Horford gives his first detailed interview since FA, talks about why he left

[Somebody]

Doesn't add up.

If I recall, the Celts needed Horford's cap hold freed up to give Kemba the max.

Boston could have theoretically kept Horford and then sign and traded for Walker.  Boston just had to remain below the tax line to do it, so something like Rozier (sign and traded) plus Smart, probably would have worked financially.  Still might have even been able to add Kanter depending on what Horford's contract actually looked like.

So is a Walker, Brown, Hayward, Tatum, Horford with Kanter, Theis, Langford, etc. a better team.  Probably, but it still isn't a contender, so I again am not sure what the point of all those moves would be.  Of course I have no idea why Boston signed Walker and kept Hayward, if the goal is to build a contender around Tatum.

That team doesn't look like a contender when compared to the NBA since 2008 with loads of superteams with 3-5 stars per team.

But this year's NBA isn't made of superteams. At best you have teams with 2-3 stars on them and some of those teams don't have great depth or have injury problems.

Then add in that there could be even more injury issues and, as far as I am concerned, you could argue any one of 6-9 teams could be the champion if they remain healthy.

A team of

Kemba
Brown
Tatum
Horford
Kanter

Edwards
Smart
Utah Hayward
Theis
Williams
Williams
Semi

That gelled and stayed healthy could have been a contender in today's game with the talent more evenly distributed.

I'm confused, who are these teams that had 3-5 stars on them?  Sure the Warriors, but after that, what are we talking about recently (I'll give you the Heat and C's before that, but the heat were 5 years ago - perhaps the Cavs when they had Irving).  The Clippers and Lakers this year project to be better than any team not named the Warriors (when healthy) the last 5 years.  The Rockets are probably better with Westbrook than Paul (at least in theory).  The Nuggets, Jazz, and Blazers are all better than that Celtics team.  Heck if Klay comes back, I'd take the Warriors over them in a playoff series.  The East is weaker, as it has been for years, but that team is pretty clearly behind the Bucks.  The Sixers are harder to gauge because in that scenario they don't have Horford, but they would have used that money on someone and they still have Embiid and Simmons so I'd rate them higher.  Obviously that team is better than the Nets on paper this year, but not going forward.  That hypothetical Celtics team is at absolute best, the 7th best team in the league this year and they are arguably more like 9th or 10th.  That isn't a contender. 

I love the enthusiasm and the positivity so many have, but the C's aren't close to contending.  The team just doesn't have enough high end talent and the roster construction is terrible.  Even if your hypothetical team was somehow possible (I think it is impossible as Smart couldn't really be on the team unless Horford took a very small contract), it isn't a contender either.  Better than the current group, absolutely, but just not in the same class as the elite teams, because quite simply the elite teams have elite top end talent, something Boston does not (Walker has 1 3rd Team All NBA, the only such award from anyone on that team - and I don't see Walker as a top 15 player despite him having a top 15 season last year).  Top end talent wins.  This has been shown time and time again that the team with the best player in a playoff series wins that series at a significantly higher rate than the team without the best player (there are exceptions obviously).

Yeah, well let's just say I completely disagree with your usual Celtic pessimism if Horford was on this team. The league is wide open this year, especially for a team like this Celtics team if they had Horford, a deep team, I think under the right circumstances would have had a chance.

The current group, not so much. Yes, I think a healthy Horford, on this team, could make that much of a difference, especially in a league where the talent is much better spread out and injuries to stars(Durant, George, Thompson, more Kawhi load managing, more load managing Anthony Davis, an older and more broken LeBron, a face hurting Kyrie, the always brittle Embiid) could affect the rest of the league in a way that if that Celtic team stayed healthy, they could take advantage of it.

Those are arguments as to why Boston might have a fine regular season record, which I don't disagree with, but they are not reasons that Boston would have been an actual contender.  That lineup (which as I said probably would have been impossible) is at best the 8th best playoff lineup in the league.  It is clearly not better than Milwaukee, LA, LA, Houston, Utah, Denver, or Portland.  Golden State (if Klay is back for the playoffs) is arguably better and Philadelphia would have been unknown without Horford, but even still would have still had the 2 best players in a playoff series against the C's.  That theoretical Boston team would have been solidly ahead of the grouping the team is in in the East though (the current squad could realistically finish anywhere from 3rd to 9th in the conference).

The league has more balance this year and doesn't have the super team that was Golden State, but it certainly doesn't mean a team with mediocre top end talent and solid depth is all of a sudden going to be a realistic contender come playoff time.  That just isn't how playoff basketball works.  Depth is great for nice regular season records, but top end talent wins in the playoffs.  That has always been the case and has always been the case with very rare exceptions.  And Boston doesn't have a single top 15 player, while there are at least 4 teams that have 2 top 15 players (ESPN's top 15 has LA, LA, HOU, POR, PHI) and that doesn't even include the team with the best player in the world.

And you guys can call it pessimism all you want, but I was dead on in my assessment last year on the playoff potential of Boston because of the reasons I cited above.  Boston quite simply didn't have the top end talent needed to be a realistic contender come playoff time.  Same as this year except the team has a worse best player, a worst second player, worse depth, and a much worse interior.  This Boston team just isn't very good unless Tatum all of a sudden vaults himself into the league's elite players (which is unrealistic at least for next year, especially with him playing PF).

Wait Ben Simmons is better than Kemba walker? Kemba was an all star starter and made all nba 3rd team. This by definition makes him a top 15 player. Simmons was not behind two more guards to even make all nba team. Yet you have Simmons higher? That seems really curious to me.

ESPN has Simmons at 15 and Kemba at 17.  SI has Kemba at 20 and Simmons at 23. All NBA is prestigious but it is just a bunch of sportswriters voting not NBA experts.  I'd put Simmons and Kemba in the same tier.  Neither is a #1 star on a contender.  Neither has proven anything in regards to the playoffs.  Kemba obviously has a big advantage in shooting and scoring but Simmons is a better passer and much better rebounder and defender.     

Simmons should also keep getting better while Kemba is what he is at this point (given age, years of service, etc.). 

And lots of players make All NBA Teams, it means they had a great season not that they are necessarily one of the 15 best players in the league (they could be it just isn't a given).  IT4 was a great example of that.  I mean he finished 5th in MVP voting (and it was deserved), but that doesn't mean he was the 5th best player in the world.

I don’t really understand this IT point. He was a top 5 player, or at least top 10 in the league that year. He led our team to playoff wins with very little other talent. Because he had a serious injury and never was the same player doesn’t meant he wasn’t a top player that could lead you to playoff wins that season. Also as tazz, who is certainly not anti-Philly pointed out, in addition to walker being an all star starter and making an all nba team, sports illustrated and espn player rankings also have then ranked the same. So your statement that Simmons is “absolutely better” is not really backed up by any ranking system I can find.

IT was not ever a top 5 player in the league.  he had a top 5 season.  There is absolutely a difference in those two things.  In 2016-17, IT was not a better player than Irving, Thompson, Lillard, Butler, etc. even though he was on the 2nd Team that year and none of those players were.

Uh IT had a top 5 season and was a top 5 player in the league. He was definitely better than guys like Irving, Thompson, Lillard and Butler that season with how he supercharged an otherwise pretty pedestrian Celtics offense to a pretty elite one without being really dependent on his teammates (he would've likely put up monster numbers on any league average squad that isn't designed to mute the production of high scoring guards, and would've likely made them very competitive as well).

[celticsclay]

In 2016-17, IT was not a better player than Irving, Thompson, Lillard, Butler, etc. even though he was on the 2nd Team that year and none of those players were.

Ahhh, no. In 2016-17 IT absolutely was a better player than Irving, Thompson, Lillard, Butler, etc. For his career is IT a better player? No. But in that particular year, IT was definitely better than those players.

Tp Nick. I don’t really understand how someone can think IT was not a top ten player that year. Didn’t we actually beat Butler that year in the playoffs?

[celticsclay]

Doesn't add up.

If I recall, the Celts needed Horford's cap hold freed up to give Kemba the max.

Boston could have theoretically kept Horford and then sign and traded for Walker.  Boston just had to remain below the tax line to do it, so something like Rozier (sign and traded) plus Smart, probably would have worked financially.  Still might have even been able to add Kanter depending on what Horford's contract actually looked like.

So is a Walker, Brown, Hayward, Tatum, Horford with Kanter, Theis, Langford, etc. a better team.  Probably, but it still isn't a contender, so I again am not sure what the point of all those moves would be.  Of course I have no idea why Boston signed Walker and kept Hayward, if the goal is to build a contender around Tatum.

That team doesn't look like a contender when compared to the NBA since 2008 with loads of superteams with 3-5 stars per team.

But this year's NBA isn't made of superteams. At best you have teams with 2-3 stars on them and some of those teams don't have great depth or have injury problems.

Then add in that there could be even more injury issues and, as far as I am concerned, you could argue any one of 6-9 teams could be the champion if they remain healthy.

A team of

Kemba
Brown
Tatum
Horford
Kanter

Edwards
Smart
Utah Hayward
Theis
Williams
Williams
Semi

That gelled and stayed healthy could have been a contender in today's game with the talent more evenly distributed.

I'm confused, who are these teams that had 3-5 stars on them?  Sure the Warriors, but after that, what are we talking about recently (I'll give you the Heat and C's before that, but the heat were 5 years ago - perhaps the Cavs when they had Irving).  The Clippers and Lakers this year project to be better than any team not named the Warriors (when healthy) the last 5 years.  The Rockets are probably better with Westbrook than Paul (at least in theory).  The Nuggets, Jazz, and Blazers are all better than that Celtics team.  Heck if Klay comes back, I'd take the Warriors over them in a playoff series.  The East is weaker, as it has been for years, but that team is pretty clearly behind the Bucks.  The Sixers are harder to gauge because in that scenario they don't have Horford, but they would have used that money on someone and they still have Embiid and Simmons so I'd rate them higher.  Obviously that team is better than the Nets on paper this year, but not going forward.  That hypothetical Celtics team is at absolute best, the 7th best team in the league this year and they are arguably more like 9th or 10th.  That isn't a contender. 

I love the enthusiasm and the positivity so many have, but the C's aren't close to contending.  The team just doesn't have enough high end talent and the roster construction is terrible.  Even if your hypothetical team was somehow possible (I think it is impossible as Smart couldn't really be on the team unless Horford took a very small contract), it isn't a contender either.  Better than the current group, absolutely, but just not in the same class as the elite teams, because quite simply the elite teams have elite top end talent, something Boston does not (Walker has 1 3rd Team All NBA, the only such award from anyone on that team - and I don't see Walker as a top 15 player despite him having a top 15 season last year).  Top end talent wins.  This has been shown time and time again that the team with the best player in a playoff series wins that series at a significantly higher rate than the team without the best player (there are exceptions obviously).

Yeah, well let's just say I completely disagree with your usual Celtic pessimism if Horford was on this team. The league is wide open this year, especially for a team like this Celtics team if they had Horford, a deep team, I think under the right circumstances would have had a chance.

The current group, not so much. Yes, I think a healthy Horford, on this team, could make that much of a difference, especially in a league where the talent is much better spread out and injuries to stars(Durant, George, Thompson, more Kawhi load managing, more load managing Anthony Davis, an older and more broken LeBron, a face hurting Kyrie, the always brittle Embiid) could affect the rest of the league in a way that if that Celtic team stayed healthy, they could take advantage of it.

Those are arguments as to why Boston might have a fine regular season record, which I don't disagree with, but they are not reasons that Boston would have been an actual contender.  That lineup (which as I said probably would have been impossible) is at best the 8th best playoff lineup in the league.  It is clearly not better than Milwaukee, LA, LA, Houston, Utah, Denver, or Portland.  Golden State (if Klay is back for the playoffs) is arguably better and Philadelphia would have been unknown without Horford, but even still would have still had the 2 best players in a playoff series against the C's.  That theoretical Boston team would have been solidly ahead of the grouping the team is in in the East though (the current squad could realistically finish anywhere from 3rd to 9th in the conference).

The league has more balance this year and doesn't have the super team that was Golden State, but it certainly doesn't mean a team with mediocre top end talent and solid depth is all of a sudden going to be a realistic contender come playoff time.  That just isn't how playoff basketball works.  Depth is great for nice regular season records, but top end talent wins in the playoffs.  That has always been the case and has always been the case with very rare exceptions.  And Boston doesn't have a single top 15 player, while there are at least 4 teams that have 2 top 15 players (ESPN's top 15 has LA, LA, HOU, POR, PHI) and that doesn't even include the team with the best player in the world.

And you guys can call it pessimism all you want, but I was dead on in my assessment last year on the playoff potential of Boston because of the reasons I cited above.  Boston quite simply didn't have the top end talent needed to be a realistic contender come playoff time.  Same as this year except the team has a worse best player, a worst second player, worse depth, and a much worse interior.  This Boston team just isn't very good unless Tatum all of a sudden vaults himself into the league's elite players (which is unrealistic at least for next year, especially with him playing PF).

Wait Ben Simmons is better than Kemba walker? Kemba was an all star starter and made all nba 3rd team. This by definition makes him a top 15 player. Simmons was not behind two more guards to even make all nba team. Yet you have Simmons higher? That seems really curious to me.

ESPN has Simmons at 15 and Kemba at 17.  SI has Kemba at 20 and Simmons at 23. All NBA is prestigious but it is just a bunch of sportswriters voting not NBA experts.  I'd put Simmons and Kemba in the same tier.  Neither is a #1 star on a contender.  Neither has proven anything in regards to the playoffs.  Kemba obviously has a big advantage in shooting and scoring but Simmons is a better passer and much better rebounder and defender.     

Simmons should also keep getting better while Kemba is what he is at this point (given age, years of service, etc.). 

And lots of players make All NBA Teams, it means they had a great season not that they are necessarily one of the 15 best players in the league (they could be it just isn't a given).  IT4 was a great example of that.  I mean he finished 5th in MVP voting (and it was deserved), but that doesn't mean he was the 5th best player in the world.

I don’t really understand this IT point. He was a top 5 player, or at least top 10 in the league that year. He led our team to playoff wins with very little other talent. Because he had a serious injury and never was the same player doesn’t meant he wasn’t a top player that could lead you to playoff wins that season. Also as tazz, who is certainly not anti-Philly pointed out, in addition to walker being an all star starter and making an all nba team, sports illustrated and espn player rankings also have then ranked the same. So your statement that Simmons is “absolutely better” is not really backed up by any ranking system I can find.

IT was not ever a top 5 player in the league.  he had a top 5 season.  There is absolutely a difference in those two things.  In 2016-17, IT was not a better player than Irving, Thompson, Lillard, Butler, etc. even though he was on the 2nd Team that year and none of those players were.

Uh IT had a top 5 season and was a top 5 player in the league. He was definitely better than guys like Irving, Thompson, Lillard and Butler that season with how he supercharged an otherwise pretty pedestrian Celtics offense to a pretty elite one without being really dependent on his teammates (he would've likely put up monster numbers on any league average squad that isn't designed to mute the production of high scoring guards, and would've likely made them very competitive as well).

Tp and thank you

[Moranis]

In 2016-17, IT was not a better player than Irving, Thompson, Lillard, Butler, etc. even though he was on the 2nd Team that year and none of those players were.

Ahhh, no. In 2016-17 IT absolutely was a better player than Irving, Thompson, Lillard, Butler, etc. For his career is IT a better player? No. But in that particular year, IT was definitely better than those players.

He had a better statistical year, that doesn't make him a better player.

[gouki88]

In 2016-17, IT was not a better player than Irving, Thompson, Lillard, Butler, etc. even though he was on the 2nd Team that year and none of those players were.

Ahhh, no. In 2016-17 IT absolutely was a better player than Irving, Thompson, Lillard, Butler, etc. For his career is IT a better player? No. But in that particular year, IT was definitely better than those players.

He had a better statistical year, that doesn't make him a better player.

But in that year, he was both better statistically, and generally better.

[gpap]

I apologize if someone mentioned this, but Ainge did try to pull a 3-way with Brooklyn and Charlotte so he could acquire Kemba and
re-sign Al.

I think Brooklyn ended up not cooperating. At least Ainge tried.

EDIT-Horford was the one who stopped this from happening by sticking with the agreement he had in place with Philly.

https://weei.radio.com/blogs/nick-friar/al-horford-stopped-celtics-move-keep-him-boston

[Moranis]

In 2016-17, IT was not a better player than Irving, Thompson, Lillard, Butler, etc. even though he was on the 2nd Team that year and none of those players were.

Ahhh, no. In 2016-17 IT absolutely was a better player than Irving, Thompson, Lillard, Butler, etc. For his career is IT a better player? No. But in that particular year, IT was definitely better than those players.

He had a better statistical year, that doesn't make him a better player.

But in that year, he was both better statistically, and generally better.

If he wasn't hurt and Boston still makes the trade with Cleveland, which team is getting the draft pick or extra pieces?  I still believe it would have been Cleveland.  It might not have been the Nets pick, but Cleveland is getting something other than Thomas and salary filler for Irving, even if Thomas wasn't hurt, because Irving was the better player. 

I mean was Karl Malone better than Michael Jordan in 96-97.  Malone won the MVP, but he wasn't a better player than Jordan.  Jordan won his first MVP in 87-88, was anyone better than Jordan in any healthy full season Jordan played until he retired for the 2nd time in the 97-98 season?  Of course not, yet Jordan didn't win the MVP every year.  The same is true of Lebron James over about a 10 year period as well.  Yet most of the winners of the MVP absolutely deserved to win them despite being a worse player than the best player in the world. 

Isaiah Thomas was not better than Kyrie Irving at any point in their careers, though Thomas did have a better season. 

[Somebody]

In 2016-17, IT was not a better player than Irving, Thompson, Lillard, Butler, etc. even though he was on the 2nd Team that year and none of those players were.

Ahhh, no. In 2016-17 IT absolutely was a better player than Irving, Thompson, Lillard, Butler, etc. For his career is IT a better player? No. But in that particular year, IT was definitely better than those players.

He had a better statistical year, that doesn't make him a better player.

But in that year, he was both better statistically, and generally better.

If he wasn't hurt and Boston still makes the trade with Cleveland, which team is getting the draft pick or extra pieces?  I still believe it would have been Cleveland.  It might not have been the Nets pick, but Cleveland is getting something other than Thomas and salary filler for Irving, even if Thomas wasn't hurt, because Irving was the better player. 

I mean was Karl Malone better than Michael Jordan in 96-97.  Malone won the MVP, but he wasn't a better player than Jordan.  Jordan won his first MVP in 87-88, was anyone better than Jordan in any healthy full season Jordan played until he retired for the 2nd time in the 97-98 season?  Of course not, yet Jordan didn't win the MVP every year.  The same is true of Lebron James over about a 10 year period as well.  Yet most of the winners of the MVP absolutely deserved to win them despite being a worse player than the best player in the world. 

Isaiah Thomas was not better than Kyrie Irving at any point in their careers, though Thomas did have a better season.

MVPs, as well as most awards and accolades in the NBA, are not good indicators of how good a player is (see Moses Malone's MVPs over Kareem/Bird/Magic, he never really came close to the level of those three but has 3 MVPs lol). But our argument has never been about IT's 2nd Team All-NBA honours, the stats he put up in Boston and how much he improved their offense without the benefit of major stat enhancers/offensive juggernauts as his teammates was a season that Kyrie and Thompson didn't come close to touching that year, while guys like Butler and Lillard were a touch below imo.

And if he wasn't injured I see no way we'd even approach Cleveland to trade for Kyrie unless we're getting assets in return, IT's 16-17 season was a rung higher than what Kyrie has ever accomplished imo, it doesn't make sense to downgrade from our best player in our quest to beat a transcendent superstar on the team that we would be trading our best player to.

[Moranis]

In 2016-17, IT was not a better player than Irving, Thompson, Lillard, Butler, etc. even though he was on the 2nd Team that year and none of those players were.

Ahhh, no. In 2016-17 IT absolutely was a better player than Irving, Thompson, Lillard, Butler, etc. For his career is IT a better player? No. But in that particular year, IT was definitely better than those players.

He had a better statistical year, that doesn't make him a better player.

But in that year, he was both better statistically, and generally better.

If he wasn't hurt and Boston still makes the trade with Cleveland, which team is getting the draft pick or extra pieces?  I still believe it would have been Cleveland.  It might not have been the Nets pick, but Cleveland is getting something other than Thomas and salary filler for Irving, even if Thomas wasn't hurt, because Irving was the better player. 

I mean was Karl Malone better than Michael Jordan in 96-97.  Malone won the MVP, but he wasn't a better player than Jordan.  Jordan won his first MVP in 87-88, was anyone better than Jordan in any healthy full season Jordan played until he retired for the 2nd time in the 97-98 season?  Of course not, yet Jordan didn't win the MVP every year.  The same is true of Lebron James over about a 10 year period as well.  Yet most of the winners of the MVP absolutely deserved to win them despite being a worse player than the best player in the world. 

Isaiah Thomas was not better than Kyrie Irving at any point in their careers, though Thomas did have a better season.

MVPs, as well as most awards and accolades in the NBA, are not good indicators of how good a player is (see Moses Malone's MVPs over Kareem/Bird/Magic, he never really came close to the level of those three but has 3 MVPs lol). But our argument has never been about IT's 2nd Team All-NBA honours, the stats he put up in Boston and how much he improved their offense without the benefit of major stat enhancers/offensive juggernauts as his teammates was a season that Kyrie and Thompson didn't come close to touching that year, while guys like Butler and Lillard were a touch below imo.

And if he wasn't injured I see no way we'd even approach Cleveland to trade for Kyrie unless we're getting assets in return, IT's 16-17 season was a rung higher than what Kyrie has ever accomplished imo, it doesn't make sense to downgrade from our best player in our quest to beat a transcendent superstar on the team that we would be trading our best player to.

Thomas' defense was awful.  And because his defense was awful, Boston wasn't actually that much worse per 100 possessions without Thomas on the floor.  Thomas has this great season and yet Boston was only 4.2 points per 100 possessions with him on the floor.  That is not very good when talking about elite players (Butler that year for example was +10.9, Thompson was 8.2 (and that is with Durant coming), Irving was 7.4, Lillard was slightly better at 4.5).

Thomas was a very efficient scorer, but his defense was all time bad for someone in his role.  His passing was ok, his rebounding was terrible, etc.  he had a fabulous scoring season, but that is what he was.  He was a super charged Mo Williams type player (and by super charged I do mean a lot better).  This notion that Thomas was in the same class as the best players in the league is strange.  He wasn't. Ainge was never going to give a maximum contract, because he just wasn't worth it.  Ainge would have traded him before giving him that type of contract because Ainge knew exactly what Thomas was.  That is a large reason why he was not only willing to acquire Irving, but also to include the Nets picks, Zizic, and Crowder to get it done (and I realize Thomas was injured, but I absolutely believe Ainge would have made a similar trade with a lesser draft pick even if he was healthy). 

[celticsclay]

In 2016-17, IT was not a better player than Irving, Thompson, Lillard, Butler, etc. even though he was on the 2nd Team that year and none of those players were.

Ahhh, no. In 2016-17 IT absolutely was a better player than Irving, Thompson, Lillard, Butler, etc. For his career is IT a better player? No. But in that particular year, IT was definitely better than those players.

He had a better statistical year, that doesn't make him a better player.

But in that year, he was both better statistically, and generally better.

If he wasn't hurt and Boston still makes the trade with Cleveland, which team is getting the draft pick or extra pieces?  I still believe it would have been Cleveland.  It might not have been the Nets pick, but Cleveland is getting something other than Thomas and salary filler for Irving, even if Thomas wasn't hurt, because Irving was the better player. 

I mean was Karl Malone better than Michael Jordan in 96-97.  Malone won the MVP, but he wasn't a better player than Jordan.  Jordan won his first MVP in 87-88, was anyone better than Jordan in any healthy full season Jordan played until he retired for the 2nd time in the 97-98 season?  Of course not, yet Jordan didn't win the MVP every year.  The same is true of Lebron James over about a 10 year period as well.  Yet most of the winners of the MVP absolutely deserved to win them despite being a worse player than the best player in the world. 

Isaiah Thomas was not better than Kyrie Irving at any point in their careers, though Thomas did have a better season.

MVPs, as well as most awards and accolades in the NBA, are not good indicators of how good a player is (see Moses Malone's MVPs over Kareem/Bird/Magic, he never really came close to the level of those three but has 3 MVPs lol). But our argument has never been about IT's 2nd Team All-NBA honours, the stats he put up in Boston and how much he improved their offense without the benefit of major stat enhancers/offensive juggernauts as his teammates was a season that Kyrie and Thompson didn't come close to touching that year, while guys like Butler and Lillard were a touch below imo.

And if he wasn't injured I see no way we'd even approach Cleveland to trade for Kyrie unless we're getting assets in return, IT's 16-17 season was a rung higher than what Kyrie has ever accomplished imo, it doesn't make sense to downgrade from our best player in our quest to beat a transcendent superstar on the team that we would be trading our best player to.

Thomas' defense was awful.  And because his defense was awful, Boston wasn't actually that much worse per 100 possessions without Thomas on the floor.  Thomas has this great season and yet Boston was only 4.2 points per 100 possessions with him on the floor.  That is not very good when talking about elite players (Butler that year for example was +10.9, Thompson was 8.2 (and that is with Durant coming), Irving was 7.4, Lillard was slightly better at 4.5).

Thomas was a very efficient scorer, but his defense was all time bad for someone in his role.  His passing was ok, his rebounding was terrible, etc.  he had a fabulous scoring season, but that is what he was.  He was a super charged Mo Williams type player (and by super charged I do mean a lot better).  This notion that Thomas was in the same class as the best players in the league is strange.  He wasn't. Ainge was never going to give a maximum contract, because he just wasn't worth it.  Ainge would have traded him before giving him that type of contract because Ainge knew exactly what Thomas was.  That is a large reason why he was not only willing to acquire Irving, but also to include the Nets picks, Zizic, and Crowder to get it done (and I realize Thomas was injured, but I absolutely believe Ainge would have made a similar trade with a lesser draft pick even if he was healthy).

I am curious if Butler was a better player than IT that year, why he couldn't lead them past us in the playoffs? Is jae Crowder, Avery Bradley, Gerald Green and Horford a better supporting cast than Wade, Mirotic, Lopez and Portis? They seem pretty similar to me. I feel like we were the high seed and won that series because of how great IT was playing.

[Moranis]

In 2016-17, IT was not a better player than Irving, Thompson, Lillard, Butler, etc. even though he was on the 2nd Team that year and none of those players were.

Ahhh, no. In 2016-17 IT absolutely was a better player than Irving, Thompson, Lillard, Butler, etc. For his career is IT a better player? No. But in that particular year, IT was definitely better than those players.

He had a better statistical year, that doesn't make him a better player.

But in that year, he was both better statistically, and generally better.

If he wasn't hurt and Boston still makes the trade with Cleveland, which team is getting the draft pick or extra pieces?  I still believe it would have been Cleveland.  It might not have been the Nets pick, but Cleveland is getting something other than Thomas and salary filler for Irving, even if Thomas wasn't hurt, because Irving was the better player. 

I mean was Karl Malone better than Michael Jordan in 96-97.  Malone won the MVP, but he wasn't a better player than Jordan.  Jordan won his first MVP in 87-88, was anyone better than Jordan in any healthy full season Jordan played until he retired for the 2nd time in the 97-98 season?  Of course not, yet Jordan didn't win the MVP every year.  The same is true of Lebron James over about a 10 year period as well.  Yet most of the winners of the MVP absolutely deserved to win them despite being a worse player than the best player in the world. 

Isaiah Thomas was not better than Kyrie Irving at any point in their careers, though Thomas did have a better season.

MVPs, as well as most awards and accolades in the NBA, are not good indicators of how good a player is (see Moses Malone's MVPs over Kareem/Bird/Magic, he never really came close to the level of those three but has 3 MVPs lol). But our argument has never been about IT's 2nd Team All-NBA honours, the stats he put up in Boston and how much he improved their offense without the benefit of major stat enhancers/offensive juggernauts as his teammates was a season that Kyrie and Thompson didn't come close to touching that year, while guys like Butler and Lillard were a touch below imo.

And if he wasn't injured I see no way we'd even approach Cleveland to trade for Kyrie unless we're getting assets in return, IT's 16-17 season was a rung higher than what Kyrie has ever accomplished imo, it doesn't make sense to downgrade from our best player in our quest to beat a transcendent superstar on the team that we would be trading our best player to.

Thomas' defense was awful.  And because his defense was awful, Boston wasn't actually that much worse per 100 possessions without Thomas on the floor.  Thomas has this great season and yet Boston was only 4.2 points per 100 possessions with him on the floor.  That is not very good when talking about elite players (Butler that year for example was +10.9, Thompson was 8.2 (and that is with Durant coming), Irving was 7.4, Lillard was slightly better at 4.5).

Thomas was a very efficient scorer, but his defense was all time bad for someone in his role.  His passing was ok, his rebounding was terrible, etc.  he had a fabulous scoring season, but that is what he was.  He was a super charged Mo Williams type player (and by super charged I do mean a lot better).  This notion that Thomas was in the same class as the best players in the league is strange.  He wasn't. Ainge was never going to give a maximum contract, because he just wasn't worth it.  Ainge would have traded him before giving him that type of contract because Ainge knew exactly what Thomas was.  That is a large reason why he was not only willing to acquire Irving, but also to include the Nets picks, Zizic, and Crowder to get it done (and I realize Thomas was injured, but I absolutely believe Ainge would have made a similar trade with a lesser draft pick even if he was healthy).

I am curious if Butler was a better player than IT that year, why he couldn't lead them past us in the playoffs? Is jae Crowder, Avery Bradley, Gerald Green and Horford a better supporting cast than Wade, Mirotic, Lopez and Portis? They seem pretty similar to me. I feel like we were the high seed and won that series because of how great IT was playing.

Seems like a strange series to mention since Butler was statistically better than Thomas basically across the board in that series, which essentially answered your question about which supporting cast was better.

And for the record if Rondo doesn't get hurt, the Bulls likely close that series out.  Rondo's injury with the Bulls up 2-0 meant Isaiah Cannan and Jerian Grant were left as the only credible PG's on the Bulls roster.  Two guys that are ok as back-ups but should never be starting a playoff game for anyone ever.

[celticsclay]

In 2016-17, IT was not a better player than Irving, Thompson, Lillard, Butler, etc. even though he was on the 2nd Team that year and none of those players were.

Ahhh, no. In 2016-17 IT absolutely was a better player than Irving, Thompson, Lillard, Butler, etc. For his career is IT a better player? No. But in that particular year, IT was definitely better than those players.

He had a better statistical year, that doesn't make him a better player.

But in that year, he was both better statistically, and generally better.

If he wasn't hurt and Boston still makes the trade with Cleveland, which team is getting the draft pick or extra pieces?  I still believe it would have been Cleveland.  It might not have been the Nets pick, but Cleveland is getting something other than Thomas and salary filler for Irving, even if Thomas wasn't hurt, because Irving was the better player. 

I mean was Karl Malone better than Michael Jordan in 96-97.  Malone won the MVP, but he wasn't a better player than Jordan.  Jordan won his first MVP in 87-88, was anyone better than Jordan in any healthy full season Jordan played until he retired for the 2nd time in the 97-98 season?  Of course not, yet Jordan didn't win the MVP every year.  The same is true of Lebron James over about a 10 year period as well.  Yet most of the winners of the MVP absolutely deserved to win them despite being a worse player than the best player in the world. 

Isaiah Thomas was not better than Kyrie Irving at any point in their careers, though Thomas did have a better season.

MVPs, as well as most awards and accolades in the NBA, are not good indicators of how good a player is (see Moses Malone's MVPs over Kareem/Bird/Magic, he never really came close to the level of those three but has 3 MVPs lol). But our argument has never been about IT's 2nd Team All-NBA honours, the stats he put up in Boston and how much he improved their offense without the benefit of major stat enhancers/offensive juggernauts as his teammates was a season that Kyrie and Thompson didn't come close to touching that year, while guys like Butler and Lillard were a touch below imo.

And if he wasn't injured I see no way we'd even approach Cleveland to trade for Kyrie unless we're getting assets in return, IT's 16-17 season was a rung higher than what Kyrie has ever accomplished imo, it doesn't make sense to downgrade from our best player in our quest to beat a transcendent superstar on the team that we would be trading our best player to.

Thomas' defense was awful.  And because his defense was awful, Boston wasn't actually that much worse per 100 possessions without Thomas on the floor.  Thomas has this great season and yet Boston was only 4.2 points per 100 possessions with him on the floor.  That is not very good when talking about elite players (Butler that year for example was +10.9, Thompson was 8.2 (and that is with Durant coming), Irving was 7.4, Lillard was slightly better at 4.5).

Thomas was a very efficient scorer, but his defense was all time bad for someone in his role.  His passing was ok, his rebounding was terrible, etc.  he had a fabulous scoring season, but that is what he was.  He was a super charged Mo Williams type player (and by super charged I do mean a lot better).  This notion that Thomas was in the same class as the best players in the league is strange.  He wasn't. Ainge was never going to give a maximum contract, because he just wasn't worth it.  Ainge would have traded him before giving him that type of contract because Ainge knew exactly what Thomas was.  That is a large reason why he was not only willing to acquire Irving, but also to include the Nets picks, Zizic, and Crowder to get it done (and I realize Thomas was injured, but I absolutely believe Ainge would have made a similar trade with a lesser draft pick even if he was healthy).

I am curious if Butler was a better player than IT that year, why he couldn't lead them past us in the playoffs? Is jae Crowder, Avery Bradley, Gerald Green and Horford a better supporting cast than Wade, Mirotic, Lopez and Portis? They seem pretty similar to me. I feel like we were the high seed and won that series because of how great IT was playing.

Seems like a strange series to mention since Butler was statistically better than Thomas basically across the board in that series, which essentially answered your question about which supporting cast was better.

And for the record if Rondo doesn't get hurt, the Bulls likely close that series out.  Rondo's injury with the Bulls up 2-0 meant Isaiah Cannan and Jerian Grant were left as the only credible PG's on the Bulls roster.  Two guys that are ok as back-ups but should never be starting a playoff game for anyone ever.

I don’t really think it is strange at all. Both teams had pretty mediocre players playing legitimate minutes. Your premise earlier in this thread was that stars win the series. Stands to reason IT was a better star that year cause he led us with a bad supporting cast over butler.

[Moranis]

In 2016-17, IT was not a better player than Irving, Thompson, Lillard, Butler, etc. even though he was on the 2nd Team that year and none of those players were.

Ahhh, no. In 2016-17 IT absolutely was a better player than Irving, Thompson, Lillard, Butler, etc. For his career is IT a better player? No. But in that particular year, IT was definitely better than those players.

He had a better statistical year, that doesn't make him a better player.

But in that year, he was both better statistically, and generally better.

If he wasn't hurt and Boston still makes the trade with Cleveland, which team is getting the draft pick or extra pieces?  I still believe it would have been Cleveland.  It might not have been the Nets pick, but Cleveland is getting something other than Thomas and salary filler for Irving, even if Thomas wasn't hurt, because Irving was the better player. 

I mean was Karl Malone better than Michael Jordan in 96-97.  Malone won the MVP, but he wasn't a better player than Jordan.  Jordan won his first MVP in 87-88, was anyone better than Jordan in any healthy full season Jordan played until he retired for the 2nd time in the 97-98 season?  Of course not, yet Jordan didn't win the MVP every year.  The same is true of Lebron James over about a 10 year period as well.  Yet most of the winners of the MVP absolutely deserved to win them despite being a worse player than the best player in the world. 

Isaiah Thomas was not better than Kyrie Irving at any point in their careers, though Thomas did have a better season.

MVPs, as well as most awards and accolades in the NBA, are not good indicators of how good a player is (see Moses Malone's MVPs over Kareem/Bird/Magic, he never really came close to the level of those three but has 3 MVPs lol). But our argument has never been about IT's 2nd Team All-NBA honours, the stats he put up in Boston and how much he improved their offense without the benefit of major stat enhancers/offensive juggernauts as his teammates was a season that Kyrie and Thompson didn't come close to touching that year, while guys like Butler and Lillard were a touch below imo.

And if he wasn't injured I see no way we'd even approach Cleveland to trade for Kyrie unless we're getting assets in return, IT's 16-17 season was a rung higher than what Kyrie has ever accomplished imo, it doesn't make sense to downgrade from our best player in our quest to beat a transcendent superstar on the team that we would be trading our best player to.

Thomas' defense was awful.  And because his defense was awful, Boston wasn't actually that much worse per 100 possessions without Thomas on the floor.  Thomas has this great season and yet Boston was only 4.2 points per 100 possessions with him on the floor.  That is not very good when talking about elite players (Butler that year for example was +10.9, Thompson was 8.2 (and that is with Durant coming), Irving was 7.4, Lillard was slightly better at 4.5).

Thomas was a very efficient scorer, but his defense was all time bad for someone in his role.  His passing was ok, his rebounding was terrible, etc.  he had a fabulous scoring season, but that is what he was.  He was a super charged Mo Williams type player (and by super charged I do mean a lot better).  This notion that Thomas was in the same class as the best players in the league is strange.  He wasn't. Ainge was never going to give a maximum contract, because he just wasn't worth it.  Ainge would have traded him before giving him that type of contract because Ainge knew exactly what Thomas was.  That is a large reason why he was not only willing to acquire Irving, but also to include the Nets picks, Zizic, and Crowder to get it done (and I realize Thomas was injured, but I absolutely believe Ainge would have made a similar trade with a lesser draft pick even if he was healthy).

I am curious if Butler was a better player than IT that year, why he couldn't lead them past us in the playoffs? Is jae Crowder, Avery Bradley, Gerald Green and Horford a better supporting cast than Wade, Mirotic, Lopez and Portis? They seem pretty similar to me. I feel like we were the high seed and won that series because of how great IT was playing.

Seems like a strange series to mention since Butler was statistically better than Thomas basically across the board in that series, which essentially answered your question about which supporting cast was better.

And for the record if Rondo doesn't get hurt, the Bulls likely close that series out.  Rondo's injury with the Bulls up 2-0 meant Isaiah Cannan and Jerian Grant were left as the only credible PG's on the Bulls roster.  Two guys that are ok as back-ups but should never be starting a playoff game for anyone ever.

I don’t really think it is strange at all. Both teams had pretty mediocre players playing legitimate minutes. Your premise earlier in this thread was that stars win the series. Stands to reason IT was a better star that year cause he led us with a bad supporting cast over butler.

Boston's supporting cast was significantly better than Chicago's that series, especially after Rondo went down.  Butler outperformed Thomas across the board because he was quite simply a better player than Thomas both in that series and overall.  Horford, however, was a monster in that series.  He was by far Boston's best player (in the series) and was arguably the best player on the floor (in the series).  At the point in the career Wade was at, Bradley was also a better player than him.  Wade was at the tail end of his career.  He could still have HOF nights, but just not consistently, which is what you saw over the course of that season and in that series.  So Boston had 3 of the 4 best players in that series (especially without Rondo). You are really underselling that supporting cast, especially Horford.  Average Al always came through when the team needed him to, and he was absolutely epic in that Bulls series.     

[tenn_smoothie]

It sounds like his heart is still in Boston, and he would have stayed if either the money or the chance to contend were there when he made his decision.

Basically, he says if Kyrie had stayed it wouldn't have changed things much for him, as that group had major issues and wasn't going to contend, but if he knew Kemba was coming it would definitely have changed things.

I found this really interesting. Kyrie must have been a real negative influence on the team in the end.

I also thought that this was a pretty significant statement - it explains a lot about what was wrong last season. Horford maybe is being critical of Irving, but he is mainly saying that the dynamics of that group of players on the same team was simply not going to work. Those parts would not mesh, due to personalities certainly and due to too much talent that could not find their roles and be happy with them.

Kinda funny to look back now at opening night when the Celts hosted the 76ers, Charles Barkley made the comment that "a team can have too many good players." As much as he annoys me, Barkley was right on target with this particular insight. But I also think about the star studded Celtic/Laker teams of the 80's and how they didn't have trouble finding their roles and being mostly content with them because the team working together to win titles was the most important issue. Today's players are different and are more self-centered. The reason Golden State has done so well is that they have a group of stars who grew into the league together and they valued working together more than they did pursuing individual accomplishments.

One thing about Horford is ....... he has already made his money. I would have thought such a team-oriented player like him would have taken a more modest contract and would have been looking forward to playing on a very good Celtics team minus all the negative drama from last season. But here he is, essentially saying he felt "dissed" by the Celtics because of his age and he wanted more money for more years and wanted to go ring chasing.