CelticsStrong
Celtics Basketball => Celtics Talk => Topic started by: jambr380 on October 16, 2018, 11:21:11 PM
-
UPDATED: Former poll results from October, a blistering: 86-7 for signing Hayward. Have you changed your mind?
Another cold 'harded' poll (sorry KGLL ;) )
Of course this is based entirely on hindsight. There are many reasons you may want to change your mind on his signing:
More flexibility for future re-signings like Rozier/Morris; other FA signings to make up for the allotment of 30% of our cap space (either last year or in the future); perhaps you wanted DA to trade for George instead.
It is an awful thing to say, but the thought has gone through everybody's heads. What if he's never the same again - are you guys okay with the [significant] cap space he's taking up?
I love Hayward as a player and am still holding out hope that he will once again reach an all-star level, but I can't help but wonder what we could do (or could have done) with max cap space on an already incredible roster - it just doesn't seem fair.
-
You do know he was the best (actual) free agent out there, right?
Since you took the time to create this post, did you think of the other options? Who would you have signed instead?
We wouldn’t have been able to roll over the max cap space to this offseason, so who would you have preferred last summer?
-
it just doesn't seem fair.
Is this why other fanbases hate us?
-
Really? It's never crossed my mind
-
You do know he was the best (actual) free agent out there, right?
Since you took the time to create this post, did you think of the other options? Who would you have signed instead?
We wouldn’t have been able to roll over the max cap space to this offseason, so who would you have preferred last summer?
Paul Millsap. George Hill. Danilo Gallanari? LOL
-
He's a great player coming off a serious injury. Come 2nd half of the season he'll be a big reason we're elevated from good to great if he's healthy.
-
You do know he was the best (actual) free agent out there, right?
Since you took the time to create this post, did you think of the other options? Who would you have signed instead?
We wouldn’t have been able to roll over the max cap space to this offseason, so who would you have preferred last summer?
Paul Millsap. George Hill. Danilo Gallanari? LOL
50 games over a 4 year spell from Gallo would be awesome! ;)
-
He's the perfect cog in the system. We need a facilitator, switch defender knockdown shooter. That's what he is.
Stars like Hayward don't become available for the Celtics every year. Everyone wants to go to La golden state or ny
-
Nah. At the time when we signed him, we expected him to be a clear cut #2 (or even possibly #1) scorer on a team where Isaiah Thomas took MANY shots while the rest of team shot threes and played defense because the talent level wasn’t there. All of a sudden, Kyrie is available and Brown and Tatum are about 2-3 years ahead of schedule development-wise. Sometimes that just happens. Luckily Gordon can facilitate at a high level and will likely end up a wing version of Horford. I still think he’ll have his moments where he scores a ton, just not as much as the other 3 scorers in the starting unit.
-
Hayward will be fine... horford style fine... will not score for us much as in utah but will grow as a leader... we have 3 2way wings everbody would like
-
I just wish Horford and Hayward could win a ring with the Celtics this year. Two max contract players that were inked by the Celtics. Horford deserves a ring for his experiences and plays. Hayward coming in, hopefully he'll be able to fit right in with the young studs. Make it happen, Stevens.
-
No because by the time jaylen or jayson is traded for AD he will be prime
-
I can see it now... A poll in a year's time.
Do you regret signing Kyrie Irving to a supermax contract.
😕😔
By the way.. Who are the others you are talking about who regretted the Hayward signing?...
-
32 to maybe your one, jamb. Guess almost no one but you thought about what it would have been like not to sign Hayward because it wasn't fair that he got hurt.
-
32 to maybe your one, jamb. Guess almost no one but you thought about what it would have been like not to sign Hayward because it wasn't fair that he got hurt.
This is probably the most one-sided poll I've ever seen on CelticsStrong/CelticsBlog
-
I’m still happy he’s here. When healthy, he puts up Paul George numbers, and he’s a good guy who fits in with the team.
-
No because by the time jaylen or jayson is traded for AD he will be prime
Why not trade Hayward for AD instead. It would likely cost the Sac pick and need to involve a third team, but it could make sense a lot of sense.
-
No because by the time jaylen or jayson is traded for AD he will be prime
Why not trade Hayward for AD instead. It would likely cost the Sac pick and need to involve a third team, but it could make sense a lot of sense.
It would be harder to sell a wing in his prime to a New Orleans team that would likely seek the rebuild post-Davis than it would be to sell a young stud wing prospect.
Plus Brad would be furious with Hayward being shipped off I imagine, and it would be truly terrible for our image
-
Hoping this thread dies quickly, serving no purpose and the poll results prove it.
-
No because by the time jaylen or jayson is traded for AD he will be prime
Why not trade Hayward for AD instead. It would likely cost the Sac pick and need to involve a third team, but it could make sense a lot of sense.
It would be harder to sell a wing in his prime to a New Orleans team that would likely seek the rebuild post-Davis than it would be to sell a young stud wing prospect.
Plus Brad would be furious with Hayward being shipped off I imagine, and it would be truly terrible for our image
Good points. It would be tougher to pull off and can't be done until after this season. It would set us up better for the long term though.
-
No, I think he will pan out before it is all over. Give the guy, some time he is coming back from a horrific injury and worked his tail off to get back to play for the Celtics.
-
he looked more comfortable than ever with Boston . Not at Utah level , but its different team and he does not have to be THE MAN evry night . Once he gets his timing. back he ll be great.
-
32 to maybe your one, jamb. Guess almost no one but you thought about what it would have been like not to sign Hayward because it wasn't fair that he got hurt.
I actually voted for Hayward's signing and generally agree with Roy/straightoutta/C4ever and other people who are satisfied enough with his signing, but not blasting me for even having the thought...nice dig, though, nick.
But, I'm not going to lie, I am on the fence. $30M last year could have gone a long way to help that Cs team get to the Finals - even without Kyrie. If the player/players signed with that money had been on 1-2 year contracts, we would have no issue re-signing Terry or Morris (and of course Kyrie) or worry about being in the tax this season.
I think Hayward will be good this year and during his contract, but I don't believe he will be a max player - that doesn't mean I am not happy to have him THIS year.
I am surprised that the poll is so lopsided. I mean, I expected people feel bad and vote for Hayward, but I never imagined so many would double down on having a heart. I imagine it would be even less skewed if we had created this poll immediately after his FA signing when he was coming off an all-star season. Good for Boston fans.
-
32 to maybe your one, jamb. Guess almost no one but you thought about what it would have been like not to sign Hayward because it wasn't fair that he got hurt.
I actually voted for Hayward's signing and generally agree with Roy and straightoutta and other people who are satisfied enough with his signing, but not blasting me for even having the thought...nice dig, though, nick.
But, I'm not going to lie, I am on the fence. $30M last year could have gone a long way to help that Cs team get to the Finals - even without Kyrie. If the player/players signed with that money had been on 1-2 year contracts, we would have no issue re-signing Terry or Morris (and of course Kyrie) or worry about being in the tax this season.
I think Hayward will be good this year and during his contract, but I don't believe he will be a max player - that doesn't mean I am not happy to have him THIS year.
I am surprised that the poll is so lopsided. I mean, I expected people feel bad and vote for Hayward, but I never imagined so many would double down on having a heart. I imagine it would be even less skewed if we had created this poll immediately after his FA signing when he was coming off an all-star season. Good for Boston fans.
I think the time to examine this is after the playoffs.
If Hayward struggles all year, and then Rozier and Morris leave in free agency, I think your argument is stronger.
-
32 to maybe your one, jamb. Guess almost no one but you thought about what it would have been like not to sign Hayward because it wasn't fair that he got hurt.
I actually voted for Hayward's signing and generally agree with Roy and straightoutta and other people who are satisfied enough with his signing, but not blasting me for even having the thought...nice dig, though, nick.
But, I'm not going to lie, I am on the fence. $30M last year could have gone a long way to help that Cs team get to the Finals - even without Kyrie. If the player/players signed with that money had been on 1-2 year contracts, we would have no issue re-signing Terry or Morris (and of course Kyrie) or worry about being in the tax this season.
I think Hayward will be good this year and during his contract, but I don't believe he will be a max player - that doesn't mean I am not happy to have him THIS year.
I am surprised that the poll is so lopsided. I mean, I expected people feel bad and vote for Hayward, but I never imagined so many would double down on having a heart. I imagine it would be even less skewed if we had created this poll immediately after his FA signing when he was coming off an all-star season. Good for Boston fans.
I think the time to examine this is after the playoffs.
If Hayward struggles all year, and then Rozier and Morris leave in free agency, I think your argument is stronger.
A bit, but not enough to regret the Hayward signing, as the reality is Boston wouldn't have had the cap space to do anything meaningful this past summer anyway (wouldn't be in the tax, but wouldn't have been able to sign anyone of note). So the real question is what would Boston have done with the money that Hayward got. First, I assume without the need to clear cap space, Boston doesn't do the Bradley/Morris trade, so Morris isn't on the team anyway and Bradley is (well maybe see next point). Second, while I think Ainge still does the IT/Irving trade, I'm not sure it is a given or that it would have ended up looking the same, especially since Bradley would have made more sense in Cleveland than Crowder. Third, if Boston didn't use the cap space to land Hayward, I think Ainge would have been more aggressive in the trade market that summer. It probably would have been too late for Butler or George (though maybe George happens if Ainge isn't getting the warm and fuzzies from Hayward), but I think he would have been pretty aggressive and done something.
In other words, you take Hayward off the team and last summer and last year's team in general probably looks a lot different. Maybe it is better or maybe it is worse. Just so many variables at play.
-
In other words, you take Hayward off the team and last summer and last year's team in general probably looks a lot different. Maybe it is better or maybe it is worse. Just so many variables at play.
TP Moranis - thanks for breaking down some of the things that may have gone differently. I do agree [obviously] that we need to give Hayward more time and I am quite excited for his return, but a team with George and Crowder would also certainly be interesting.
There were also some FA targets in 2017 that could have been had for far less than the max. Ignoring RFA matching rules for a moment, what if we had signed Bogdanovic and Tyreke Evans or Ingles and Jonathan Simmons? Either combination would have been far below the max, but may have had significant impact on last year's team and could have given us the flexibility to re-sign our own FAs in the future.
I need to re-iterate that having Hayward on this current team is awesome - I just wanted to see how people felt about his signing now. I truly am surprised that only one person (so far) has seen Hayward as worse than all other possibilities given his injury.
-
In other words, you take Hayward off the team and last summer and last year's team in general probably looks a lot different. Maybe it is better or maybe it is worse. Just so many variables at play.
TP Moranis - thanks for breaking down some of the things that may have gone differently. I do agree [obviously] that we need to give Hayward more time and I am quite excited for his return, but a team with George and Crowder would also certainly be interesting.
There were also some FA targets in 2017 that could have been had for far less than the max. Ignoring RFA matching rules for a moment, what if we had signed Bogdanovic and Tyreke Evans or Ingles and Jonathan Simmons? Either combination would have been far below the max, but may have had significant impact on last year's team and could have given us the flexibility to re-sign our own FAs in the future.
I need to re-iterate that having Hayward on this current team is awesome - I just wanted to see how people felt about his signing now. I truly am surprised that only one person (so far) has seen Hayward as better than all other possibilities given his injury.
huh?
-
In other words, you take Hayward off the team and last summer and last year's team in general probably looks a lot different. Maybe it is better or maybe it is worse. Just so many variables at play.
TP Moranis - thanks for breaking down some of the things that may have gone differently. I do agree [obviously] that we need to give Hayward more time and I am quite excited for his return, but a team with George and Crowder would also certainly be interesting.
There were also some FA targets in 2017 that could have been had for far less than the max. Ignoring RFA matching rules for a moment, what if we had signed Bogdanovic and Tyreke Evans or Ingles and Jonathan Simmons? Either combination would have been far below the max, but may have had significant impact on last year's team and could have given us the flexibility to re-sign our own FAs in the future.
I need to re-iterate that having Hayward on this current team is awesome - I just wanted to see how people felt about his signing now. I truly am surprised that only one person (so far) has seen Hayward as worse than all other possibilities given his injury.
huh?
The basic point is that DA wouldn't have done nothing with the $30M in cap space he had in 2017. He is a shrewd and creative GM and he would have made other moves to improve this franchise.
Only one person so far thinks those other possibilities would have been better than signing a max FA who was unavailable all of last year (and could possibly be hindered moving forward). That is surprising because I think more than 2% of people were actually less happy with the Hayward signing when it happened than they [apparently] are now. As I've mentioned, I am on the fence and am cautiously satisfied with Hayward's signing, but am also confident in DA's abilities to find reasonable Plans B and C.
-
In other words, you take Hayward off the team and last summer and last year's team in general probably looks a lot different. Maybe it is better or maybe it is worse. Just so many variables at play.
TP Moranis - thanks for breaking down some of the things that may have gone differently. I do agree [obviously] that we need to give Hayward more time and I am quite excited for his return, but a team with George and Crowder would also certainly be interesting.
There were also some FA targets in 2017 that could have been had for far less than the max. Ignoring RFA matching rules for a moment, what if we had signed Bogdanovic and Tyreke Evans or Ingles and Jonathan Simmons? Either combination would have been far below the max, but may have had significant impact on last year's team and could have given us the flexibility to re-sign our own FAs in the future.
I need to re-iterate that having Hayward on this current team is awesome - I just wanted to see how people felt about his signing now. I truly am surprised that only one person (so far) has seen Hayward as better than all other possibilities given his injury.
huh?
That's helpful. The basic point is that DA wouldn't have done nothing with the $30M in cap space he had in 2017. He is a shrewd and creative GM and he would have made other moves to improve this franchise.
Only one person so far thinks those other possibilities would have been better than signing a max FA who was unavailable all of last year (and could possibly be hindered moving forward). That is surprising because I think more than 2% of people were actually less happy with the Hayward signing when it happened than they [apparently] are now. As I've mentioned, I am on the fence and am cautiously satisfied with Hayward's signing, but am also confident in DA's abilities to find reasonable Plans B and C.
reread what you wrote, then you’ll see what the huh is about
-
I wish for a lot of things but this ain't on any of my lists. Where do people EDIT: No name calling. Be civil.come up with this stuff? ;D
-
reread what you wrote, then you’ll see what the huh is about
It's been corrected - tp for the heads up. It gets tiring trying to defend a position I don't even believe in! :)
-
At the moment, the poll is 50-1. I'm beyond curious as to who voted against signing Hayward.
The OP seems to be assuming that any of the other players that Danny could have signed instead, would have been healthy all season. Who's to say that player wouldn't have suffered the same fate and missed the entire season. Hayward suffered a freak injury that could have happened to anyone. To be fair, I understand the thought process behind the question, but it is still far too soon to even question the signing.
The chance of the Celtics winning one or more titles, will have more to do with Hayward than any journeyman that Danny would have ever been able to sign last offseason.
-
Hindsight is always 20-20.
I wish he didn't get injured. I wished IT was 7" taller too. I think Hayward will fit into any style of play the Celtics can dream up. He can pass well, score well, rebound, and defend.
I'm thankful for the team and organization we have.
-
Hindsight is always 20-20.
I wish he didn't get injured. I wished IT was 7" taller too. I think Hayward will fit into any style of play the Celtics can dream up. He can pass well, score well, rebound, and defend.
I'm thankful for the team and organization we have.
Me, too - which is what made me think of the question. We assigned 30% of our cap to a player who played a total of 5 minutes and we still went to the ECF last year. Not only without Hayward, but without Kyrie, too - that is crazy!
But, in another world where we didn't make the BKN trade (or the Tatum/Fultz deal by extension), we re-signed IT to a huge contract, and Horford chose to go elsewhere, well, then this would put us in an entirely different position. Our entire livelihood would have depended on Hayward and it would have been devastating.
I was just trying to ask the question, if you had it to do all over again, would you make a different decision? One of my main reasons for being in the middle is because Danny has been on one of the greatest GM runs of all-time. If he wasn't able to sign Hayward, he surely would have made other dramatic moves. Can't we assume another impact player, say of Joe Ingles' caliber, probably would have pushed us to the Finals. That would have been exciting! And it still would have allowed us to sign our own FAs when the time comes next spring.
Like I said, though, good for Celtics Strong nation. You people really are a stand-up crowd. Having Hayward's back like this is not something all franchises can count on. I can't imagine the Miami Heat fans are too happy still paying Chris Bosh's max contract, despite the fact that he helped bring them two championships.
-
32 to maybe your one, jamb. Guess almost no one but you thought about what it would have been like not to sign Hayward because it wasn't fair that he got hurt.
I actually voted for Hayward's signing and generally agree with Roy/straightoutta/C4ever and other people who are satisfied enough with his signing, but not blasting me for even having the thought...nice dig, though, nick.
But, I'm not going to lie, I am on the fence. $30M last year could have gone a long way to help that Cs team get to the Finals - even without Kyrie. If the player/players signed with that money had been on 1-2 year contracts, we would have no issue re-signing Terry or Morris (and of course Kyrie) or worry about being in the tax this season.
I think Hayward will be good this year and during his contract, but I don't believe he will be a max player - that doesn't mean I am not happy to have him THIS year.
I am surprised that the poll is so lopsided. I mean, I expected people feel bad and vote for Hayward, but I never imagined so many would double down on having a heart. I imagine it would be even less skewed if we had created this poll immediately after his FA signing when he was coming off an all-star season. Good for Boston fans.
Gee, real sorry you took it as me taking a shot at you jambr, I didn't mean it that way. I was just making the point that not a lot of people agreed with the sentiment, possibly even you, which is why I said maybe. TP
-
32 to maybe your one, jamb. Guess almost no one but you thought about what it would have been like not to sign Hayward because it wasn't fair that he got hurt.
I actually voted for Hayward's signing and generally agree with Roy/straightoutta/C4ever and other people who are satisfied enough with his signing, but not blasting me for even having the thought...nice dig, though, nick.
But, I'm not going to lie, I am on the fence. $30M last year could have gone a long way to help that Cs team get to the Finals - even without Kyrie. If the player/players signed with that money had been on 1-2 year contracts, we would have no issue re-signing Terry or Morris (and of course Kyrie) or worry about being in the tax this season.
I think Hayward will be good this year and during his contract, but I don't believe he will be a max player - that doesn't mean I am not happy to have him THIS year.
I am surprised that the poll is so lopsided. I mean, I expected people feel bad and vote for Hayward, but I never imagined so many would double down on having a heart. I imagine it would be even less skewed if we had created this poll immediately after his FA signing when he was coming off an all-star season. Good for Boston fans.
I'm generally in agreement with what you're saying here, but who would they have used that extra $30 million on after the season started? Truly curious, not attacking.
-
Prediction:
By the end of the season, instead of debating whether we should have signed Gordon, we will be debating whether or not he is the most valuable player on this team. He brings a skill set unmatched by anyone else we have, and can't wait for him to return to full health so as to put in on display.
-
People are slitting their wrists about Hayward already? Dude's played 1 official game since he got injured a year ago. :o
-
Prediction:
By the end of the season, instead of debating whether we should have signed Gordon, we will be debating whether or not he is the most valuable player on this team. He brings a skill set unmatched by anyone else we have, and can't wait for him to return to full health so as to put in on display.
Agree with this prediction
-
Hindsight is always 20-20.
I wish he didn't get injured. I wished IT was 7" taller too. I think Hayward will fit into any style of play the Celtics can dream up. He can pass well, score well, rebound, and defend.
I'm thankful for the team and organization we have.
Me, too - which is what made me think of the question. We assigned 30% of our cap to a player who played a total of 5 minutes and we still went to the ECF last year. Not only without Hayward, but without Kyrie, too - that is crazy!
But, in another world where we didn't make the BKN trade (or the Tatum/Fultz deal by extension), we re-signed IT to a huge contract, and Horford chose to go elsewhere, well, then this would put us in an entirely different position. Our entire livelihood would have depended on Hayward and it would have been devastating.
I was just trying to ask the question, if you had it to do all over again, would you make a different decision? One of my main reasons for being in the middle is because Danny has been on one of the greatest GM runs of all-time. If he wasn't able to sign Hayward, he surely would have made other dramatic moves. Can't we assume another impact player, say of Joe Ingles' caliber, probably would have pushed us to the Finals. That would have been exciting! And it still would have allowed us to sign our own FAs when the time comes next spring.
Like I said, though, good for Celtics Strong nation. You people really are a stand-up crowd. Having Hayward's back like this is not something all franchises can count on. I can't imagine the Miami Heat fans are too happy still paying Chris Bosh's max contract, despite the fact that he helped bring them two championships.
I guess what you are talking about is return on investment. Have we got the return on the investment we made in our asset? If you look at it right now then obviously the answer is no, because the asset got injured and in the time it took for him to recover additional assets increased in value which made him look like he was worth less.
But when you're really looking at return on investment you'd want a longer time horizon than one year (unless that's how long you signed him for). He was signed for 4 years and sure one year was wasted but there's still 3 years to go on the investment and we'll get a better idea on how to answer your question after we've seen some games under his belt.
-
Hindsight is always 20-20.
I wish he didn't get injured. I wished IT was 7" taller too. I think Hayward will fit into any style of play the Celtics can dream up. He can pass well, score well, rebound, and defend.
I'm thankful for the team and organization we have.
Me, too - which is what made me think of the question. We assigned 30% of our cap to a player who played a total of 5 minutes and we still went to the ECF last year. Not only without Hayward, but without Kyrie, too - that is crazy!
But, in another world where we didn't make the BKN trade (or the Tatum/Fultz deal by extension), we re-signed IT to a huge contract, and Horford chose to go elsewhere, well, then this would put us in an entirely different position. Our entire livelihood would have depended on Hayward and it would have been devastating.
I was just trying to ask the question, if you had it to do all over again, would you make a different decision? One of my main reasons for being in the middle is because Danny has been on one of the greatest GM runs of all-time. If he wasn't able to sign Hayward, he surely would have made other dramatic moves. Can't we assume another impact player, say of Joe Ingles' caliber, probably would have pushed us to the Finals. That would have been exciting! And it still would have allowed us to sign our own FAs when the time comes next spring.
Like I said, though, good for Celtics Strong nation. You people really are a stand-up crowd. Having Hayward's back like this is not something all franchises can count on. I can't imagine the Miami Heat fans are too happy still paying Chris Bosh's max contract, despite the fact that he helped bring them two championships.
I guess what you are talking about is return on investment. Have we got the return on the investment we made in our asset? If you look at it right now then obviously the answer is no, because the asset got injured and in the time it took for him to recover additional assets increased in value which made him look like he was worth less.
But when you're really looking at return on investment you'd want a longer time horizon than one year (unless that's how long you signed him for). He was signed for 4 years and sure one year was wasted but there's still 3 years to go on the investment and we'll get a better idea on how to answer your question after we've seen some games under his belt.
Yeah, as of now we haven't gotten the production one would want from $30m of spending, obviously.
However, I don't think that there was any guys at the time who we'd rather. Mill sap managed ~30 or so games. Gallo regularly hovers around 50 games. Was Blake Griffin a FA? I can't remember.
Even in terms of resigning Rozier/Morris, regardless of having Hayward or not having Rozier demand $20m/year would be problematic, because he really isn't that good. No regrets for me
-
32 to maybe your one, jamb. Guess almost no one but you thought about what it would have been like not to sign Hayward because it wasn't fair that he got hurt.
I actually voted for Hayward's signing and generally agree with Roy/straightoutta/C4ever and other people who are satisfied enough with his signing, but not blasting me for even having the thought...nice dig, though, nick.
But, I'm not going to lie, I am on the fence. $30M last year could have gone a long way to help that Cs team get to the Finals - even without Kyrie. If the player/players signed with that money had been on 1-2 year contracts, we would have no issue re-signing Terry or Morris (and of course Kyrie) or worry about being in the tax this season.
I think Hayward will be good this year and during his contract, but I don't believe he will be a max player - that doesn't mean I am not happy to have him THIS year.
I am surprised that the poll is so lopsided. I mean, I expected people feel bad and vote for Hayward, but I never imagined so many would double down on having a heart. I imagine it would be even less skewed if we had created this poll immediately after his FA signing when he was coming off an all-star season. Good for Boston fans.
Gee, real sorry you took it as me taking a shot at you jambr, I didn't mean it that way. I was just making the point that not a lot of people agreed with the sentiment, possibly even you, which is why I said maybe. TP
TP to you, too, Nick. Sorry if I was a little snippy - stressful work stuff lately and I'm interpreting everything as being negative.
-
Yeah, as of now we haven't gotten the production one would want from $30m of spending, obviously.
However, I don't think that there was any guys at the time who we'd rather. Mill sap managed ~30 or so games. Gallo regularly hovers around 50 games. Was Blake Griffin a FA? I can't remember.
Even in terms of resigning Rozier/Morris, regardless of having Hayward or not having Rozier demand $20m/year would be problematic, because he really isn't that good. No regrets for me
TPs to both you and gouki, and yes, I am definitely a huge return on investment guy in all facets of my life (value, efficiency, etc). I am certainly hopeful of Hayward's return to a near all-star level, but none of us can be sure. I do believe he will at least be a useful player who helps us win games on offense and defense.
As to what I would have done if forced to choose otherwise - assuming Hayward re-signed with Utah, that would have made Joe Ingles available. I would have signed him to his current contract (4 years / $52M) or less. I would have also considered another mid-level signing or two on short money. If I had Danny level foresight, Tyreke Evans would have been a great target, but would have reached out to JaMychal Green and Jonathan Simmons.
I understand the apprehension on Rozier. He is not currently a $20M player, but I doubt DA was offering any more than $12-13M in an extension. If we had the money, I could have seen them meeting somewhere in the middle and I would have been okay with that given Rozier's upward trajectory. Also, I like Morris, but don't see him in double-digit figures per year so I would be quite happy hanging on to him for multiple years.
-
None at all.
Still thankful we got him.
In this until the end.
He brought me so much joy seeing him playing last night..getting physical...got knocked down a few times but got back up EVERY single time..
Dude is healthy - FINALLY.
He'll get his basketball conditioning back eventually.
Can't look back..THIS is the team that will knock off the giants of the league over the next few years.
(https://d13csqd2kn0ewr.cloudfront.net/uploads/image/file/319817/cropped_download__1_.jpg?ts=1539705605)
Just have to stay the course, circle the wagons and go with what we have on the roster right now. This team will compete for Banners.
-
TPs to both you and gouki, and yes, I am definitely a huge return on investment guy in all facets of my life (value, efficiency, etc). I am certainly hopeful of Hayward's return to a near all-star level, but none of us can be sure. I do believe he will at least be a useful player who helps us win games on offense and defense.
Well he definitely looked better tonight. We may get the ROI we expected from him sooner rather than later at least.
-
Hindsight is always 20-20.
I wish he didn't get injured. I wished IT was 7" taller too. I think Hayward will fit into any style of play the Celtics can dream up. He can pass well, score well, rebound, and defend.
I'm thankful for the team and organization we have.
Me, too - which is what made me think of the question. We assigned 30% of our cap to a player who played a total of 5 minutes and we still went to the ECF last year. Not only without Hayward, but without Kyrie, too - that is crazy!
But, in another world where we didn't make the BKN trade (or the Tatum/Fultz deal by extension), we re-signed IT to a huge contract, and Horford chose to go elsewhere, well, then this would put us in an entirely different position. Our entire livelihood would have depended on Hayward and it would have been devastating.
I was just trying to ask the question, if you had it to do all over again, would you make a different decision? One of my main reasons for being in the middle is because Danny has been on one of the greatest GM runs of all-time. If he wasn't able to sign Hayward, he surely would have made other dramatic moves. Can't we assume another impact player, say of Joe Ingles' caliber, probably would have pushed us to the Finals. That would have been exciting! And it still would have allowed us to sign our own FAs when the time comes next spring.
Like I said, though, good for Celtics Strong nation. You people really are a stand-up crowd. Having Hayward's back like this is not something all franchises can count on. I can't imagine the Miami Heat fans are too happy still paying Chris Bosh's max contract, despite the fact that he helped bring them two championships.
The premise of this thread and east subsequent post you try to justify it with doesn’t make any sense.
Wishing for Joe Ingles instead so we could’ve won one extra game in May is ridiculous. I have no idea why you go to this parallel universe where we didn’t make the BKN trade or signed Horford (but we did steal IT from Phoenix), yet still expect him to have the same injury when ALL of his teammates would have been different (and at least two of his opponents) at the time it happened. I really don’t see the logic there.
Basically what you’re saying is that we bought a stock for $100 (all-star in his prime), it plummeted to a penny stock for a year (inactive), is currently at $75 (shaking off the rust and regaining strength/conditioning/mentality) with a forecast of $150 (main cog on championship team).... and you wish you bought a stock for $60 that’s now maybe $70. If you were a day trader, you should have done that. But Danny doesn’t hand out max contracts for what he gets in year 1 only. Nobody could have predicted what happened, and without Kyrie I don’t think Hayward (or Joe Ingles) made us better than GSW last year. This year with Kyrie and Gordon healthy, we are close.
So what did he really cost us, an Eastern Conference title? We are the Celtics, nobody is celebrating 2010. I’ll take what he gives us on the backend of his contract than the missed year that would have led us to maybe two or three extra wins that didn’t hang a banner.
Hayward was the right play in July 2017, and everything that’s happened since still doesn’t change that.
-
I think we saw flashes of what he can be last night and I was pleased good to see him doing well.
-
TPs to both you and gouki, and yes, I am definitely a huge return on investment guy in all facets of my life (value, efficiency, etc). I am certainly hopeful of Hayward's return to a near all-star level, but none of us can be sure. I do believe he will at least be a useful player who helps us win games on offense and defense.
Well he definitely looked better tonight. We may get the ROI we expected from him sooner rather than later at least.
Totally! I was happy to see him be much more active and decisive. He could use a bit more 'explosiveness', but last game was completely different than game 1 and the pre-season. Let's hope he continues to show more progress!
As for GreenEnvy's response above; perhaps you could be a little more respectful. I didn't create the thread in order to tear into Hayward. Paying Hayward an extra $30M last year to do nothing shouldn't necessarily be a slam dunk for every Cs fan when we very easily could have (and probably would have) made the Finals with another starting level player or two coming off the bench. I get it, we probably wouldn't have won the championship, but you just never know what will happen until it plays out.
Going forward we would have had more flexibility as he is more of an expensive luxury (what a luxury!) with Tatum and Brown taking such big leaps. Ingles, Simmons, Evans, etc were just other options that could have helped us for much less money and commitment. It is not ridiculous that people wouldn't be 100% all-aboard the 30% of-our-payroll Hayward right now. Also, the premise that he will somehow be 150% of his former self seems like a reach (best player on championship team? Really?). I think most of us would be thankful if he reached $.90 on the dollar.
I realized a day after I posted the thread that I should have worded it differently. If the poll read, "Would you have still signed Hayward?" instead of "Do you wish we had never signed him?" then I think it would have been less harsh sounding and might have brought in slightly different results. As I mentioned previously, I think more people were against his signing when it happened than they are right now. That goes to show how much Cs fans support one of 'theirs' more than anything else...and that is pretty cool.
-
Shouldnt resign Smart
-
Shouldnt resign Smart
Not sure if you are more of a Rozier fan, but I think we will have a 2nd shot at this decision next summer. If the Cs deem Rozier a staple of their future, then Smart will still be tradable for a TPE at the very least. A lot of teams will have cap space next summer and some will whiff on their targets. Smart would make a nice back-up option for a team looking to instill a tougher attitude into their team's culture.
Of course Smart could always be used to help match salaries in an AD trade, which I think almost all of us would be over-the-moon about (even more so than current Hayward ;) )
-
No, I don't. Hayward was the best of the best we could acquire and we did it.
What's the alternative?
Danny tried for Durant and couldn't get him.
I'll take Gordon any day!
-
Shouldnt resign Smart
I highly disagree. Even if you think he isn’t a fit for us going forward (which I’d also disagree with), he has value around the league and signing him is better than letting him walk.
-
So I'm looking at these early games for and indication of where we might be 20 games in.
Hayward is going to get a lot of minutes. Worth it. Liked the rebounding. Shooting coming to form nicely. Finishing okay.
As for the younger players upcoming paydays and opportunity cost of sighning Gord, first I'd say that the cost in team salary and tax to field a legitimate contender is outrageous, and owners say they'll pay it. It seems to take 9 starters including 4 all stars, and some insurance ring chasers. That's a lot of money. Rozier might get $15M+ from us after all. Jalen too. That's what it's going to take.
-
Do I regret signing Hayward? Heck no, he’s going to be the best player on this team by mid season.
-
Do I regret signing Hayward? Heck no, he’s going to be the best player on this team by mid season.
Yeah. Really really looking forward to watching full-strength Gordon out there with the other starters in a few months. Already liking the curls and cuts on offense, and I see the outlines of another long, plus defender. We’re gonna be tough!
-
It's a moot question. Quite a different team when Hayward was signed. Today, they don't sign him. Right now, they are having chemistry problems with all those good players they have.
-
It's a moot question. Quite a different team when Hayward was signed. Today, they don't sign him. Right now, they are having chemistry problems with all those good players they have.
I hardly think it's a matter of having chemistry problems because we have too many good players. I think those chemistry problems would exist regardless.
And if we had max space, and Hayward was a free agent, we definitely do sign him. He's better than Brown by a comfortable margin, and I think once he's completely in his groove he's better than Tatum. Plus, CBS loves him
-
It's a moot question. Quite a different team when Hayward was signed. Today, they don't sign him. Right now, they are having chemistry problems with all those good players they have.
I hardly think it's a matter of having chemistry problems because we have too many good players. I think those chemistry problems would exist regardless.
And if we had max space, and Hayward was a free agent, we definitely do sign him. He's better than Brown by a comfortable margin, and I think once he's completely in his groove he's better than Tatum. Plus, CBS loves him
I mean in retrospect yes signing Hayward to a max deal when we drafted two different players #3 overall who play his position looks a little ridiculous.
And yes, many of his detractors will point out that Hayward is on his 9th NBA season and has averaged 20 pts per game only once.
And I get that somehow Utah actually improved without him.
But Hayward is still a very servicable vet - and ok, it's a little dangerous to tie up 30 million a year in a player who's sub-elite at their position, but sometimes you have to overpay for guys that will back up the coaching staff.
And maybe Jae Crowder (now playing in Utah) is currentlyl outscoring Hayward, but Jae Crowder isn't walking through that door to play for 7.3 million a year (his current contract) until 2020 folks.
-
Do people seriously think we wouldn't sign Hayward if given the chance today? Brown and Tatum aren't even close to haywards defensive ability yet. Offensively Hayward is better than both as well, although Tatum is closing in. That doesn't mean Hayward wouldn't have been signed.
-
It's a moot question. Quite a different team when Hayward was signed. Today, they don't sign him. Right now, they are having chemistry problems with all those good players they have.
I hardly think it's a matter of having chemistry problems because we have too many good players. I think those chemistry problems would exist regardless.
And if we had max space, and Hayward was a free agent, we definitely do sign him. He's better than Brown by a comfortable margin, and I think once he's completely in his groove he's better than Tatum. Plus, CBS loves him
I mean in retrospect yes signing Hayward to a max deal when we drafted two different players #3 overall who play his position looks a little ridiculous.
And yes, many of his detractors will point out that Hayward is on his 9th NBA season and has averaged 20 pts per game only once.
And I get that somehow Utah actually improved without him.
But Hayward is still a very servicable vet - and ok, it's a little dangerous to tie up 30 million a year in a player who's sub-elite at their position, but sometimes you have to overpay for guys that will back up the coaching staff.
And maybe Jae Crowder (now playing in Utah) is currentlyl outscoring Hayward, but Jae Crowder isn't walking through that door to play for 7.3 million a year (his current contract) until 2020 folks.
I think long term neither Tatum nor Brown will play the 3.
Pointing out those stats is a bit foolish. As a consistent starter (ie the 306 games over 2014-2017) he averages 19/5/4. So it's hardly like his lone season over 20 came out of nowhere, as he had 19.3 and 19.7 seasons before.
In what world is winning 3 less games a better season?
It's also far too early to say Hayward is sub-elite, which he isn't. Wait for him to return to Paul George levels.
Scoring is everything after all isn't it! That's why Mirotic is the consensus bets player in New Orleans
-
Hayward will be ok . He is progressing . It will be at least Jan before i expect him to be close to his pre injury self
-
I can see it now... A poll in a year's time.
Do you regret signing Kyrie Irving to a supermax contract.
😕😔
By the way.. Who are the others you are talking about who regretted the Hayward signing?...
I'll go ahead and vote now on the Kyrie contract if you would like.
-
I think Hayward needs a new role. At least while he's getting his feet on the ground. That would be 6th man as offense off the bench.
Tatum and Brown have changed the dynamic the past year. Also Rozier. And seems like Ainge-Stevens haven't completely adjusted to that. Looks like they just stacked all the money together in the starting lineup.
They need to use their athleticism to run more, get better shots and play defense. The emphasis has to be on athleticism. That should be their strength. This is a young team.
And I'd like to see that kid Williams out there rebounding and blocking shots. Playing above the rim. Forget about shooting. Nobody ever taught Russell how to shoot. That was for the shooters. Just do your job.
This is an important year for Stevens. The team has to move up.
-
This topic was originally started in mid-October and I was blasted by some for even creating it. Now that the season is complete and we have seen how Hayward's recovery has gone, do you wish we had never signed Hayward?
The OP has been updated. Former poll results from mid-October - one of the most one-sided polls ever on CB: 86-7 for signing Hayward - have been set back to 0 so we can gauge how people feel now.
-
UPDATED: Former poll results from October, a blistering: 86-7 for signing Hayward. Have you changed your mind?
Another cold 'harded' poll (sorry KGLL ;) )
Of course this is based entirely on hindsight. There are many reasons you may want to change your mind on his signing:
More flexibility for future re-signings like Rozier/Morris; other FA signings to make up for the allotment of 30% of our cap space (either last year or in the future); perhaps you wanted DA to trade for George instead.
It is an awful thing to say, but the thought has gone through everybody's heads. What if he's never the same again - are you guys okay with the [significant] cap space he's taking up?
I love Hayward as a player and am still holding out hope that he will once again reach an all-star level, but I can't help but wonder what we could do (or could have done) with max cap space on an already incredible roster - it just doesn't seem fair.
Dude he had a horrific injury
Be a little sensitive
Hopefully the version below will be back next season. Big difference
https://youtu.be/YEt8p6a6uXU
-
I think it's pretty unfair to say no. Hindsight is 20/20, and he'd never really been injured before Jae and LeBron broke his leg. Plus I'm not sure Millsap would really be good for us
-
Ashame about his injury.
But its hard to argue that the first 2 years of his contract have been a net negative. I hope he returns to form, but I'm not optimistic.
-
I think it's pretty unfair to say no. Hindsight is 20/20, and he'd never really been injured before Jae and LeBron broke his leg. Plus I'm not sure Millsap would really be good for us
It's totally unfair - hindsight is impossible. I am certainly not try to be cut throat here - just trying to see where CB is on the issue now that the season is over.
Leaving emotion out of it, and assuming Gordon never sees your response, I think it's fair to question the signing. Disclaimer, I was orignally a 'for' vote (barely) so I am not on here to do an 'I told you so' rally, or anything
-
Yes, because then he wouldnt have gotten injured. He'd probably be thriving on some other team.
It was a total fluke injury that was completely unforeseeable.
-
Yes, because then he wouldnt have gotten injured. He'd probably be thriving on some other team.
It was a total fluke injury that was completely unforeseeable.
That is a very good point (and not one I remember being brought up before). By signing with Boston, an All-Star in his prime has been relegated to average NBA player even after many months of grueling rehab. Had Hayward signed literally anywhere else, he would be a dynamic star beloved by the city in which he was playing.
My vote has now changed to 'wish we had made another decision'. Pho is making a compelling case why the poll results should drastically change this time around (outside of performance, of course).
-
Yes, because then he wouldnt have gotten injured. He'd probably be thriving on some other team.
It was a total fluke injury that was completely unforeseeable.
That is a very good point (and not one I remember being brought up before). By signing with Boston, an All-Star in his prime has been relegated to average NBA player even after many months of grueling rehab. Had Hayward signed literally anywhere else, he would be a dynamic star beloved by the city in which he was playing.
My vote has now changed to 'wish we had made another decision'. Pho is making a compelling case why the poll results should drastically change this time around (outside of performance, of course).
Dang, thinking about it like that is sorta depressing.
-
Yes, because then he wouldnt have gotten injured. He'd probably be thriving on some other team.
It was a total fluke injury that was completely unforeseeable.
That is a very good point (and not one I remember being brought up before). By signing with Boston, an All-Star in his prime has been relegated to average NBA player even after many months of grueling rehab. Had Hayward signed literally anywhere else, he would be a dynamic star beloved by the city in which he was playing.
That's one possibility. He also could've went to literally any other team but plateaued as a nice Khris Middleton type player who's 1 all star appearance proved to be a fluke.
There's a lot of alternate scenarios.
-
I voted no because I think if Hayward had shown no interest then Ainge would have pulled the trigger on Paul George.
-
If Hayward returns 100% next year and is back to his old self, he can be a difference maker. If that occurs after Kyrie signs and Davis is traded here, most likely Boston becomes one of the favorites to win the title. If the Celtics win a title with a major contribution from old level Hayward, it will have been a good signing and well worth the wait for him.
-
I wish he never snapped his ankle.
-
If Hayward returns 100% next year and is back to his old self, he can be a difference maker. If that occurs after Kyrie signs and Davis is traded here, most likely Boston becomes one of the favorites to win the title. If the Celtics win a title with a major contribution from old level Hayward, it will have been a good signing and well worth the wait for him.
This would absolutely be the ideal scenario and one we are all hopeful will happen. We still have two years left for this to work...or not. Wouldn't it be funny if Hayward had a great year next season and opted out to sign a bigger max contract with another team? Ouch.
-
Yes.
Injury or not he wasn't meant to play in the East.
The injury set him back 5 yrs.. He looks and plays so tentative like he just got out of the draft but older.
-
Yes, because then he wouldnt have gotten injured. He'd probably be thriving on some other team.
It was a total fluke injury that was completely unforeseeable.
That is a very good point (and not one I remember being brought up before). By signing with Boston, an All-Star in his prime has been relegated to average NBA player even after many months of grueling rehab. Had Hayward signed literally anywhere else, he would be a dynamic star beloved by the city in which he was playing.
My vote has now changed to 'wish we had made another decision'. Pho is making a compelling case why the poll results should drastically change this time around (outside of performance, of course).
Dang, thinking about it like that is sorta depressing.
Maybe he gets hit by a bus if he went to Chicago, or struck by lightning in Dallas.
-
If Hayward returns 100% next year and is back to his old self, he can be a difference maker. If that occurs after Kyrie signs and Davis is traded here, most likely Boston becomes one of the favorites to win the title. If the Celtics win a title with a major contribution from old level Hayward, it will have been a good signing and well worth the wait for him.
This would absolutely be the ideal scenario and one we are all hopeful will happen. We still have two years left for this to work...or not. Wouldn't it be funny if Hayward had a great year next season and opted out to sign a bigger max contract with another team? Ouch.
Always possible but it’d be a heck of a note; is there any sign the team failed to stick by him during his essentially 2-year injury?
-
On the flip side I wonder if Gordon wishes he never signed here. Kyrie wouldn't have passed him the ball that he tried to dunk; LeBum and Jae wouldn't have jostled him on the way down; he wouldn't have broken his ankle; and he wouldn't have endured a year of rehab, come back and disrupted team chemistry and players' individual goals and get criticized by the fan base for his albatross contract. The complexion of the team doesn't remotely resemble the team that he thought he was joining and his role in it couldn't be more different. He was expected to be the No.2 scorer behind IT and a team of role players that knew their places, now he's the highest paid wing in a team full of wings that have big dreams for themselves.
He probably thinks "man I should have signed that contract with Miami" (and half the Boston fan base probably thinks the same :laugh:).
-
I voted no because I think if Hayward had shown no interest then Ainge would have pulled the trigger on Paul George.
Oh man, if OKC tear it down, and we can trade Hayward and Tatum and Brown for PG? I probably say yes. And I'm in the never-trade-Hayward-camp.
I like PG more than Kawhi I think...
-
I voted no because I think if Hayward had shown no interest then Ainge would have pulled the trigger on Paul George.
Oh man, if OKC tear it down, and we can trade Hayward and Tatum and Brown for PG? I probably say yes. And I'm in the never-trade-Hayward-camp.
I like PG more than Kawhi I think...
I can't believe Indiana got Victor Oladipo and Domantas Sabonis out of that Paul George trade.
Could've offered them something like Avery Bradley and Jae Crowder and be done with it!
-
I would be more excited about keeping Hayward than I would about resigning Irving, to put it in perspective
-
On the flip side I wonder if Gordon wishes he never signed here. Kyrie wouldn't have passed him the ball that he tried to dunk; LeBum and Jae wouldn't have jostled him on the way down; he wouldn't have broken his ankle; and he wouldn't have endured a year of rehab, come back and disrupted team chemistry and players' individual goals and get criticized by the fan base for his albatross contract. The complexion of the team doesn't remotely resemble the team that he thought he was joining and his role in it couldn't be more different. He was expected to be the No.2 scorer behind IT and a team of role players that knew their places, now he's the highest paid wing in a team full of wings that have big dreams for themselves.
He probably thinks "man I should have signed that contract with Miami" (and half the Boston fan base probably thinks the same :laugh:).
I imagine he would have stayed in Utah. They would still have Gobert and likely would have still drafted Mitchell. They might not have Ingles anymore, but maybe we would have signed him instead (I mention this earlier in the thread). We would still essentially have the same player at a fraction of the cost (is Hayward really better than Ingles at this point) and Utah would have their beloved All-Star with two other superbly talented pieces on their roster.
I will be as excited as can be if Hayward returns to form [consistently] next season, but I can't imagine he is too happy about how things turned out. Instead of playing the game he loves at the highest level, he has been battling back from injury for years while at the same time getting blasted by impatient Boston fans. And, who can really blame the fans? It's not like we ever got to see the best of Hayward - we just paid him a lot of money.
-
Voted no because at the time it was a great signing..no one knew he would break his leg
-
I was excited that we signed him and I certainly don't hold it against him that he got injured and is merely a shell of a shell of himself, I just wish that people would stop getting overly excited when he has an 18 point explosion and start the "he's back!" train prematurely. I was a fan of his with the Jazz and had hopes that this team and environment would help him elevate his game even further, but at this point I'd be content with him being the best (and most overpaid) 6th man in the league, but he has a long way to go to even contend for that accolade (maybe not the overpaid part).
-
https://www.youtube.com/embed/rg6I0W6sajM (https://www.youtube.com/embed/rg6I0W6sajM)
Reading back through this thread it's really a clinic in denial and lowered expectations.
-
I'm going to post my current thoughts by re-using a bit I posted in another thread.
The comment I was responding to was using the time since Hayward's original injury in Oct, 2017, as the timeline for comparison to Paul George's recovery.
-----------------------
That timeline is incorrect. A major difference between George's recovery and Hayward's is that Hayward had follow-up surgery in May of 2018 -- just 12 months ago.
It's also important to note USG. George initially came back for a few games in the Spring 2015 of the season following his injury and didn't play all that great, continued rehabbing and training during the Summer and then finally hit the ground running the following Fall 2015 as the top scoring options on his team, getting a whopping 30% USG% and 18 FGA per game. Yes he was efficient, with a solid 55.7% TS% scoring efficiency. But he isn't scoring 23.1 points per game without taking a lot of shots.
Over the last couple of months, most of Hayward's efficiency stats were finally back to his pre-injury levels. He posted the following TS% efficiency rates down the stretch:
Feb: 64.4% TS (17.7% USG, 80 FGA)
Mar: 62.3% TS (20.1% USG, 99 FGA)
Apr: 76.2% TS (18.4% USG, 40 FGA)
Playoffs (IND): 61.5% TS (17.3% USG, 39 FGA)
Playoffs (MIL): 48.4% TS (14.1% USG, 35 FGA)
So as you can see, up until these last few games, which represents a pretty tiny sample, his scoring efficiency has been elite for the last 3 months ... but we just haven't used him very much.
Gordon is not going to post 25 points per game taking that few of shots per game.
And on this team as it is constructed, with usage dominated by Kyrie (who gets over 30% USG) and several other second level scoring options, there has just been no means for Gordon to post up big counting stats.
So that's why his box scores don't look like healthy Paul George box scores.
That last sample is literally an average of just 7 FGA per game. Gordon was more and more 'frozen out' of the offense in that game as his touch rate (touches of the ball) dropped precipitously lower than what he'd averaged in the prior months. Over the last 10 games of the regular season, when he was clearly playing his best ball, he averaged ~50 touches of the ball per game. In these last 4 games of the playoffs, that had dropped to under 38 touches per game. In the 2nd-to-last game, the one that put the stake through our season, he touched the ball just 27 times.
Think about that. How on earth can a player contribute if he just isn't getting the ball?
People scream, "Why doesn't he shoot more?"
In that 27 touch game he took 5 FGA. That's means that he took a shot roughly every 5th touch of the ball. That's consistent with how he played overall in the playoffs: One True Scoring Attempt per 4.9 touches. That's not quite as aggressive as we'd like him to be. During the last 10 games of the regular season, when he was playing his best ball as a Celtic, that was up to on TSA every 4.1 touches.
In his last season at UTAH, he touched the ball 4563 times. He had 1345 True Scoring Attempts that season which means he was more aggressive, attempting to score once every 3.4 touches. He of course got a ton more touches at 62.5 per game.
But clearly, we want him, at his efficiency to be aggressively trying to score more frequently than once every 4 touches.
My overall point is that, all evidence is that his ability to score efficiently seems to be back. The tiny sample of the last few games doesn't change that. But he's not getting anywhere near enough utilization to post the kind of counting stat numbers to make a lot of fans happy. And that is caused by a combination of (a) not enough touches of the ball (which is on the team) and (c) not quite enough aggression (which is still on him).
I think there is no reason to think that he can't make a complete return to his former mojo by next Fall. All it really should take is a commitment by the team to use him and for Brad to simply tell him to be more aggressive. There is no reason, assuming his health doesn't go backwards, that he can't become a mid-20s, high-efficiency scorer again.
BUT ... the Celtics as a team need to decide what they want to be on offense. If the offense is still oriented around Kyrie Irving, getting ~32% USG, dominating touches and shots, and we also add an Anthony Davis who will command heavy USG and we also want to develop whichever Jay we retain to become a confident volume scorer ... then I'm dubious that Gordon will ever get the committed utilization needed to make fans happy with his contract.
----------------------
To sum up: I feel pretty confident that Hayward should be able to return to his former abilities, if he isn't there already then certainly by next Fall. However I just don't know if he will ever get high enough utilization to realize his former numbers on a team with the offense dominated by Kyrie and expected to share a ton of shots by so many others -- especially if we add Davis.
So whether Hayward will ever 'pay off' in on-court value is going to depend pretty heavily on what the roster ends up looking like after this summer. And that's a wide-open question at the moment.
-
I voted no because I think if Hayward had shown no interest then Ainge would have pulled the trigger on Paul George.
Oh man, if OKC tear it down, and we can trade Hayward and Tatum and Brown for PG? I probably say yes. And I'm in the never-trade-Hayward-camp.
I like PG more than Kawhi I think...
I can't believe Indiana got Victor Oladipo and Domantas Sabonis out of that Paul George trade.
Could've offered them something like Avery Bradley and Jae Crowder and be done with it!
They wanted Crowder, Smart, and Boston's 1st (i.e. its own so a pick in the 20's). Ainge didn't want to pull the trigger though because he was waiting on free agency and Hayward.
-
It's easy to say yes now given that he seems to be a shell of his former self. I'll give him one more season before I pass my judgment though. Many people tend to forget that he suffered a really serious injury. Hopefully, he puts in extra work in the gym this summer to try to reach his old level of play.
-
I voted no because I think if Hayward had shown no interest then Ainge would have pulled the trigger on Paul George.
Oh man, if OKC tear it down, and we can trade Hayward and Tatum and Brown for PG? I probably say yes. And I'm in the never-trade-Hayward-camp.
I like PG more than Kawhi I think...
I can't believe Indiana got Victor Oladipo and Domantas Sabonis out of that Paul George trade.
Could've offered them something like Avery Bradley and Jae Crowder and be done with it!
They wanted Crowder, Smart, and Boston's 1st (i.e. its own so a pick in the 20's). Ainge didn't want to pull the trigger though because he was waiting on free agency and Hayward.
That's it?!?! No wonder Ainge is having heart problems right now.
He passed on an actual superstar so he could sign a guy who had one good season in his career to a max deal. SMH.
-
Hindsight is so easy in making a decision. I love Haywards game and the player. I think if the C's never traded for Kyrie and only signed Hayward people would have different thoughts. Kyrie and Hayward don't mesh. It's easy to say we wish Hayward wasn't signed because he got hurt and is still playing his way back into form. I think Hayward is a great player but would not work with guys like Kyrie, LBJ, Westbrook who dominate the ball. Hayward fits CBS Basketball. Move the ball, make the right pass and take the right shots. Hayward fits Celtic Basketball. Kyrie does not.
-
Nah, picking Olynik over Giannis is by far the worst thing.
I mean...i'm pretty sure Giannis was better in HIGH SCHOOL than anything Olynik's done in the NBA.
About Hayward though...I try to be fair to him, but while people were so busy picking at Rozier, he was an absolute no-show in those 4 games and is probably what made Kyrie do his one- man show thing.
Him starting to play better is what made me...and Paul...believe we were gonna get the Bucks.
So he laid down for 4 games when it was time to get serious.
There is way more going on with him than something physical. He is truly Danny's albatross...and probably karma for making Crowder the bad guy just to get a weak-minded player over the toughest player on the team.
Crowder had IT's back in every way and looked out for him, so IT had the confidence of 10 men out there.
Sooner or later Celts fans will come to understand intangibles...but probably as a lottery team.
-
It may be time to stop crying over spilled milk.
-
Nah, picking Olynik over Giannis is by far the worst thing.
I mean...i'm pretty sure Giannis was better in HIGH SCHOOL than anything Olynik's done in the NBA.
Not really. There is a reason Giannis was picked where he was. He was physically frail looking, skinny with no muscular bulk. His game was extremely raw...undeveloped. It showed his first couple years in the league.
Olynyk had decent bulk for a big, even if he wasn't strong, but had developed his skills and was playing at a high level in the NCAA. I think the year before the draft Olynyk was a better basketball player than Giannis. Giannis, as has been shown, obviously had a much higher ceiling but probably higher bust potential.
-
Plus half of Greek freaks game is refs allowing him to offensive foul. Who could have foreseen the NBA declaring he will be the next person to get star calls? I bet if he was wearing celtic green they would have never allowed him To do what he does in bucks
-
Plus half of Greek freaks game is refs allowing him to offensive foul. Who could have foreseen the NBA declaring he will be the next person to get star calls? I bet if he was wearing celtic green they would have never allowed him To do what he does in bucks
It's even worse with the travelling. I have never seen anyone get so many non-calls from that. I mean that man regularly takes 3 steps to the hoop, and I've seen them not call 4 steps, and even a few times 5 steps. I'm not kidding, I was just watching that yesterday.
And I also know how they do the Celts, because that's why I stopped watching the NBA completely after 2010.
So I agree completely.
But I would have NEVER drafted Olynik under any circumstances with any pick EVER :)
Zeller, Jerebko, Rj hunter, young, and countless others. It's why i'm constantly at odds with Danny.
And I would have NEVER signed Hayward for that amount of money who is basically just a slightly taller Ron Mercer.
And I didn't even dislike Mercer. He atleast was more aggressive and had a talent of coming off picks alot.
-
Nah, picking Olynik over Giannis is by far the worst thing.
I mean...i'm pretty sure Giannis was better in HIGH SCHOOL than anything Olynik's done in the NBA.
About Hayward though...I try to be fair to him, but while people were so busy picking at Rozier, he was an absolute no-show in those 4 games and is probably what made Kyrie do his one- man show thing.
Him starting to play better is what made me...and Paul...believe we were gonna get the Bucks.
So he laid down for 4 games when it was time to get serious.
There is way more going on with him than something physical. He is truly Danny's albatross...and probably karma for making Crowder the bad guy just to get a weak-minded player over the toughest player on the team.
Crowder had IT's back in every way and looked out for him, so IT had the confidence of 10 men out there.
Sooner or later Celts fans will come to understand intangibles...but probably as a lottery team.
I wish I could frame this. It's the smartest thing I've read on this site in quite a while.
-
It may be time to stop crying over spilled milk.
Not when I have a nagging feeling they're getting ready to make a series of fatal mistakes.
-
I voted no because I think if Hayward had shown no interest then Ainge would have pulled the trigger on Paul George.
Oh man, if OKC tear it down, and we can trade Hayward and Tatum and Brown for PG? I probably say yes. And I'm in the never-trade-Hayward-camp.
I like PG more than Kawhi I think...
I can't believe Indiana got Victor Oladipo and Domantas Sabonis out of that Paul George trade.
Could've offered them something like Avery Bradley and Jae Crowder and be done with it!
They wanted Crowder, Smart, and Boston's 1st (i.e. its own so a pick in the 20's). Ainge didn't want to pull the trigger though because he was waiting on free agency and Hayward.
That's it?!?! No wonder Ainge is having heart problems right now.
He passed on an actual superstar so he could sign a guy who had one good season in his career to a max deal. SMH.
"one good season"???
Hayward had three straight excellent seasons before we signed him! He posted 8.7, 8.9 & 10.4 Win Shares in those three seasons.
For comparison, Kyrie's last three seasons are: 8.9, 8.9 & 9.1 Win Shares. Paul George's last three seasons have been: 7.1, 8.9 & 11.9 Win Shares.
Hayward, in his last three seasons at Utah was a legit, all-star quality player.
-
Nah, picking Olynik over Giannis is by far the worst thing.
I mean...i'm pretty sure Giannis was better in HIGH SCHOOL than anything Olynik's done in the NBA.
It's easy to be a genius in hindsight. Giannis was playing in the 2nd division of the Greek League when he was drafted. He was 6-9 and 190 pounds, not the monster he is today.
Here's what he looked like back then:
(https://i0.wp.com/fastbreakdaily.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/g.jpg?resize=778%2C1167&ssl=1)
And here's a comparison of their rookie years:
(https://i.postimg.cc/1XJKHkxy/gianniskelly.jpg)
Giannis' trajectory is one of the more remarkable ones in NBA history and he deserves credit for his improvement. But I'd suggest the Bucks weren't expecting him to turn into what he's turned into today back when they drafted him.
-
Nah, picking Olynik over Giannis is by far the worst thing.
I mean...i'm pretty sure Giannis was better in HIGH SCHOOL than anything Olynik's done in the NBA.
It's easy to be a genius in hindsight. Giannis was playing in the 2nd division of the Greek League when he was drafted. He was 6-9 and 190 pounds, not the monster he is today.
Here's what he looked like back then:
(https://i0.wp.com/fastbreakdaily.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/g.jpg?resize=778%2C1167&ssl=1)
And here's a comparison of their rookie years:
(https://i.postimg.cc/1XJKHkxy/gianniskelly.jpg)
Giannis' trajectory is one of the more remarkable ones in NBA history and he deserves credit for his improvement. But I'd suggest the Bucks weren't expecting him to turn into what he's turned into today back when they drafted him.
Agreed, you would have actually had to have watched Giannis play to know his athletic measurables were off the charts.
Drafting a short-armed, white, non-Euro center, who didn't rebound or play defense made the most sense at the time.
-
Nah, picking Olynik over Giannis is by far the worst thing.
I mean...i'm pretty sure Giannis was better in HIGH SCHOOL than anything Olynik's done in the NBA.
It's easy to be a genius in hindsight. Giannis was playing in the 2nd division of the Greek League when he was drafted. He was 6-9 and 190 pounds, not the monster he is today.
Here's what he looked like back then:
(https://i0.wp.com/fastbreakdaily.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/g.jpg?resize=778%2C1167&ssl=1)
And here's a comparison of their rookie years:
(https://i.postimg.cc/1XJKHkxy/gianniskelly.jpg)
Giannis' trajectory is one of the more remarkable ones in NBA history and he deserves credit for his improvement. But I'd suggest the Bucks weren't expecting him to turn into what he's turned into today back when they drafted him.
Agreed, you would have actually had to have watched Giannis play to know his athletic measurables were off the charts.
Drafting a short-armed, white, non-Euro center, who didn't rebound or play defense made the most sense at the time.
Do you have a link to Giannis' measurables being off the charts back in 2012? You've been here since 2007, do you have posts criticizing Danny for the wrong pick in 2012? I'm sure looking into your crystal ball here in the future it's easy to make that determination. A lot of teams passed on Giannis because at the time it was a big leap of faith. The very same people who are kicking Danny for not picking him would also be kicking him if Giannis didn't improve. I'm not defending the selection, but I can understand why it was made at the time. Olynyk was the safer bet, in hindsight it was the wrong bet. But hindsight makes geniuses out of some people like yourself and idiots out of others like Danny. How many others are idiots for not picking IT? 59 times he wasn't picked.
-
Olynyk had decent bulk for a big, even if he wasn't strong, but had developed his skills and was playing at a high level in the NCAA.
Also, glaring athletic issues at times.
-
Do you have a link to Giannis' measurables being off the charts back in 2012? You've been here since 2007, do you have posts criticizing Danny for the wrong pick in 2012? I'm sure looking into your crystal ball here in the future it's easy to make that determination. A lot of teams passed on Giannis because at the time it was a big leap of faith. The very same people who are kicking Danny for not picking him would also be kicking him if Giannis didn't improve. I'm not defending the selection, but I can understand why it was made at the time. Olynyk was the safer bet, in hindsight it was the wrong bet. But hindsight makes geniuses out of some people like yourself and idiots out of others like Danny. How many others are idiots for not picking IT? 59 times he wasn't picked.
I care about your well-being - as I care about all the members of Celticsblog so I'm warning you...
Do NOT click on this link unless you want to be really REALLY sad.
I'm only posting this because you explicitly asked for it. https://youtu.be/Oaw0_zw9LGs
-
Do you have a link to Giannis' measurables being off the charts back in 2012? You've been here since 2007, do you have posts criticizing Danny for the wrong pick in 2012? I'm sure looking into your crystal ball here in the future it's easy to make that determination. A lot of teams passed on Giannis because at the time it was a big leap of faith. The very same people who are kicking Danny for not picking him would also be kicking him if Giannis didn't improve. I'm not defending the selection, but I can understand why it was made at the time. Olynyk was the safer bet, in hindsight it was the wrong bet. But hindsight makes geniuses out of some people like yourself and idiots out of others like Danny. How many others are idiots for not picking IT? 59 times he wasn't picked.
I care about your well-being - as I care about all the members of Celticsblog so I'm warning you...
Do NOT click on this link unless you want to be really REALLY sad.
I'm only posting this because you explicitly asked for it. https://youtu.be/Oaw0_zw9LGs
I re-linked it to the part of the video that Ainge probably focused on.
https://youtu.be/Oaw0_zw9LGs?t=503
At the time he was far from the sure thing that everyone with the benefit of hindsight seems to think he is. Certainly it was the wrong decision, but it's understandable why Danny made the decision he did and he hardly deserves to be crucified for it. It's not like he passed on a sure thing. He went safety first. The same way that people who passed on Giannis' siblings did. I went back through the forum to the time of the 2013 draft, I didn't see too many people killing Danny for passing on this guy. The same can be said of Kawhi, he went to No15 behind the likes of Fredette, Biyombo, the Morris twins and Derrick Williams who went No2.
Of course with the benefit of hindsight it was the wrong decision and everyone's looks like a genius for pointing it out. It's an easy decision to criticize. Being a historian is a good profession because you can point out everyone's mistakes. :angel:
I will say one thing that Ainge and most of the GMs/scouts probably didn't take into account - Giannis's hunger to be the best version of himself. At the age that his peers were being spoiled playing in AAU teams and being chased by college recruiters, the guy was selling CDs and trinkets on the streets of Athens to help support his family. His drive to be the best was missed by many people.
-
Olynyk had decent bulk for a big, even if he wasn't strong, but had developed his skills and was playing at a high level in the NCAA.
Also, glaring athletic issues at times.
Hey, don't get me wrong. I hated the Olynyk picked and let that be quite known on this site for years. I got called out for that opinion quite a bit. I am not a fan of centers that can't rebound the ball. Olynyk was soft and horrible under the basket. He drove me nuts.
-
Being a historian is a good profession because you can point out everyone's mistakes. :angel:
This is a good one oz - tp. I have a couple of friends who were history majors - hopefully I can remember to use this as a dig on their judgy personalities :P
-
No doubt Ainge wishes he hadn't signed him. But he had no crystal ball at the time indicating Tatum and Brown were coming, or that Hayward would miss a year with a serious injury, and then create chemistry problems on returning at less than 100%.
I think at this point he might be open to dealing him if he could, but if he has to trade Tatum and Brown for Davis, Hayward will pop right back into the picture, probably as a starter.
-
Hindsight is always 20/20.
That said, it was the right decision. At the time of his signing, if I recall, he was ranked #20 in the NBA by ESPN (even higher than Kyrie at #25.)
Like someone else mentioned, Ainge didn't foresee Tatum making such a quick impact and Hayward getting seriously injured on his first night.
Believe me, I've been very frustrated with Hayward this year and feel he got a pass while many were so quick to jump on Kyrie.
That said, with another summer of training and working more on his game and less on rehab and hopefully with no logjam of small forwards, I expect and will be rooting for a much more improved Hayward next season.
-
I loved the signing. I think he'll be back. He just needs to find his spot. I believe with clearer defined roles on a team with less drama queens i.e. Rosier and the trades for ad removing Tatum, Gordon will find his place and you won't have to worry about seeing him drive so much
-
Being a historian is a good profession because you can point out everyone's mistakes. :angel:
This is a good one oz - tp. I have a couple of friends who were history majors - hopefully I can remember to use this as a dig on their judgy personalities :P
Back at ya! :laugh:
-
Hindsight is always 20/20.
That said, it was the right decision. At the time of his signing, if I recall, he was ranked #20 in the NBA by ESPN (even higher than Kyrie at #25.)
Like someone else mentioned, Ainge didn't foresee Tatum making such a quick impact and Hayward getting seriously injured on his first night.
Believe me, I've been very frustrated with Hayward this year and feel he got a pass while many were so quick to jump on Kyrie.
That said, with another summer of training and working more on his game and less on rehab and hopefully with no logjam of small forwards, I expect and will be rooting for a much more improved Hayward next season.
Idk what Ainge was thinking rolling with three small-forwards in Brown, Tatum, and Hayward. It's too bad the 2017 draft wasn't that impressive. Fultz a bust. Ball look like he's about to get traded. Tatum having a bad second year.
-
Hindsight is always 20/20.
That said, it was the right decision. At the time of his signing, if I recall, he was ranked #20 in the NBA by ESPN (even higher than Kyrie at #25.)
Like someone else mentioned, Ainge didn't foresee Tatum making such a quick impact and Hayward getting seriously injured on his first night.
Believe me, I've been very frustrated with Hayward this year and feel he got a pass while many were so quick to jump on Kyrie.
That said, with another summer of training and working more on his game and less on rehab and hopefully with no logjam of small forwards, I expect and will be rooting for a much more improved Hayward next season.
Idk what Ainge was thinking rolling with three small-forwards in Brown, Tatum, and Hayward. It's too bad the 2017 draft wasn't that impressive. Fultz a bust. Ball look like he's about to get traded. Tatum having a bad second year.
I agree, we had small forward overload this past season. But, that could come in handy this summer pertaining to a trade.
-
in retrospect the last two free agents have not worked out. Miss watching last years playoff C's.
-
I always thought the point when hiring Brad was to grow with a young team, starting with the coach. So after getting better every season and slowly coming up in the league and seeing countless players overachieve for Brad, now when they finally look like their own "process" is about to payoff after 6 years or so...now they want to "win now" because the youngsters made them a contending team.
So being greedy, they want to get every free agent they can find to throw ahead of those guys while harping on their flaws and ignoring their strengths...then when those FA's show their own fatal flaws...attack the young guys for not being allstars off the bench without a ball in their hands because the point has some mental aversion to passing.
I've seen this before when Danny traded Perk when he saw with his own eyes what they looked like without him the final games in 2010. Alot of Garnetts effectiveness and even confidence came from Perk being beside him...just like Al needs that type of guy now.
And I seen it when he traded Antoine, then tried to make Paul the bad guy that year without realizing Paul was p---ed about the trade and wanted to leave because of it. So all that gets left out and Paul is a lunatic taking his shirt off after a game, while demanding a trade.
I've seen all this bone-headed nonsense ever since Danny was hired, so you're gonna have to forgive me for thinking he's borderline incompetent as a GM...with one lucky year.
Sorry if that offends people...but frankly i'm tired of rooting for the self inflicted ups and downs with Danny at the helm.
-
I always thought the point when hiring Brad was to grow with a young team, starting with the coach. So after getting better every season and slowly coming up in the league and seeing countless players overachieve for Brad, now when they finally look like their own "process" is about to payoff after 6 years or so...now they want to "win now" because the youngsters made them a contending team.
So being greedy, they want to get every free agent they can find to throw ahead of those guys while harping on their flaws and ignoring their strengths...then when those FA's show their own fatal flaws...attack the young guys for not being allstars off the bench without a ball in their hands because the point has some mental aversion to passing.
I've seen this before when Danny traded Perk when he saw with his own eyes what they looked like without him the final games in 2010. Alot of Garnetts effectiveness and even confidence came from Perk being beside him...just like Al needs that type of guy now.
And I seen it when he traded Antoine, then tried to make Paul the bad guy that year without realizing Paul was p---ed about the trade and wanted to leave because of it. So all that gets left out and Paul is a lunatic taking his shirt off after a game, while demanding a trade.
I've seen all this bone-headed nonsense ever since Danny was hired, so you're gonna have to forgive me for thinking he's borderline incompetent as a GM...with one lucky year.
Sorry if that offends people...but frankly i'm tired of rooting for the self inflicted ups and downs with Danny at the helm.
One championship is great after 22 years, but man it's been 11 years it's time the Celtics grab one. Even the three other Boston sports teams have been reeling in finals appearances left and right. Ainge needs to make some serious moves or it's time for a new face for the franchise.
-
I always thought the point when hiring Brad was to grow with a young team, starting with the coach. So after getting better every season and slowly coming up in the league and seeing countless players overachieve for Brad, now when they finally look like their own "process" is about to payoff after 6 years or so...now they want to "win now" because the youngsters made them a contending team.
So being greedy, they want to get every free agent they can find to throw ahead of those guys while harping on their flaws and ignoring their strengths...then when those FA's show their own fatal flaws...attack the young guys for not being allstars off the bench without a ball in their hands because the point has some mental aversion to passing.
I've seen this before when Danny traded Perk when he saw with his own eyes what they looked like without him the final games in 2010. Alot of Garnetts effectiveness and even confidence came from Perk being beside him...just like Al needs that type of guy now.
And I seen it when he traded Antoine, then tried to make Paul the bad guy that year without realizing Paul was p---ed about the trade and wanted to leave because of it. So all that gets left out and Paul is a lunatic taking his shirt off after a game, while demanding a trade.
I've seen all this bone-headed nonsense ever since Danny was hired, so you're gonna have to forgive me for thinking he's borderline incompetent as a GM...with one lucky year.
Sorry if that offends people...but frankly i'm tired of rooting for the self inflicted ups and downs with Danny at the helm.
One championship is great after 22 years, but man it's been 11 years it's time the Celtics grab one. Even the three other Boston sports teams have been reeling in finals appearances left and right. Ainge needs to make some serious moves or it's time for a new face for the franchise.
That's kinda my point...they could've had about 4 under Danny, but his decisions were lacking along with his failure to EVER get players to compliment his teams strenghts, always preferring to blow it up and go in a different direction because he doesn't have the patience to commit to his own plans.
This team is only one starting center away from everything having to go through them in the East.
I guess building up for years to throw it away on mismatched parts and misfits is the way to a ring...while you're getting beat by teams doing it the right way.
With GS being a dynasty at that.
I'm sorry man, i'm tired of Danny's leadership. He's basically just a busy-body that doesn't commit to his own vision.
-
Logical answer now would be no.
But at the time we signed the best FA on the market entering his prime years. Max deal was his deserved market price.
The fact that he broke his leg just 5 minutes in his 4 year max deal, doesn't change those facts for me.
We got really unlucky.
For the sake of argument, I'll just flip OP's question a bit.
Do You Wish We Had Never Signed Michael Jordan?
If we signed MJ entering his prime and he got injuried immediately, I wouldn't say that it was an ill concieved move.
Just tough luck.
That's what we got here.
-
Logical answer now would be no.
But at the time we signed the best FA on the market entering his prime years. Max deal was his deserved market price.
The fact that he broke his leg just 5 minutes in his 4 year max deal, doesn't change those facts for me.
We got really unlucky.
For the sake of argument, I'll just flip OP's question a bit.
Do You Wish We Had Never Signed Michael Jordan?
If we signed MJ entering his prime and he got injuried immediately, I wouldn't say that it was an ill concieved move.
Just tough luck.
That's what we got here.
Paul Millsap was also available for the max, but I think many here would go crazy if that happened and not in a good way.
I remember I spent the majority of my 4th of July refreshing Twitter/Celtics forum for the Gordon Hayward decision. Oh how much time has been wasted when you realized months later. The gruesome injury, and then the recovery year off the bench.
Next year is no excuse for Hayward.
-
Logical answer now would be no.
But at the time we signed the best FA on the market entering his prime years. Max deal was his deserved market price.
The fact that he broke his leg just 5 minutes in his 4 year max deal, doesn't change those facts for me.
We got really unlucky.
For the sake of argument, I'll just flip OP's question a bit.
Do You Wish We Had Never Signed Michael Jordan?
If we signed MJ entering his prime and he got injuried immediately, I wouldn't say that it was an ill concieved move.
Just tough luck.
That's what we got here.
With the benefit of hindsight it's certainly worth questioning whether we should have signed him if he was only going to get injured and take up $30m a year. But I think more to the point would be, how many of us thought his contract wasn't worth it at the time it was signed. Based on the actual threads from then there weren't many.
Hayward is such a great player - https://forum.celticsstrong.com/index.php?topic=93341.0 -
Gordon Hayward: We're getting more than I thought... - https://forum.celticsstrong.com/index.php?topic=92418.0
Done: Hayward Announces He's Joining Celtics - https://forum.celticsstrong.com/index.php?topic=92372.0
This guy was probably one of the few who was against Hayward from the start. He and of course our No.1 Hayward Fan here who shall remain nameless :angel:
Celtics Better off without Hayward? - https://forum.celticsstrong.com/index.php?topic=92351.0
It's certainly important to re-evaluate and review decisions made so that, with the benefit of hindsight, you can make better ones in future. In this case I find it hard to blame Ainge for the decision he made, but in hindsight it hasn't given us the ROI we were expecting for $30m and now it's turned into somewhat of an albatross unless he substantially improves next season. If he doesn't improve next season then we can say that it was ultimately a waste of money.
-
Logical answer now would be no.
But at the time we signed the best FA on the market entering his prime years. Max deal was his deserved market price.
The fact that he broke his leg just 5 minutes in his 4 year max deal, doesn't change those facts for me.
We got really unlucky.
For the sake of argument, I'll just flip OP's question a bit.
Do You Wish We Had Never Signed Michael Jordan?
If we signed MJ entering his prime and he got injuried immediately, I wouldn't say that it was an ill concieved move.
Just tough luck.
That's what we got here.
Paul Millsap was also available for the max, but I think many here would go crazy if that happened and not in a good way.
I remember I spent the majority of my 4th of July refreshing Twitter/Celtics forum for the Gordon Hayward decision. Oh how much time has been wasted when you realized months later. The gruesome injury, and then the recovery year off the bench.
Next year is no excuse for Hayward.
And he had that whole fiasco of "yes he signed, no he hasn't...wait he's still deciding...still deciding..." :angel:
-
With 2 yrs already gone, the ROI is at the very most has been paltry.. Even if GH becomes a 15 ppg scorer in the next 2 yrs, its still a bad signing...i actually feel GH will be a 12/4/3 kinda guy if AD comes but if not maybe we can jack up his scoring slightly to 15..not bad but certainly not the max player we all expected.
No excuses for Hayward anymore.. He must produce something... He has right now no trade value but if there is a team out there that will take on his salary and is a willing trade partner then I hope Danny Bites the bullet and trade his ass.
Those multiple 2 point performances during the regular season and in the Bucks series certainly has traumatised me...even then he really does not and should have no excuses for such a pathetic performance.
-
hayward was and is an excellent pick.. you cannot foresee the future... he was the perfect teamate for irwing ana al... they wanted to play with kyrie brown hayward tatum and horford... the issue is that tatum is not the new durant to play pf... irwing is not a pass first guard... so you have defense, rebounding an creation problems... they thought they can convince them change their play... they failed
and you have the rozier and morris boys who never passed the ball.. hayward for me was the perfect teammate... our problems started elsewhere
-
hayward was and is an excellent pick.. you cannot foresee the future... he was the perfect teamate for irwing ana al... they wanted to play with kyrie brown hayward tatum and horford... the issue is that tatum is not the new durant to play pf... irwing is not a pass first guard... so you have defense, rebounding an creation problems... they thought they can convince them change their play... they failed
and you have the rozier and morris boys who never passed the ball.. hayward for me was the perfect teammate... our problems started elsewhere
I think Utah hayward and irving are a bad fit
Horford should not be a fulltime center.
Team did not expect tatum to get good.
Team did not expect to get irving in such a cheap deal amd they tried to make it all work.
Boston was great last season over the 60 games irving played. They played to the best win percentage in nearly a decade for the team.
This year they added back hayward, irving played 67 games and the win percentage over thise games dropped....alot...
Only real change?
Hayward
Rozier whining and complaining
Baynes iften injured
Horford playing more center.
There is the root of the issues
-
I wish we hadn’t signed him ... because that would’ve meant we got KD the year before.
-
I've seen it more in recent posts, but the purpose of this exercise is to have have hindsight, not decide whether it was a good or bad signing at the time. As oz points out above, almost everybody heralded it as a fabulous signing when it was made.
It's also not to necessarily figure out who else you would have given the max to (Paul Millsap has come up a couple times). The money could have been spread among other non-max worthy players or we could have pushed much of it down the line. We should also be looking at the contributions Hayward has given us these last two seasons vs what other players might have contributed.
I really need to emphasize that this is not a referendum on Hayward or what kind of person you are if you vote against the signing; it's simply asking if you would have rather spent the money differently. And, as pho points out, if Hayward hadn't signed here, he would still be putting up monster performances for another franchise - that would be awesome for him.