Author Topic: Shams: Porzingis to Boston?  (Read 74365 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: Shams: Porzingis to Boston?
« Reply #870 on: December 28, 2023, 10:19:12 PM »

Offline Phantom255x

  • Bill Russell
  • ******************************
  • Posts: 30935
  • Tommy Points: 3032
  • On To Banner 18!
I had some doubts before, and obviously it sucked losing Smart.

But man am I glad we have Porzingis now, and also ecstatic we extended him on a pretty team-friendly deal. He's still just 28 years old, complements the Jays + White well, and his skillset is so useful to have. A 7' 3" big man who can shoot 3s and also make smart decisions. The modern Kevin Garnett  ;D

I have love for Timelord, but while he could be a game changer on defense, he was very limited on offense and teams could exploit that particularly the smarter ones like Golden State and Miami. Not sure how they can be as successful against KP though. KP's a big man that can also score from anywhere. Another element for opposing teams to consider. AD the other night had a 40-point double-double but it didn't really matter because Porzingis also had 28/11
"Tough times never last, but tough people do." - Robert H. Schuller

Re: Shams: Porzingis to Boston?
« Reply #871 on: December 28, 2023, 10:55:02 PM »

Offline SparzWizard

  • JoJo White
  • ****************
  • Posts: 16499
  • Tommy Points: 1016
I had some doubts before, and obviously it sucked losing Smart.

But man am I glad we have Porzingis now, and also ecstatic we extended him on a pretty team-friendly deal. He's still just 28 years old, complements the Jays + White well, and his skillset is so useful to have. A 7' 3" big man who can shoot 3s and also make smart decisions. The modern Kevin Garnett  ;D

I have love for Timelord, but while he could be a game changer on defense, he was very limited on offense and teams could exploit that particularly the smarter ones like Golden State and Miami. Not sure how they can be as successful against KP though. KP's a big man that can also score from anywhere. Another element for opposing teams to consider. AD the other night had a 40-point double-double but it didn't really matter because Porzingis also had 28/11

I only miss 2021-2022 Timelord. All the other Timelords just didn't play as well as I had hoped/was constantly injured.

KP is definitely the smarter player and better player than both Smart and Timelord combined. Glad Brad made that trade 1000%.


#JTJB (Just Trade Jaylen Brown)
#JFJM (Just Fire Joe Mazzulla)

Re: Shams: Porzingis to Boston?
« Reply #872 on: December 29, 2023, 12:01:57 AM »

Offline celticsclay

  • JoJo White
  • ****************
  • Posts: 16015
  • Tommy Points: 1397
Porzingas has exceeded my wildest expectations

Re: Shams: Porzingis to Boston?
« Reply #873 on: December 29, 2023, 05:42:54 AM »

Offline Jvalin

  • Ray Allen
  • ***
  • Posts: 3737
  • Tommy Points: 737
I had some doubts before, and obviously it sucked losing Smart.

But man am I glad we have Porzingis now, and also ecstatic we extended him on a pretty team-friendly deal. He's still just 28 years old, complements the Jays + White well, and his skillset is so useful to have. A 7' 3" big man who can shoot 3s and also make smart decisions. The modern Kevin Garnett  ;D

I have love for Timelord, but while he could be a game changer on defense, he was very limited on offense and teams could exploit that particularly the smarter ones like Golden State and Miami. Not sure how they can be as successful against KP though. KP's a big man that can also score from anywhere. Another element for opposing teams to consider. AD the other night had a 40-point double-double but it didn't really matter because Porzingis also had 28/11
He's effective only in a drop scheme, meaning he's vulnerable if forced to defend in space. He's exposed in the PnP, especially against bigs who can put the ball on the floor. We are exposed in the PnR. If we go over, we concede the long 2. If we go under, we concede the 3. We can no longer defend against teams running a 5-out motion offense.

For instance, here's a play from the Lakers game. Porzingis tried to closeout on Hachimura on the perimeter. Hachimura put the ball on the floor and attacked the basket. Porzingis lacks the lateral quicks to stay in front of him and deny penetration.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S-lDeW54ae4

I consider Porzingis a rich man's Brook Lopez. The perfect team for him would have been the Bucks. Porzingis would drop back to protect the rim while Giannis would provide cover on the perimeter with his elite help D. The C's used to run a switch-heavy scheme with Horford-Timelord. That's no longer an option. It's not an ideal situation on D cause Tatum, Brown, White and Jrue are perfectly suited for a switch-heavy scheme.

Offense-wise, he's a terrific fit! Don't get me wrong, I love the trade! Just saying that opposing teams can attack his weaknesses in our defensive system.
« Last Edit: December 29, 2023, 07:17:15 AM by Jvalin »

Re: Shams: Porzingis to Boston?
« Reply #874 on: December 29, 2023, 09:26:03 AM »

Offline SHAQATTACK

  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 37021
  • Tommy Points: 2978
Porzingas has exceeded my wildest expectations

Me too.  He seemed letdown with the whole NBA experience and in a professional funk.

I think he has finally found a perfect fit with Boston. Everyone has their own style and expectations about how the game should be played.  KP ran into a lot of divas . Bostons old school play with friendly ball sharing teammates was closer to the way he learned to play the game I imagine.

Re: Shams: Porzingis to Boston?
« Reply #875 on: December 29, 2023, 09:40:03 AM »

Offline Roy H.

  • Forums Manager
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 58937
  • Tommy Points: -25607
  • Bo Knows: Joe Don't Know Diddley
I'm going to have to go back and read my reactions.  My recollection is that I was all-in on the Brogdon trade (particularly when it looked like we might keep one of Gallo or Mike Muscala), minorly disappointed that we had to include Smart, but very happy when we got two #1s back.

=========================

I do wish we'd utilize him even more.  5.3 3PAs per game isn't wild by any stretch, but the dude is a 7'3" monster.  Over 41% of his shot attempts are 3PTs.  He's shooting an absolutely insane 67.9% on 2PTs, so obviously something is working right.  But, I wonder if he'd add more to the team with more of a 70/30 mix of 2PTs vs. 3PTs.

(I've seen the same thing with Horford and have had the same question.  He's almost exclusively a 3PT shooter now.  Does he have nothing to give inside anymore?)


I'M THE SILVERBACK GORILLA IN THIS MOTHER——— AND DON'T NONE OF YA'LL EVER FORGET IT!@ 34 minutes

Re: Shams: Porzingis to Boston?
« Reply #876 on: December 29, 2023, 09:59:04 AM »

Offline Celtics2021

  • Tiny Archibald
  • *******
  • Posts: 7286
  • Tommy Points: 992
I'm going to have to go back and read my reactions.  My recollection is that I was all-in on the Brogdon trade (particularly when it looked like we might keep one of Gallo or Mike Muscala), minorly disappointed that we had to include Smart, but very happy when we got two #1s back.

=========================

I do wish we'd utilize him even more.  5.3 3PAs per game isn't wild by any stretch, but the dude is a 7'3" monster.  Over 41% of his shot attempts are 3PTs.  He's shooting an absolutely insane 67.9% on 2PTs, so obviously something is working right.  But, I wonder if he'd add more to the team with more of a 70/30 mix of 2PTs vs. 3PTs.

(I've seen the same thing with Horford and have had the same question.  He's almost exclusively a 3PT shooter now.  Does he have nothing to give inside anymore?)

Porzingis is probably shooting more 2s than you think.  He draws about 2.4 shooting fouls a game, almost all of them are on 2-point attempts, and if they aren’t and-1s they don’t show up in the box score as a FGA.

Re: Shams: Porzingis to Boston?
« Reply #877 on: December 29, 2023, 11:08:30 AM »

Offline Vermont Green

  • Ed Macauley
  • ***********
  • Posts: 11553
  • Tommy Points: 887
I'm going to have to go back and read my reactions.  My recollection is that I was all-in on the Brogdon trade (particularly when it looked like we might keep one of Gallo or Mike Muscala), minorly disappointed that we had to include Smart, but very happy when we got two #1s back.

=========================

I do wish we'd utilize him even more.  5.3 3PAs per game isn't wild by any stretch, but the dude is a 7'3" monster.  Over 41% of his shot attempts are 3PTs.  He's shooting an absolutely insane 67.9% on 2PTs, so obviously something is working right.  But, I wonder if he'd add more to the team with more of a 70/30 mix of 2PTs vs. 3PTs.

(I've seen the same thing with Horford and have had the same question.  He's almost exclusively a 3PT shooter now.  Does he have nothing to give inside anymore?)

I think this was based on the rumored Brogdon version of the trade, but this was your initial comment (I found this as I am looking back for my comments):

Quote
I love his skill set, but that injury history is horrific, and he's got some major character concerns.

I'd make the trade, but I'm skeptical that it works out if this is completed.

Re: Shams: Porzingis to Boston?
« Reply #878 on: December 29, 2023, 11:43:47 AM »

Offline jambr380

  • K.C. Jones
  • *************
  • Posts: 13128
  • Tommy Points: 1781
  • Everybody knows what's best for you
I'm going to have to go back and read my reactions.  My recollection is that I was all-in on the Brogdon trade (particularly when it looked like we might keep one of Gallo or Mike Muscala), minorly disappointed that we had to include Smart, but very happy when we got two #1s back.

=========================

I do wish we'd utilize him even more.  5.3 3PAs per game isn't wild by any stretch, but the dude is a 7'3" monster.  Over 41% of his shot attempts are 3PTs.  He's shooting an absolutely insane 67.9% on 2PTs, so obviously something is working right.  But, I wonder if he'd add more to the team with more of a 70/30 mix of 2PTs vs. 3PTs.

(I've seen the same thing with Horford and have had the same question.  He's almost exclusively a 3PT shooter now.  Does he have nothing to give inside anymore?)

I love having Horford here and hope he can continue to age as well as he has and play until 40+.

But, I don't need to see him slam the ball off the backboard on another turnaround post-up attempt from 5-7 feet out. He just has absolutely no touch [anymore] on his baby hook. He knows his role and he excels in it, but I'm all for him getting easy lay-ups or spotting up from mid-range if it's available.

Anyway, yeah, love KP and love that he loves Boston. It was heartbreaking trading Smart for him (I didn't sleep that night), but I knew in the end it was still a net positive, especially with the 2 1sts.

Re: Shams: Porzingis to Boston?
« Reply #879 on: December 29, 2023, 12:09:00 PM »

Offline Roy H.

  • Forums Manager
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 58937
  • Tommy Points: -25607
  • Bo Knows: Joe Don't Know Diddley
I'm going to have to go back and read my reactions.  My recollection is that I was all-in on the Brogdon trade (particularly when it looked like we might keep one of Gallo or Mike Muscala), minorly disappointed that we had to include Smart, but very happy when we got two #1s back.

=========================

I do wish we'd utilize him even more.  5.3 3PAs per game isn't wild by any stretch, but the dude is a 7'3" monster.  Over 41% of his shot attempts are 3PTs.  He's shooting an absolutely insane 67.9% on 2PTs, so obviously something is working right.  But, I wonder if he'd add more to the team with more of a 70/30 mix of 2PTs vs. 3PTs.

(I've seen the same thing with Horford and have had the same question.  He's almost exclusively a 3PT shooter now.  Does he have nothing to give inside anymore?)

I think this was based on the rumored Brogdon version of the trade, but this was your initial comment (I found this as I am looking back for my comments):

Quote
I love his skill set, but that injury history is horrific, and he's got some major character concerns.

I'd make the trade, but I'm skeptical that it works out if this is completed.

In fairness to myself, I was more positive on the trade about an hour later, haha:

Quote
I think it's a fair trade for us that could work out really well.

I think the Clips would be getting the best deal.  Brogdon for guys they don't want and the #30?

Marcus news broke on Page 31 of the thread.


I'M THE SILVERBACK GORILLA IN THIS MOTHER——— AND DON'T NONE OF YA'LL EVER FORGET IT!@ 34 minutes

Re: Shams: Porzingis to Boston?
« Reply #880 on: December 29, 2023, 12:45:02 PM »

Offline Big333223

  • NCE
  • Tiny Archibald
  • *******
  • Posts: 7555
  • Tommy Points: 745
Porzingas has exceeded my wildest expectations

Me too.  He seemed letdown with the whole NBA experience and in a professional funk.

I think he has finally found a perfect fit with Boston. Everyone has their own style and expectations about how the game should be played.  KP ran into a lot of divas . Bostons old school play with friendly ball sharing teammates was closer to the way he learned to play the game I imagine.
I've been really impressed with his ability to fit in and get his offense in the flow of the game. He has a quick trigger but he rarely takes a bad shot and keeps the ball moving. I didn't know what to expect his attitude to be coming in but he's been terrific so far.
1957, 1959, 1960, 1961, 1962, 1963, 1964, 1965, 1966, 1968, 1969, 1974, 1976, 1981, 1984, 1986, 2008

Re: Shams: Porzingis to Boston?
« Reply #881 on: December 29, 2023, 02:24:04 PM »

Offline Vermont Green

  • Ed Macauley
  • ***********
  • Posts: 11553
  • Tommy Points: 887
My first impression:

Quote
Getting caught up on this.  I like the deal.  Trading Brogdon for Porzingis makes a lot of sense from a roster balance standpoint.  We need what Porzingis can give us more than we need what Brogdon can give us.  Sounds like it is going to be Brogdon and Gallinari.  That is fairly rich but of course, you don't know what you will get from Gallinari.  Porzingis has some injury concern but so doesn't Brogdon.  I don't see us having to add any picks to this.  If anything, we should get a pick from LAC.  They are getting Brogdon for pretty much Morris.  If WAS end up with Gallinari and Morris and maybe something else, those can be flipped.  Porzingis was not coming back to them.  They should not expect any real compensation in this trade.  Whatever they get is gravy for them.

This was when the deal involved Brogdon.  I think I was a little higher on Porzingis than most.  But this was before the Holiday trade of course also.  I was expecting RWill to be a starter, Brogdon off the bench.  Horford off the bench.  I felt Porzingis was really good.  Concern with durability of course but not attitude.  You know he wanted to come to Boston or he would not have let the deal happen (an agreement to extend was part of the deal).

I think even he is happier than he thought he would be.
« Last Edit: December 29, 2023, 03:54:42 PM by Vermont Green »

Re: Shams: Porzingis to Boston?
« Reply #882 on: December 29, 2023, 03:10:57 PM »

Offline RodyTur10

  • Jim Loscutoff
  • **
  • Posts: 2765
  • Tommy Points: 292
  • Always offline from 9pm till 3am
Porzingas has exceeded my wildest expectations

Not to be disrespectfull, but I don't understand why.
Porzingis, last year, averaged: 23/8 (on 50/39/85, 63 TS%).
As a former All Star he's exactly doing what he did before.

ps: the Celtics could cut Tatum and Brown and they'd still be a top team

Re: Shams: Porzingis to Boston?
« Reply #883 on: December 31, 2023, 09:08:54 AM »

Offline Big333223

  • NCE
  • Tiny Archibald
  • *******
  • Posts: 7555
  • Tommy Points: 745
Porzingas has exceeded my wildest expectations

Not to be disrespectfull, but I don't understand why.
Porzingis, last year, averaged: 23/8 (on 50/39/85, 63 TS%).
As a former All Star he's exactly doing what he did before.

ps: the Celtics could cut Tatum and Brown and they'd still be a top team
I think the difference is the context. Putting up 23/8 on the worst team in the NBA is one thing, translating that offense and being effective on defense and fitting in with a good team is a different kind of task. The way he's slipped in to what the Celtics do while enhancing it but still playing his own game is impressive.
1957, 1959, 1960, 1961, 1962, 1963, 1964, 1965, 1966, 1968, 1969, 1974, 1976, 1981, 1984, 1986, 2008

Re: Shams: Porzingis to Boston?
« Reply #884 on: December 31, 2023, 09:21:46 AM »

Offline Moranis

  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 33794
  • Tommy Points: 1559
Porzingas has exceeded my wildest expectations

Not to be disrespectfull, but I don't understand why.
Porzingis, last year, averaged: 23/8 (on 50/39/85, 63 TS%).
As a former All Star he's exactly doing what he did before.

ps: the Celtics could cut Tatum and Brown and they'd still be a top team
the last part is nonsense.  You take Tatum off this team and they become a play-in team. You take them both off the team and they don't even make the play in.
2023 Historical Draft - Brooklyn Nets - 9th pick

Bigs - Pau, Amar'e, Issel, McGinnis, Roundfield
Wings - Dantley, Bowen, J. Jackson
Guards - Cheeks, Petrovic, Buse, Rip