Are you okay with us not contending next year?

[gouki88]

If Horford opts in, Kyrie walks, we resign Rozier, and maybe another minor move or 2 (Morris, backup pg), then I'm OK with that.  I think we are still a top 5 seed in the East.  Contenders?  Not strong ones right now on paper, but Jaylen, Jayson, and Terry are all at that age where one or more of them could make huge leaps in their game which could make us a better team that we'd be expecting.  Gordon could make a comeback.  There's a pretty high floor with that roster, some reasonable upside, and overall I'd be happy with it even if it's not considered "contenders" in the preseason.

I really don't think that is a top 5 team in the East next year.

Milwaukee - clearly better (even if they lose one of their free agents)
Philadelphia - clearly better (even without Butler and Harris, I still think they are better, but I think they keep at least one anyway)
Toronto - clearly better (even losing Kawhi I think they are better, though it would be close)
Indiana - clearly better (assuming Dipo is back)
Brooklyn - if that is Irving's destination then they are clearly better (if he ends up in NY that is a different matter)
New York - free agency/trade dependent, but a very good shot at being clearly better

I also think there is a very good chance that Miami, Detroit, Orlando, or Charlotte end up better

I think that Boston team will probably make the playoffs, but it will be somewhere in the 40-45 win range and frankly I don't see many paths to being much better than that unless Tatum turns into Durant.

Lol classic mind-boggling Moranis logic:

Milwaukee - definitely better, though it would be close if they lose Middleton (which is unlikely)

Toronto - with Kawhi? Definitely better. Without Kawhi? Uh, no. Who would they have? An aging Lowry, Green, Ibaka, and Gasol with Siakam as their number one option? As much as he improved this year, that offense would be less than mediocre without Kawhi. Assuming a lineup of Rozier, Brown, Tatum, Hayward, and Horford with Smart, Baynes, Mook, etc. off the bench that's definitely a better and more well-rounded team than Toronto sans Kawhi.

Philadelphia - same boat. With Butler and Harris? Sure, they're better. Losing both of them? Again, no. This would be the same Celtics team that beat Philly in the 2018 Eastern Semifinals + Hayward and + significantly more experience and expanded roles for Tatum, Brown, Smart, and Rozier, all while facing a significantly weaker Philly team who gave away significant assets for Harris and Butler and have nothing to show for them.

Indiana - hardly "clearly better". With Dipo they're about equal with that iterations of the Celtics.

Brooklyn - dependent upon free agency, but I don't see anything that would make them better than us next year. If you add Kyrie and Durant, then that's clearly not better given that Durant wouldn't play next year. If you add Kyrie to Russell, I think that team is similar in overall talent and ability to Boston and Indiana. While that pairing would be dynamic offensively, that's probably the weakest perimeter defense any team has started in a long, long time, which will cause significant problems with their overall defense in today's NBA. If it's something like Kyrie and Butler/Harris, I still don't see that as putting them better than this Boston group.

New York - again, hard to say due to free agency, but I don't think they're getting the big free agents that they think they're getting this year.

Orlando - Depends upon their free agency, but I think they'll end up a bit better and will probably be in that grouping with Boston and Indiana.

Miami, Detroit, Charlotte - give me a break.

Per usual, you significantly underrate our players and overrate other teams' players. With expanded roles, all three of Tatum, Brown, and Hayward should put up better numbers next year, along with Hayward getting healthier and more confident overall. I'd expect next year's team to be a better version of that 2018 playoffs team with one of Brown or Tatum - maybe even both - making significant leaps with expanded roles and at least one of them reaching their first All-Star game.

That C's team is a 40-45 win team.  I just don't see it better than that, and 45 wins is not going to be a top 5 team in the East.

You only have to go back to 2017 to find a season where 45 wins would get you the 5 seed

[Moranis]

If Horford opts in, Kyrie walks, we resign Rozier, and maybe another minor move or 2 (Morris, backup pg), then I'm OK with that.  I think we are still a top 5 seed in the East.  Contenders?  Not strong ones right now on paper, but Jaylen, Jayson, and Terry are all at that age where one or more of them could make huge leaps in their game which could make us a better team that we'd be expecting.  Gordon could make a comeback.  There's a pretty high floor with that roster, some reasonable upside, and overall I'd be happy with it even if it's not considered "contenders" in the preseason.

I really don't think that is a top 5 team in the East next year.

Milwaukee - clearly better (even if they lose one of their free agents)
Philadelphia - clearly better (even without Butler and Harris, I still think they are better, but I think they keep at least one anyway)
Toronto - clearly better (even losing Kawhi I think they are better, though it would be close)
Indiana - clearly better (assuming Dipo is back)
Brooklyn - if that is Irving's destination then they are clearly better (if he ends up in NY that is a different matter)
New York - free agency/trade dependent, but a very good shot at being clearly better

I also think there is a very good chance that Miami, Detroit, Orlando, or Charlotte end up better

I think that Boston team will probably make the playoffs, but it will be somewhere in the 40-45 win range and frankly I don't see many paths to being much better than that unless Tatum turns into Durant.

Lol classic mind-boggling Moranis logic:

Milwaukee - definitely better, though it would be close if they lose Middleton (which is unlikely)

Toronto - with Kawhi? Definitely better. Without Kawhi? Uh, no. Who would they have? An aging Lowry, Green, Ibaka, and Gasol with Siakam as their number one option? As much as he improved this year, that offense would be less than mediocre without Kawhi. Assuming a lineup of Rozier, Brown, Tatum, Hayward, and Horford with Smart, Baynes, Mook, etc. off the bench that's definitely a better and more well-rounded team than Toronto sans Kawhi.

Philadelphia - same boat. With Butler and Harris? Sure, they're better. Losing both of them? Again, no. This would be the same Celtics team that beat Philly in the 2018 Eastern Semifinals + Hayward and + significantly more experience and expanded roles for Tatum, Brown, Smart, and Rozier, all while facing a significantly weaker Philly team who gave away significant assets for Harris and Butler and have nothing to show for them.

Indiana - hardly "clearly better". With Dipo they're about equal with that iterations of the Celtics.

Brooklyn - dependent upon free agency, but I don't see anything that would make them better than us next year. If you add Kyrie and Durant, then that's clearly not better given that Durant wouldn't play next year. If you add Kyrie to Russell, I think that team is similar in overall talent and ability to Boston and Indiana. While that pairing would be dynamic offensively, that's probably the weakest perimeter defense any team has started in a long, long time, which will cause significant problems with their overall defense in today's NBA. If it's something like Kyrie and Butler/Harris, I still don't see that as putting them better than this Boston group.

New York - again, hard to say due to free agency, but I don't think they're getting the big free agents that they think they're getting this year.

Orlando - Depends upon their free agency, but I think they'll end up a bit better and will probably be in that grouping with Boston and Indiana.

Miami, Detroit, Charlotte - give me a break.

Per usual, you significantly underrate our players and overrate other teams' players. With expanded roles, all three of Tatum, Brown, and Hayward should put up better numbers next year, along with Hayward getting healthier and more confident overall. I'd expect next year's team to be a better version of that 2018 playoffs team with one of Brown or Tatum - maybe even both - making significant leaps with expanded roles and at least one of them reaching their first All-Star game.

That C's team is a 40-45 win team.  I just don't see it better than that, and 45 wins is not going to be a top 5 team in the East.

You only have to go back to 2017 to find a season where 45 wins would get you the 5 seed

Sure, but the conference is a lot better now. 

[IDreamCeltics]

Ummm... The team added a healthy Hayward and Kyrie this year and took a step back... Why isn't anyone considering the possibility that we might actually be better off going with the young players... We have more proof that we'll contend with a lineup of young guys than we do with our two "all-stars."

[bellerephon]

Heyward was not totally healthy, that was one of the big issues this season.

[droopdog7]

Ummm... The team added a healthy Hayward and Kyrie this year and took a step back... Why isn't anyone considering the possibility that we might actually be better off going with the young players... We have more proof that we'll contend with a lineup of young guys than we do with our two "all-stars."

I’m somewhat in this boat.  I would not say better, but with chemistry problems gone, they could certainly win about as many games.  Just wouldn’t be a real contender (as was the case this year I guess).

[gouki88]

If Horford opts in, Kyrie walks, we resign Rozier, and maybe another minor move or 2 (Morris, backup pg), then I'm OK with that.  I think we are still a top 5 seed in the East.  Contenders?  Not strong ones right now on paper, but Jaylen, Jayson, and Terry are all at that age where one or more of them could make huge leaps in their game which could make us a better team that we'd be expecting.  Gordon could make a comeback.  There's a pretty high floor with that roster, some reasonable upside, and overall I'd be happy with it even if it's not considered "contenders" in the preseason.

I really don't think that is a top 5 team in the East next year.

Milwaukee - clearly better (even if they lose one of their free agents)
Philadelphia - clearly better (even without Butler and Harris, I still think they are better, but I think they keep at least one anyway)
Toronto - clearly better (even losing Kawhi I think they are better, though it would be close)
Indiana - clearly better (assuming Dipo is back)
Brooklyn - if that is Irving's destination then they are clearly better (if he ends up in NY that is a different matter)
New York - free agency/trade dependent, but a very good shot at being clearly better

I also think there is a very good chance that Miami, Detroit, Orlando, or Charlotte end up better

I think that Boston team will probably make the playoffs, but it will be somewhere in the 40-45 win range and frankly I don't see many paths to being much better than that unless Tatum turns into Durant.

Lol classic mind-boggling Moranis logic:

Milwaukee - definitely better, though it would be close if they lose Middleton (which is unlikely)

Toronto - with Kawhi? Definitely better. Without Kawhi? Uh, no. Who would they have? An aging Lowry, Green, Ibaka, and Gasol with Siakam as their number one option? As much as he improved this year, that offense would be less than mediocre without Kawhi. Assuming a lineup of Rozier, Brown, Tatum, Hayward, and Horford with Smart, Baynes, Mook, etc. off the bench that's definitely a better and more well-rounded team than Toronto sans Kawhi.

Philadelphia - same boat. With Butler and Harris? Sure, they're better. Losing both of them? Again, no. This would be the same Celtics team that beat Philly in the 2018 Eastern Semifinals + Hayward and + significantly more experience and expanded roles for Tatum, Brown, Smart, and Rozier, all while facing a significantly weaker Philly team who gave away significant assets for Harris and Butler and have nothing to show for them.

Indiana - hardly "clearly better". With Dipo they're about equal with that iterations of the Celtics.

Brooklyn - dependent upon free agency, but I don't see anything that would make them better than us next year. If you add Kyrie and Durant, then that's clearly not better given that Durant wouldn't play next year. If you add Kyrie to Russell, I think that team is similar in overall talent and ability to Boston and Indiana. While that pairing would be dynamic offensively, that's probably the weakest perimeter defense any team has started in a long, long time, which will cause significant problems with their overall defense in today's NBA. If it's something like Kyrie and Butler/Harris, I still don't see that as putting them better than this Boston group.

New York - again, hard to say due to free agency, but I don't think they're getting the big free agents that they think they're getting this year.

Orlando - Depends upon their free agency, but I think they'll end up a bit better and will probably be in that grouping with Boston and Indiana.

Miami, Detroit, Charlotte - give me a break.

Per usual, you significantly underrate our players and overrate other teams' players. With expanded roles, all three of Tatum, Brown, and Hayward should put up better numbers next year, along with Hayward getting healthier and more confident overall. I'd expect next year's team to be a better version of that 2018 playoffs team with one of Brown or Tatum - maybe even both - making significant leaps with expanded roles and at least one of them reaching their first All-Star game.

That C's team is a 40-45 win team.  I just don't see it better than that, and 45 wins is not going to be a top 5 team in the East.

You only have to go back to 2017 to find a season where 45 wins would get you the 5 seed

Sure, but the conference is a lot better now.

With the prospect of getting significantly worse this offseason. Or at least, significantly more spread out

[Birdman]

I want to win every year!!!

[IDreamCeltics]

Heyward was not totally healthy, that was one of the big issues this season.

This is obviously debatable.  Hayward himself stated multiple times this season he was 100% healthy.  There were no shortage of posts on this board declaring Hayward 100% healthy at various points this season.  Hayward was definitely not a standout player this season, but that's not necessarily because he wasn't healthy.  That could just be because there's not much actual difference in talent between himself, Brown and Tatum, but I digress.   

The fact is that Hayward was completely absent from the 2017-2018 ECF team and Kyrie was absent during their playoff run.  Those guys both played this year and the team got stomped in the second round while both players seemed to quit on the floor after 1 game.

 

[Moranis]

If Horford opts in, Kyrie walks, we resign Rozier, and maybe another minor move or 2 (Morris, backup pg), then I'm OK with that.  I think we are still a top 5 seed in the East.  Contenders?  Not strong ones right now on paper, but Jaylen, Jayson, and Terry are all at that age where one or more of them could make huge leaps in their game which could make us a better team that we'd be expecting.  Gordon could make a comeback.  There's a pretty high floor with that roster, some reasonable upside, and overall I'd be happy with it even if it's not considered "contenders" in the preseason.

I really don't think that is a top 5 team in the East next year.

Milwaukee - clearly better (even if they lose one of their free agents)
Philadelphia - clearly better (even without Butler and Harris, I still think they are better, but I think they keep at least one anyway)
Toronto - clearly better (even losing Kawhi I think they are better, though it would be close)
Indiana - clearly better (assuming Dipo is back)
Brooklyn - if that is Irving's destination then they are clearly better (if he ends up in NY that is a different matter)
New York - free agency/trade dependent, but a very good shot at being clearly better

I also think there is a very good chance that Miami, Detroit, Orlando, or Charlotte end up better

I think that Boston team will probably make the playoffs, but it will be somewhere in the 40-45 win range and frankly I don't see many paths to being much better than that unless Tatum turns into Durant.

Lol classic mind-boggling Moranis logic:

Milwaukee - definitely better, though it would be close if they lose Middleton (which is unlikely)

Toronto - with Kawhi? Definitely better. Without Kawhi? Uh, no. Who would they have? An aging Lowry, Green, Ibaka, and Gasol with Siakam as their number one option? As much as he improved this year, that offense would be less than mediocre without Kawhi. Assuming a lineup of Rozier, Brown, Tatum, Hayward, and Horford with Smart, Baynes, Mook, etc. off the bench that's definitely a better and more well-rounded team than Toronto sans Kawhi.

Philadelphia - same boat. With Butler and Harris? Sure, they're better. Losing both of them? Again, no. This would be the same Celtics team that beat Philly in the 2018 Eastern Semifinals + Hayward and + significantly more experience and expanded roles for Tatum, Brown, Smart, and Rozier, all while facing a significantly weaker Philly team who gave away significant assets for Harris and Butler and have nothing to show for them.

Indiana - hardly "clearly better". With Dipo they're about equal with that iterations of the Celtics.

Brooklyn - dependent upon free agency, but I don't see anything that would make them better than us next year. If you add Kyrie and Durant, then that's clearly not better given that Durant wouldn't play next year. If you add Kyrie to Russell, I think that team is similar in overall talent and ability to Boston and Indiana. While that pairing would be dynamic offensively, that's probably the weakest perimeter defense any team has started in a long, long time, which will cause significant problems with their overall defense in today's NBA. If it's something like Kyrie and Butler/Harris, I still don't see that as putting them better than this Boston group.

New York - again, hard to say due to free agency, but I don't think they're getting the big free agents that they think they're getting this year.

Orlando - Depends upon their free agency, but I think they'll end up a bit better and will probably be in that grouping with Boston and Indiana.

Miami, Detroit, Charlotte - give me a break.

Per usual, you significantly underrate our players and overrate other teams' players. With expanded roles, all three of Tatum, Brown, and Hayward should put up better numbers next year, along with Hayward getting healthier and more confident overall. I'd expect next year's team to be a better version of that 2018 playoffs team with one of Brown or Tatum - maybe even both - making significant leaps with expanded roles and at least one of them reaching their first All-Star game.

That C's team is a 40-45 win team.  I just don't see it better than that, and 45 wins is not going to be a top 5 team in the East.

You only have to go back to 2017 to find a season where 45 wins would get you the 5 seed

Sure, but the conference is a lot better now.

With the prospect of getting significantly worse this offseason. Or at least, significantly more spread out

I described pretty clearly the teams I thought would be better than that hypothetical Celtics team.  I made some assumptions of course, but I think there is at least a reasonable chance that 5 or 6 teams win 50 games in the East next year.  Probably no 60 win teams, but something fairly similar to the top of the West this year, where 5 teams won at least 50 and only 1 was above 55 (I don't think the last 3 playoff teams are 49, 48, and 48 win teams in the East next year (well maybe 6, but not 7 and , that is where I see the drop off coming).

[gouki88]

If Horford opts in, Kyrie walks, we resign Rozier, and maybe another minor move or 2 (Morris, backup pg), then I'm OK with that.  I think we are still a top 5 seed in the East.  Contenders?  Not strong ones right now on paper, but Jaylen, Jayson, and Terry are all at that age where one or more of them could make huge leaps in their game which could make us a better team that we'd be expecting.  Gordon could make a comeback.  There's a pretty high floor with that roster, some reasonable upside, and overall I'd be happy with it even if it's not considered "contenders" in the preseason.

I really don't think that is a top 5 team in the East next year.

Milwaukee - clearly better (even if they lose one of their free agents)
Philadelphia - clearly better (even without Butler and Harris, I still think they are better, but I think they keep at least one anyway)
Toronto - clearly better (even losing Kawhi I think they are better, though it would be close)
Indiana - clearly better (assuming Dipo is back)
Brooklyn - if that is Irving's destination then they are clearly better (if he ends up in NY that is a different matter)
New York - free agency/trade dependent, but a very good shot at being clearly better

I also think there is a very good chance that Miami, Detroit, Orlando, or Charlotte end up better

I think that Boston team will probably make the playoffs, but it will be somewhere in the 40-45 win range and frankly I don't see many paths to being much better than that unless Tatum turns into Durant.

Lol classic mind-boggling Moranis logic:

Milwaukee - definitely better, though it would be close if they lose Middleton (which is unlikely)

Toronto - with Kawhi? Definitely better. Without Kawhi? Uh, no. Who would they have? An aging Lowry, Green, Ibaka, and Gasol with Siakam as their number one option? As much as he improved this year, that offense would be less than mediocre without Kawhi. Assuming a lineup of Rozier, Brown, Tatum, Hayward, and Horford with Smart, Baynes, Mook, etc. off the bench that's definitely a better and more well-rounded team than Toronto sans Kawhi.

Philadelphia - same boat. With Butler and Harris? Sure, they're better. Losing both of them? Again, no. This would be the same Celtics team that beat Philly in the 2018 Eastern Semifinals + Hayward and + significantly more experience and expanded roles for Tatum, Brown, Smart, and Rozier, all while facing a significantly weaker Philly team who gave away significant assets for Harris and Butler and have nothing to show for them.

Indiana - hardly "clearly better". With Dipo they're about equal with that iterations of the Celtics.

Brooklyn - dependent upon free agency, but I don't see anything that would make them better than us next year. If you add Kyrie and Durant, then that's clearly not better given that Durant wouldn't play next year. If you add Kyrie to Russell, I think that team is similar in overall talent and ability to Boston and Indiana. While that pairing would be dynamic offensively, that's probably the weakest perimeter defense any team has started in a long, long time, which will cause significant problems with their overall defense in today's NBA. If it's something like Kyrie and Butler/Harris, I still don't see that as putting them better than this Boston group.

New York - again, hard to say due to free agency, but I don't think they're getting the big free agents that they think they're getting this year.

Orlando - Depends upon their free agency, but I think they'll end up a bit better and will probably be in that grouping with Boston and Indiana.

Miami, Detroit, Charlotte - give me a break.

Per usual, you significantly underrate our players and overrate other teams' players. With expanded roles, all three of Tatum, Brown, and Hayward should put up better numbers next year, along with Hayward getting healthier and more confident overall. I'd expect next year's team to be a better version of that 2018 playoffs team with one of Brown or Tatum - maybe even both - making significant leaps with expanded roles and at least one of them reaching their first All-Star game.

That C's team is a 40-45 win team.  I just don't see it better than that, and 45 wins is not going to be a top 5 team in the East.

You only have to go back to 2017 to find a season where 45 wins would get you the 5 seed

Sure, but the conference is a lot better now.

With the prospect of getting significantly worse this offseason. Or at least, significantly more spread out

I described pretty clearly the teams I thought would be better than that hypothetical Celtics team.  I made some assumptions of course, but I think there is at least a reasonable chance that 5 or 6 teams win 50 games in the East next year.  Probably no 60 win teams, but something fairly similar to the top of the West this year, where 5 teams won at least 50 and only 1 was above 55 (I don't think the last 3 playoff teams are 49, 48, and 48 win teams in the East next year (well maybe 6, but not 7 and , that is where I see the drop off coming).

I guess, like usual, I'm higher on our guys and lower on other teams than you are

[PhoSita]

I really think the focus on predicting win totals is silly.  We've seen how many factors go into what your season record is. It's very hard to predict luck or injuries or how the other teams are going to do.


In my opinion the best way to think about it is:

- How good would the offense be?

- How good would the defense be?


Based on those two things, where do you think the team would be likely to slot into the hierarchy in the East, based on past teams with a similar profile?



We've seen that this group of players under Brad Stevens, with or without Kyrie, is going to be a top 5-10 defense.

In the playoffs last year without Kyrie or Hayward, this group of players was about average on offense.



Even if you assume that none of Tatum, Hayward, or Brown significantly improves offensively (which seems very pessimistic to me), an elite defense coupled with an average offense is probably enough to place you squarely in the middle of the playoff picture, a cut below the elite teams.

That's not to say it'd be enough to win a playoff series.  But I think the notion that without Kyrie the Celts are going to barely sniff .500, or even be a cellar-dweller, doesn't make much sense.

[keevsnick]

Ummm... The team added a healthy Hayward and Kyrie this year and took a step back... Why isn't anyone considering the possibility that we might actually be better off going with the young players... We have more proof that we'll contend with a lineup of young guys than we do with our two "all-stars."

I’m somewhat in this boat.  I would not say better, but with chemistry problems gone, they could certainly win about as many games.  Just wouldn’t be a real contender (as was the case this year I guess).

We did not add a healthy Hayward, we added a pretty mediocre Hayward.

[RodyTur10]

It's either all or nothing for me. If we can't keep Irving and make a reasonable trade for Davis, then I don't think it's worth it to make a desperate attempt for a title run. There are too many question marks. Will Hayward get back to All Star level? How many good years has Horford left? Who's going to run the offense? Is there a possibility to convince Davis to stay?

Sure it worked out great for Toronto, but their situation was a little different. I thought from the start that the Raptors made a great deal. Obviously relying on the backcourt duo Lowry/DeRozan wasn't going to be enough and they didn't have another option than going all-in or watching that team going nowhere.

The Celtics do have a choice. If Irving leaves then that's a huge blow, no other way around it, a top 3 PG in his prime. But in all the acquisitions we didn't lose that many assets (Bradley, Thomas, Crowder, Zizic, Sexton). So if Irving leaves I'm fine with fully trusting our young group (Rozier, Smart, Dozier, Brown, Tatum, Ojeleye, Yabusele, Williams + our picks). Not all of them will make it and neither will those draft picks all work out, but we have a couple of young players who have proven a lot and with some support the ceiling of that core could be very high.

Unfortunately our veterans don't have a lot of trading value, so I'd keep Hayward, Horford and Baynes as mentors. The goal of the team should be to slowly grow, accumulate assets, and hopefully we can add a max free agent in 2021, when Hayward's contract is off the books.

In the case the opportunity is there to give Gordon, Al or Aron a chance to go to a contender we'd of course fulfil that wish. Re-signing Rozier depends on whether we can sign him cheap (less than 8 million a year), otherwise let him walk as he isn't good enough to warrant a big salary. I'd want Theis back, but also only really cheap (in that case trade Yabu for a future second round pick).

The roster for next season would be something like this (nice mix of rookies, young talent and veterans):

PG: Marcus Smart, Brad Wanamaker (or Terry Rozier), #51 Chris Clemons
SG: Jaylen Brown, #22 Dylan Windler, PJ Dozier
SF: Jayson Tatum, Gordon Hayward, Semi Ojeleye
PF: Al Horford, Daniel Theis (or Guerschon Yabusele), #14 Bol Bol
C: Aron Baynes, Robert Williams III, #20 Daniel Gafford

I'd be okay with that.

[__ramonezy__]

I think Wyc and DA are trying too hard to microwave a championship team. If what we want is what the Warriors or Spurs had, then we have to draft and groom a set of core players and establish a style of play through them.

Adding a star to a young team, with its young pieces still developing, is a recipe for Disaster. I'd love to give the young bucks a good run... Steph, Klay, Duncan, Tony Parker, Manu all drafted.

Sometimes it feels like we're building in reverse cuz as soon as a player starts to flourish we try to flip them

[Celtics4ever]

PG: Marcus Smart, Brad Wanamaker (or Terry Rozier), #51 Chris Clemons
SG: Jaylen Brown, #22 Dylan Windler, PJ Dozier
SF: Jayson Tatum, Gordon Hayward, Semi Ojeleye
PF: Al Horford, Daniel Theis (or Guerschon Yabusele), #14 Bol Bol
C: Aron Baynes, Robert Williams III, #20 Daniel Gafford
.

Don't think I want Bol Bol on the team, would rather have someone more durable.  We can't afford to take a novelty guy.