensively as well.

Yeah definitely agree with you here. If you want to trade bradley fine but don't you tell me LEE can give you anything even close to what bradley gives you on the defensive end. Lee has his moments but overall not even on the same planet as bradley defensively. Bradley = Elite, Lee = Solid

I hope your right, but if you really believe Bradley would have gotten us by the Heat last year and is going to save our team this year, you are setting yourself up for a major disappointment. He's not Bill Russell or even Dwight Howard, he's an undersized SG with major limitations to his game and an already long injury history for his age.

If we can get great value because some GMs believe the hype after he played great defense for a third of the season last year before getting injured, then now is the time to trade him.

Also, Lee is a very good defender at the same position, much better than Ray Allen was. You can already see the improvement now that he's getting the rotations down. You act like I proposed replacing Bradley with Kyle Korver or something.

[celtics2]

How can anyone take positive conclusions from today's game..I mean we beat another 500 team!

[Chris]

Nobody is doubting that they can look good. People are doubting that they can be consistently good

To me, this isn't even the issue.  The question is whether you can get someone even better. 

I love Sully, and am higher on Green than most.  But, to get something, you need to give something.  And if we can get a real impact player, then we need to consider moving guys like that.

[mctyson]

I think we over rate his shooting.  He is not as good as shooter as Bass even but he can do more things.boards. 

Debatable.

Bass has traditionally shot a great percentage from midrange, however he's pretty much useless from any other range, and this year his midrange shot has dropped off to the point where it is now far from spectacular.

So far this season Bass is shooting 43% from midrange, he's shooting 45% from inside the paint and he has zero ability to shoot from three.

Sullinger is shooting 36% from midrange, but he's shooting 54% from inside the paint and he has the ability to step out and hit from three point range.

This is despite the fact that Sully has only played 20-something games as an NBA pro.  With more experience I think he's going to become a better shooter than Bass, as well as a more versatile scorer. 

Plus Sully IMHO has better shot selection then Bass.

and those borderline allstars are just sitting around for the taking? likely you are getting someone like Gortat..who while a solid player is NOT a borderline allstar.

I would argue that Gortat is a borderline All-Star. 

Right now he is underachieving on a team that isn't properly utilising his talent, but last season when he was in a suitable system he averaged 15 points, 56% FG, 10 rebounds, 1.5 blocks and only 1.4 turnovers in 32 minutes. 

Lets see how those numbers compare against what some of the top centers in the league are averaging right now:



Basically if Gortat were putting up the same numbers this year (which he should given the right role) then among this group he would rank:

* 6th in scoring
* 2nd in FG%
* =4th in rebounding
* 7th in blocks
* 2nd in (fewest) turnovers

Now since we are comparing him against other players at his position, lets assume we still have the old All-Star voting system where centers are distinct from forwards.  This means you would have 2-3 centers chose in each conference, meaning 4-6 centers voted to the All-Star game overall.

Tier 1 Centres - All Star calibre

East:
1. Chris Bosh
2. Tyson Chandler
3. Kevin Garnett

West:
4. Dwight Howard
5. Tim Duncan
6. Marc Gasol
 

Tier 2 Centers - Borderline All Stars

East:
* Joakim Noah
* Al Hortford

West:
* LeMarcus Aldridge
* Marcin Gortat


Tier 3 Centers - High Quality Starters

East:
* Brook Lopez
* Roy Hibbert
* Anderson Varejao
* Greg Monroe

West:
* Pau Gasol
* DeMarcus Cousins

I class these guys as Tier 3 centers becuase IMHO you are not among the top 2 tiers of Centers if you are:

a) Shooting < 42% from the field (Hibbert, Gasol, Cousins)

b) Grabbing < 10 rebounds per 48 mins (Lopez)

c) Blocking < 1 shot per 48 minutes (Varejao, Monroe)

It's not a scientifically perfect deduction by any means, but I don't think that considering Gortat a 'Borderline All-Star' is far fetched at all.

We could certainly use a big man who can give us the type of scoring, rebounding and shotblocking Gortat offers.

Nice analysis, but I have bold highlighted the issue.  No one really would disagree with the idea that Gortat is a good player.  Borderline All-Star or not, he is good.  No one would really argue that we could use him on our team, or that we could be a much better team with him on our roster.

What we will argue with, and what the point of this thread is:  do we part with our BEST young talent (Bradley, Sullinger, Green) to acquire this type of player?  I am in the "NO" camp, since our depth is a strength and we finally have a roster with long-term potential.

It was different when we traded the entire roster and future picks for KG.  That was a win now move after a horrendous season. 

This roster is built to compete now AND build for the future.  Adding Gortat and subtracting Bradley/Sullinger and whoever else is subtraction by addition given our current status.

[kozlodoev]

I'd take Joakim Noah over pretty much any center that you've described as "top tier", all things considered.

I'm also not sure how the list for the west includes PGasol who: (a) has been terrible all season, and (b) has not played C at all.

Also, in the west Asik is playing better than Gasol, Cousins, or Gortat.

Verdict: That list is pretty weak.

[Galeto]

As much as I want to see a trade for a young star to play with Rondo for the foreseeable future, I think it's prudent for us to wait a while, for several reasons.

1. We need to see how effective Bradley is... who knows, he could solve a lot of our problems.
2. We need to continue to let the team gel - not necessarily completely gel, because that could take too long and we are going for a title, but gel a little more than they have. I think if we do this, some of our players will begin to play better, and their trade stock will go up.

Right now, we have three players whose trade stock is extremely low (Bass, Lee, Bradley), and a couple whose stock is on the rise (Green, Sullinger). Let the rising stock keep rising and hope that the low stock turns around.

I agree with all this. Our best trade chip isn't Sully or Green, it's Bradley. But he's only our best trade chip once he starts beasting on opponents.

Trading a guy like Cousins or Al Jeff is a lot more palatable when you have the opportunity to acquire a starting potentially game changing guard in the package.

If Bradley solves alot of our problems defensively,and is a starting-game changing guard...WHY on earth would you want to trade him?

its like building one hole(perimiter defense) to fill another(rebounding)

our bigs havent been the problem. its our guard's defense

Well, a trade package is defined by the pieces coming back, along with the pieces leaving.

I think Cousins is a bigger impact player to get next to Rondo long term and short term to make the trade. I think if Gordon Hayward were part of the package coming back with Jefferson, it makes trading Bradley worth it.

But, of Bradley is looking like a monster, and we're winning games, Im fine standing pat.

Keep in mind, Bradley didnt get new shoulders. He's still an injury concern. And while contending tis year is ideally the end game, if we look like crap come thebdeadline, I'm cool with making a move for a guy who is a long term pedestal to put next to Rondo that fills a more traditional (and harder to fill role) to try to build a future contender on.

I'm not a Cousins fan at all but I could see him having a positive impact in the short term because the Celtics could really use his rebounding and he won't be overused on offense and create so much negative value.  In the long-term however, with Pierce and Garnett gone, it would be disastrous to have Cousins in a feature role again taking a bunch of shots.  He is laughably not even close to an average offensive player.  I don't see that changing much because he is offensively inept from every area of the court.  Playing with Rondo isn't go to up his efficiency either.  He's not an alley-oop finisher, his pick and pop shooting is erratic and he doesn't run the floor.

Also, what kind of a long-term contract do you give him?  He's the second hardest guy to peg after Royce White, assuming White ever sees the floor for the Rockets.

[hpantazo]

As much as I want to see a trade for a young star to play with Rondo for the foreseeable future, I think it's prudent for us to wait a while, for several reasons.

1. We need to see how effective Bradley is... who knows, he could solve a lot of our problems.
2. We need to continue to let the team gel - not necessarily completely gel, because that could take too long and we are going for a title, but gel a little more than they have. I think if we do this, some of our players will begin to play better, and their trade stock will go up.

Right now, we have three players whose trade stock is extremely low (Bass, Lee, Bradley), and a couple whose stock is on the rise (Green, Sullinger). Let the rising stock keep rising and hope that the low stock turns around.

I agree with all this. Our best trade chip isn't Sully or Green, it's Bradley. But he's only our best trade chip once he starts beasting on opponents.

Trading a guy like Cousins or Al Jeff is a lot more palatable when you have the opportunity to acquire a starting potentially game changing guard in the package.

If Bradley solves alot of our problems defensively,and is a starting-game changing guard...WHY on earth would you want to trade him?

its like building one hole(perimiter defense) to fill another(rebounding)

our bigs havent been the problem. its our guard's defense

Well, a trade package is defined by the pieces coming back, along with the pieces leaving.

I think Cousins is a bigger impact player to get next to Rondo long term and short term to make the trade. I think if Gordon Hayward were part of the package coming back with Jefferson, it makes trading Bradley worth it.

But, of Bradley is looking like a monster, and we're winning games, Im fine standing pat.

Keep in mind, Bradley didnt get new shoulders. He's still an injury concern. And while contending tis year is ideally the end game, if we look like crap come thebdeadline, I'm cool with making a move for a guy who is a long term pedestal to put next to Rondo that fills a more traditional (and harder to fill role) to try to build a future contender on.

I'm not a Cousins fan at all but I could see him having a positive impact in the short term because the Celtics could really use his rebounding and he won't be overused on offense and create so much negative value.  In the long-term however, with Pierce and Garnett gone, it would be disastrous to have Cousins in a feature role again taking a bunch of shots.  He is laughably not even close to an average offensive player.  I don't see that changing much because he is offensively inept from every area of the court.  Playing with Rondo isn't go to up his efficiency either.  He's not an alley-oop finisher, his pick and pop shooting is erratic and he doesn't run the floor.

Also, what kind of a long-term contract do you give him?  He's the second hardest guy to peg after Royce White, assuming White ever sees the floor for the Rockets.

Have you actually seen Cousins play? He's an extremely gifted offensive player who, if he behaves himself, would be a perfect cornerstone to build around together with Rondo.

From your comments it sounds like you are describing Fab Melo or Festus Ezeli or something.

[Galeto]

As much as I want to see a trade for a young star to play with Rondo for the foreseeable future, I think it's prudent for us to wait a while, for several reasons.

1. We need to see how effective Bradley is... who knows, he could solve a lot of our problems.
2. We need to continue to let the team gel - not necessarily completely gel, because that could take too long and we are going for a title, but gel a little more than they have. I think if we do this, some of our players will begin to play better, and their trade stock will go up.

Right now, we have three players whose trade stock is extremely low (Bass, Lee, Bradley), and a couple whose stock is on the rise (Green, Sullinger). Let the rising stock keep rising and hope that the low stock turns around.

I agree with all this. Our best trade chip isn't Sully or Green, it's Bradley. But he's only our best trade chip once he starts beasting on opponents.

Trading a guy like Cousins or Al Jeff is a lot more palatable when you have the opportunity to acquire a starting potentially game changing guard in the package.

If Bradley solves alot of our problems defensively,and is a starting-game changing guard...WHY on earth would you want to trade him?

its like building one hole(perimiter defense) to fill another(rebounding)

our bigs havent been the problem. its our guard's defense

Well, a trade package is defined by the pieces coming back, along with the pieces leaving.

I think Cousins is a bigger impact player to get next to Rondo long term and short term to make the trade. I think if Gordon Hayward were part of the package coming back with Jefferson, it makes trading Bradley worth it.

But, of Bradley is looking like a monster, and we're winning games, Im fine standing pat.

Keep in mind, Bradley didnt get new shoulders. He's still an injury concern. And while contending tis year is ideally the end game, if we look like crap come thebdeadline, I'm cool with making a move for a guy who is a long term pedestal to put next to Rondo that fills a more traditional (and harder to fill role) to try to build a future contender on.

I'm not a Cousins fan at all but I could see him having a positive impact in the short term because the Celtics could really use his rebounding and he won't be overused on offense and create so much negative value.  In the long-term however, with Pierce and Garnett gone, it would be disastrous to have Cousins in a feature role again taking a bunch of shots.  He is laughably not even close to an average offensive player.  I don't see that changing much because he is offensively inept from every area of the court.  Playing with Rondo isn't go to up his efficiency either.  He's not an alley-oop finisher, his pick and pop shooting is erratic and he doesn't run the floor.

Also, what kind of a long-term contract do you give him?  He's the second hardest guy to peg after Royce White, assuming White ever sees the floor for the Rockets.

Have you actually seen Cousins play? He's an extremely gifted offensive player who, if he behaves himself, would be a perfect cornerstone to build around together with Rondo.

From your comments it sounds like you are describing Fab Melo or Festus Ezeli or something.

If we're going there, have you actually seen him play?  All those fancy things he can do that most bigs his size can't like dribble the ball up the court or take Gasol off the dribble for a dipsy-doo layup still amount to posting terrible shooting and efficiency numbers for a big.  For all the spectacular passes, he still throws the ball away more so his passing isn't an asset either.

He's not even fun to watch personally.  The guy gets physically dominated routinely around the basket because of his inability to jump and his post moves are just ugly.  Nobody shoots an uglier hook or turnaround jumper than he does and nobody shoots more airballs from those shots either. 

Coming out of college, he wasn't a surefire superstar, not only because of his combustibility, but because he was a bad athlete. 

[indeedproceed]

As much as I want to see a trade for a young star to play with Rondo for the foreseeable future, I think it's prudent for us to wait a while, for several reasons.

1. We need to see how effective Bradley is... who knows, he could solve a lot of our problems.
2. We need to continue to let the team gel - not necessarily completely gel, because that could take too long and we are going for a title, but gel a little more than they have. I think if we do this, some of our players will begin to play better, and their trade stock will go up.

Right now, we have three players whose trade stock is extremely low (Bass, Lee, Bradley), and a couple whose stock is on the rise (Green, Sullinger). Let the rising stock keep rising and hope that the low stock turns around.

I agree with all this. Our best trade chip isn't Sully or Green, it's Bradley. But he's only our best trade chip once he starts beasting on opponents.

Trading a guy like Cousins or Al Jeff is a lot more palatable when you have the opportunity to acquire a starting potentially game changing guard in the package.

If Bradley solves alot of our problems defensively,and is a starting-game changing guard...WHY on earth would you want to trade him?

its like building one hole(perimiter defense) to fill another(rebounding)

our bigs havent been the problem. its our guard's defense

Well, a trade package is defined by the pieces coming back, along with the pieces leaving.

I think Cousins is a bigger impact player to get next to Rondo long term and short term to make the trade. I think if Gordon Hayward were part of the package coming back with Jefferson, it makes trading Bradley worth it.

But, of Bradley is looking like a monster, and we're winning games, Im fine standing pat.

Keep in mind, Bradley didnt get new shoulders. He's still an injury concern. And while contending tis year is ideally the end game, if we look like crap come thebdeadline, I'm cool with making a move for a guy who is a long term pedestal to put next to Rondo that fills a more traditional (and harder to fill role) to try to build a future contender on.

I'm not a Cousins fan at all but I could see him having a positive impact in the short term because the Celtics could really use his rebounding and he won't be overused on offense and create so much negative value.  In the long-term however, with Pierce and Garnett gone, it would be disastrous to have Cousins in a feature role again taking a bunch of shots.  He is laughably not even close to an average offensive player.  I don't see that changing much because he is offensively inept from every area of the court.  Playing with Rondo isn't go to up his efficiency either.  He's not an alley-oop finisher, his pick and pop shooting is erratic and he doesn't run the floor.

I think there are two fundamental problems with your analysis:

1) Cousins currently has poor shot selection as the number 1 offensive option on a poor team without a traditional point guard, without a coach who has his respect, and without another leader on the team who can command his respect. While Cousins might just be as inefficient on a good team as he is on a bad team, there is reason for optimism there that he can be molded into a much more efficient player.

2) His jumpshooting towards the end of last season was actually passable, and was a big reason for all the optimism coming into this season. His total year numbers don't look great, but IIRC he was improving as the year went on. He was looking a bit like Sheed and KG, in that he was hitting ~40-45% of his 15-18 footers. Post all-star he was averaging 20 points, 10.5 boards, 2 assists, 1 block, 2 steals, and 46% shooting.

3) Without a competent consistent distributor, his at-rim opportunities went way down. Who was the go-to scorer? Reke Evans? Isiah Thomas? Aaron Brooks? Marcus Thornton?

All those guys are playing like 7-10 rotation spot players, and none of them are consistent distributors. There is no reason to think Cousins couldn't get oops from ROndo as well as the next guy, and every reason to think  that with Rondo spreading the looks around, his at-rim opportunities (of which he converted 56% so far this season) should go up, and the degree of difficulty of his FGA's should go down.

Also, what kind of a long-term contract do you give him?  He's the second hardest guy to peg after Royce White, assuming White ever sees the floor for the Rockets.

Royce White might never play basketball, so that might be a little bit of harsh comparison. But long-term money? He's gonna get paid.

[indeedproceed]

He's not even fun to watch personally.  The guy gets physically dominated routinely around the basket because of his inability to jump and his post moves are just ugly. 

I haven't seen him this year at all, but this was not my impression of him in the least last year.

Coming out of college, he wasn't a surefire superstar, not only because of his combustibility, but because he was a bad athlete.

Average athlete was my understanding, and that's for a NBA level talent. Conditioning was the worry with him, not athleticism, IIRC.

[Galeto]

As much as I want to see a trade for a young star to play with Rondo for the foreseeable future, I think it's prudent for us to wait a while, for several reasons.

1. We need to see how effective Bradley is... who knows, he could solve a lot of our problems.
2. We need to continue to let the team gel - not necessarily completely gel, because that could take too long and we are going for a title, but gel a little more than they have. I think if we do this, some of our players will begin to play better, and their trade stock will go up.

Right now, we have three players whose trade stock is extremely low (Bass, Lee, Bradley), and a couple whose stock is on the rise (Green, Sullinger). Let the rising stock keep rising and hope that the low stock turns around.

I agree with all this. Our best trade chip isn't Sully or Green, it's Bradley. But he's only our best trade chip once he starts beasting on opponents.

Trading a guy like Cousins or Al Jeff is a lot more palatable when you have the opportunity to acquire a starting potentially game changing guard in the package.

If Bradley solves alot of our problems defensively,and is a starting-game changing guard...WHY on earth would you want to trade him?

its like building one hole(perimiter defense) to fill another(rebounding)

our bigs havent been the problem. its our guard's defense

Well, a trade package is defined by the pieces coming back, along with the pieces leaving.

I think Cousins is a bigger impact player to get next to Rondo long term and short term to make the trade. I think if Gordon Hayward were part of the package coming back with Jefferson, it makes trading Bradley worth it.

But, of Bradley is looking like a monster, and we're winning games, Im fine standing pat.

Keep in mind, Bradley didnt get new shoulders. He's still an injury concern. And while contending tis year is ideally the end game, if we look like crap come thebdeadline, I'm cool with making a move for a guy who is a long term pedestal to put next to Rondo that fills a more traditional (and harder to fill role) to try to build a future contender on.

I'm not a Cousins fan at all but I could see him having a positive impact in the short term because the Celtics could really use his rebounding and he won't be overused on offense and create so much negative value.  In the long-term however, with Pierce and Garnett gone, it would be disastrous to have Cousins in a feature role again taking a bunch of shots.  He is laughably not even close to an average offensive player.  I don't see that changing much because he is offensively inept from every area of the court.  Playing with Rondo isn't go to up his efficiency either.  He's not an alley-oop finisher, his pick and pop shooting is erratic and he doesn't run the floor.

I think there are two fundamental problems with your analysis:

1) Cousins currently has poor shot selection as the number 1 offensive option on a poor team without a traditional point guard, without a coach who has his respect, and without another leader on the team who can command his respect. While Cousins might just be as inefficient on a good team as he is on a bad team, there is reason for optimism there that he can be molded into a much more efficient player.

2) His jumpshooting towards the end of last season was actually passable, and was a big reason for all the optimism coming into this season. His total year numbers don't look great, but IIRC he was improving as the year went on. He was looking a bit like Sheed and KG, in that he was hitting ~40-45% of his 15-18 footers. Post all-star he was averaging 20 points, 10.5 boards, 2 assists, 1 block, 2 steals, and 46% shooting.

3) Without a competent consistent distributor, his at-rim opportunities went way down. Who was the go-to scorer? Reke Evans? Isiah Thomas? Aaron Brooks? Marcus Thornton?

All those guys are playing like 7-10 rotation spot players, and none of them are consistent distributors. There is no reason to think Cousins couldn't get oops from ROndo as well as the next guy, and every reason to think  that with Rondo spreading the looks around, his at-rim opportunities (of which he converted 56% so far this season) should go up, and the degree of difficulty of his FGA's should go down.

Also, what kind of a long-term contract do you give him?  He's the second hardest guy to peg after Royce White, assuming White ever sees the floor for the Rockets.

Royce White might never play basketball, so that might be a little bit of harsh comparison. But long-term money? He's gonna get paid.

Ahh yes, the standard defense that Cousins is brought down by the disarray of his organization and the inadequacies of his teammates.  Even if that's true, completely, way beyond anyone else's dreams, it takes quite a leap to make Cousins an effective offensive player from where he is.  His offensive numbers are absolutely terrible: sub .500 TS% and eFG% in the low 40s.  You just don't see those numbers often in such a high usage player who has the reputation for being one of the most talented players in the game. If we're talking about Cousins possibly being an effective role player for the current Celtics, one who takes a lot less shots and focuses on the things he does well, I'd buy in.  But if we're talking about Cousins being a dominant top three player with a much bigger role after KG and Pierce are gone, it's going to be disastrous.

I don't know how Sacramento's offense has supposedly kept Cousins down.  If he comes to the Celtics, he's going to get a lot of the same opportunities.  Most NBA teams run the same thing.  His postups and pick and pop jumpers aren't going to be any different here than in Sacramento where he hasn't shown the ability to convert enough of them into baskets.  It'd be one thing if he was an athletic, above the rim specimen who would benefit from Rondo's fanaticism with alley-oops and big men who can rim run in transition.  Cousins isn't any of those things.     

[Smitty77]

OK. Someone typed this:  It'd be one thing if he was an athletic, above the rim specimen who would benefit from Rondo's fanaticism with alley-oops and big men who can rim run in transition.

Do you think that Larry Sanders is an above the rim specimen?

Oddly enough, Cousins, with 16% body fat in the predraft measurements, only had a half inch less in his vertical leap than Sanders.

http://www.draftexpress.com/nba-pre-draft-measurements/?year=2010&sort2=DESC&draft=&pos=&sort=7

Smitty77

[Galeto]

OK. Someone typed this:  It'd be one thing if he was an athletic, above the rim specimen who would benefit from Rondo's fanaticism with alley-oops and big men who can rim run in transition.

Do you think that Larry Sanders is an above the rim specimen?

Oddly enough, Cousins, with 16% body fat in the predraft measurements, only had a half inch less in his vertical leap than Sanders.

http://www.draftexpress.com/nba-pre-draft-measurements/?year=2010&sort2=DESC&draft=&pos=&sort=7

Well first of all, based solely on their predraft measurements, the answer would be neither as far as either of them being above the rim athletes.  Secondly, it's curious that you use in game evidence to frame Sanders as the above average athlete he is despite his combine numbers while saying Cousins is one too despite how he appears in games.  Also, if you're going to give a lot of credence to combine numbers, in a lovingly gotcha fashion, well I guess you think Kevin Love is the same leaper as Dwyane Wade since they had the same max verticals at the combine.

[twistedrico14]

I can believe you guys are so in love with Cousins. The guy is a delinquent.