Author Topic: Smart for Wiseman?  (Read 10964 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: Smart for Wiseman?
« Reply #75 on: October 24, 2020, 12:51:02 PM »

Offline PhoSita

  • NCE
  • Robert Parish
  • *********************
  • Posts: 21835
  • Tommy Points: 2182
And this is why Boston won't win the title any time soon.  You just can't do that.  You have to pick a direction because otherwise you are just going to keep plodding along like Boston has for the last 5 years i.e. a good team, but not one that is going to realistically win the title. 


Man, I don't even know what you're talking about.  They have picked a direction -- they're building around Tatum and Brown and trying to win now, while doing what they can to set the team up to maintain an open window during the time those guys are under contract.


It seems to me that you think that if the Celtics don't have a clear cut top 5 MVP candidate, they should be in a permanent state of rebuilding and/or compiling assets.


Do you actually watch the Celtics?  I only ask that because it seems to me that your preferred strategy would make the team very difficult to enjoy if you actually watch them.  What you're advocating for only makes sense if you're happy to kind of keep the team on the side burner of your attention until they're at the top of the league again, at which time you'll buy in again.


You're entitled to that version of fandom, if that's what you like.  I just can't get on board with it.


Even if the idea is "well they should go absolutely all in on the short term," that's not a smart strategy either.  No team can be built to definitively win in any given season.  Look at the Clippers this year.  You do not want to be in a situation where you are all in on one season.  That's a precarious place to be as a team or as a fan.  The best strategy is to build a team that has the basic ingredients to be very, very good, and then make moves to maintain those ingredients and build a sustainable support system around them.
« Last Edit: October 24, 2020, 01:02:00 PM by PhoSita »
You’ll have to excuse my lengthiness—the reason I dread writing letters is because I am so apt to get to slinging wisdom & forget to let up. Thus much precious time is lost.
- Mark Twain

Re: Smart for Wiseman?
« Reply #76 on: October 24, 2020, 12:55:52 PM »

Offline PhoSita

  • NCE
  • Robert Parish
  • *********************
  • Posts: 21835
  • Tommy Points: 2182

 I think saying something like "I don't think Smart loses us games" or that Smart isn't inconsistent is indefensible. Going from G4 where he shot 25% on 12 shots, fouled out and turned it over 4 times (assist:to ratio of 2.75:1) in a loss to G5 where he shot 33% on 9 shots (still bad), turned it over 1 time (assist:to ratio of 8:1) and didn't foul out in a win is a perfect example of both his inconsistency and him losing us a game.
We lost G4 by 3 points and he was 1/8 from the three point line.


He doesn't approach the game in a different way on a game to game basis.  We know what' we're getting from Smart in terms of his shot profile, his intensity, his focus on defense, and his overall approach to the game.

You're right that his style inherently produces variable results, at least when it comes to his shooting.  Sometimes his grifting for foul calls and trying to force turnovers ends up going against him a couple more times than it goes in his favor. 

I'm saying that I've seen more than enough from Smart over the years to accept all of that.  I know what I'm getting  from Smart.  I'm convinced he's a crucial element to the Celtics being as competitive as they have been.


You look at what this team as done in the playoffs in 2017, 2018, and 2020.  A lot changed about the roster over those years.  Smart was there the whole time.  So was Brad Stevens.  There were times in those years when I assumed they would struggle more or get eliminated sooner because of the other challenges they faced.  The way the team has performed over the time that Brad and Smart have been here has built my faith and trust in those guys more and more.

Neither Smart nor Brad are perfect.  But I don't think that the path to the Celtics winning a title in the next 5 years involves exchanging either of them for some one else.  So I'm always going to defend those guys in these threads. 
« Last Edit: October 24, 2020, 01:03:34 PM by PhoSita »
You’ll have to excuse my lengthiness—the reason I dread writing letters is because I am so apt to get to slinging wisdom & forget to let up. Thus much precious time is lost.
- Mark Twain

Re: Smart for Wiseman?
« Reply #77 on: October 24, 2020, 02:54:03 PM »

Offline GreenFaith1819

  • NCE
  • Reggie Lewis
  • ***************
  • Posts: 15402
  • Tommy Points: 2785
I think you do Smart for Wiseman if you think Wiseman will be bonafide good enough to get us to the Finals next year.

I don't think he has THAT kind of talent but perhaps in a couple of years he may...........

Thing is though - I don't think BOS has "A couple of Years"..........

BOS's window is NOW.....we need to get to THE FINALS next year AT LEAST and I don't see Wiseman being ready to help us do that at least right away.

Re: Smart for Wiseman?
« Reply #78 on: October 24, 2020, 02:55:39 PM »

Offline Moranis

  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 33461
  • Tommy Points: 1533
And this is why Boston won't win the title any time soon.  You just can't do that.  You have to pick a direction because otherwise you are just going to keep plodding along like Boston has for the last 5 years i.e. a good team, but not one that is going to realistically win the title. 


Man, I don't even know what you're talking about.  They have picked a direction -- they're building around Tatum and Brown and trying to win now, while doing what they can to set the team up to maintain an open window during the time those guys are under contract.


It seems to me that you think that if the Celtics don't have a clear cut top 5 MVP candidate, they should be in a permanent state of rebuilding and/or compiling assets.


Do you actually watch the Celtics?  I only ask that because it seems to me that your preferred strategy would make the team very difficult to enjoy if you actually watch them.  What you're advocating for only makes sense if you're happy to kind of keep the team on the side burner of your attention until they're at the top of the league again, at which time you'll buy in again.


You're entitled to that version of fandom, if that's what you like.  I just can't get on board with it.


Even if the idea is "well they should go absolutely all in on the short term," that's not a smart strategy either.  No team can be built to definitively win in any given season.  Look at the Clippers this year.  You do not want to be in a situation where you are all in on one season.  That's a precarious place to be as a team or as a fan.  The best strategy is to build a team that has the basic ingredients to be very, very good, and then make moves to maintain those ingredients and build a sustainable support system around them.
building around Tatum and Brown and trying to win now is not picking a direction.  That is trying to have your cake and eat it to.  If the goal was really to try and build around Tatum/Brown, then you don't make the Irving trade.  Then you move on from Morris and get something for him.  And countless other similar trades.  If the goal is really trying to win now, then you don't pass on a Kawhi or Davis trade after making the Irving trade.  Then you bring in players at the trade deadline in any of the last 3 seasons, even at the expense of future picks or assets.  That is what I'm saying.  And that continued last summer when they dumped Baynes with a 1st round pick just to clear cap space (which probably wasn't necessary as it turned out because of Charlotte agreed to a sign and trade of Rozier).  How much better are Boston's title odds with SGA or Porter on this team right now?  Boston very likely has another title right now if it had pulled the trigger on the Brown or Kawhi trade (Boston had better remaining pieces than Toronto did). 

I truly don't care what the direction Boston take is, but the indecision on a long term plan has set the title chances back for the C's significantly.  And it isn't coming next season either as the team isn't good enough. 
2023 Historical Draft - Brooklyn Nets - 9th pick

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

Re: Smart for Wiseman?
« Reply #79 on: October 24, 2020, 02:57:37 PM »

Offline Moranis

  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 33461
  • Tommy Points: 1533
I think you do Smart for Wiseman if you think Wiseman will be bonafide good enough to get us to the Finals next year.

I don't think he has THAT kind of talent but perhaps in a couple of years he may...........

Thing is though - I don't think BOS has "A couple of Years"..........

BOS's window is NOW.....we need to get to THE FINALS next year AT LEAST and I don't see Wiseman being ready to help us do that at least right away.
And you think Smart does?  I just don't see it.  Boston is not going to the Finals next year with the status quo.  Boston isn't better than Milwaukee, isn't better than Brooklyn, and arguably isn't even better than Miami or Philly (depending on what Doc does with Embiid/Simmons). 
2023 Historical Draft - Brooklyn Nets - 9th pick

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

Re: Smart for Wiseman?
« Reply #80 on: October 24, 2020, 03:04:59 PM »

Offline GreenFaith1819

  • NCE
  • Reggie Lewis
  • ***************
  • Posts: 15402
  • Tommy Points: 2785
I think you do Smart for Wiseman if you think Wiseman will be bonafide good enough to get us to the Finals next year.

I don't think he has THAT kind of talent but perhaps in a couple of years he may...........

Thing is though - I don't think BOS has "A couple of Years"..........

BOS's window is NOW.....we need to get to THE FINALS next year AT LEAST and I don't see Wiseman being ready to help us do that at least right away.
And you think Smart does?  I just don't see it.  Boston is not going to the Finals next year with the status quo.  Boston isn't better than Milwaukee, isn't better than Brooklyn, and arguably isn't even better than Miami or Philly (depending on what Doc does with Embiid/Simmons).

You're preaching to the choir, my friend, lol :)

I agree with you, mostly....that's why I  posted in the "Rumor: Pacers interested in Hayward" just a few minutes ago.

I think Danny needs to start thinking "BIG" in regards to "ANY" trade and I don't think Smart for Wiseman is it.

Re: Smart for Wiseman?
« Reply #81 on: October 24, 2020, 03:28:33 PM »

Offline gouki88

  • NCE
  • Red Auerbach
  • *******************************
  • Posts: 31552
  • Tommy Points: 3141
  • 2019 & 2021 CS Historical Draft Champion


I think the reality is that as good as Smart is his wild inconsistency is brutal for the team. The Miami series was the crystal clear example of this. Sure, he averaged 17/5/5 with strong defence. But he shot 39% on 14FGA a game and 32% on 8 3PA per game. His inability to control himself and reign it in time and again loses us games.



I don't know how to say this other than that I completely disagree.

I don't think that Smart loses the team games. I also don't think that he's especially inconsistent in the way he plays or what he adds.  Yes there are times when his shot selection could be better.
He is by nature a streaky shooter. But it's an integral part of everything else he brings on and off the court. Also his streaky shooting kept the Celtics in several games during their playoff run.

Smart is a winning player. The Celts are better with him. That's the bottom line for me.  I'm pretty surprised that anybody who watches the Celtics regularly has any doubts about that at this point, honestly. I'm not saying that to impugn the fandom or basketball savvy of anyone here. I'm just genuinely surprised.


I think IP said it really well. The Celts would be fools to trade Smart unless they had some reason to think there was no point in trying to compete for the title over the rest of Smart's contract, or somebody wildly overpaid for him. To me, the #2 pick in a weak draft is not a wild overpay when you consider that the Celts are trying to be an elite team in the present as well as in the future.
Fair enough that you disagree, I do too. I think saying something like "I don't think Smart loses us games" or that Smart isn't inconsistent is indefensible. Going from G4 where he shot 25% on 12 shots, fouled out and turned it over 4 times (assist:to ratio of 2.75:1) in a loss to G5 where he shot 33% on 9 shots (still bad), turned it over 1 time (assist:to ratio of 8:1) and didn't foul out in a win is a perfect example of both his inconsistency and him losing us a game.
We lost G4 by 3 points and he was 1/8 from the three point line.

I get disliking the idea of trading Smart for #2. That's fair, I guess. I disagree wildly with the evaluation of the draft. If Wiseman doesn't get suspended for things Penny Hardaway did without his knowledge, and this was a normal year, he'd be lauded as a great prospect.

I fear that a time might come where Smart's delusions of grandeur regarding his offensive ability will start to hold the team back, if they aren't already.

Stepien report doesn’t concern you? Wouldn’t you rather trade up for Okongwu without giving up so much?
I simply disagree with the Stepien report. Their scouting report was lazily focusing on his high-school play and pretty much ignored the improvements he made in his college showings. I do think Okongwu would be a great fit, but I think the Stepien is really really low on Wiseman's potential, incorrectly
'23 Historical Draft: Orlando Magic.

PG: Terry Porter (90-91) / Steve Francis (00-01)
SG: Joe Dumars (92-93) / Jeff Hornacek (91-92) / Jerry Stackhouse (00-01)
SF: Brandon Roy (08-09) / Walter Davis (78-79)
PF: Terry Cummings (84-85) / Paul Millsap (15-16)
C: Chris Webber (00-01) / Ralph Sampson (83-84) / Andrew Bogut (09-10)

Re: Smart for Wiseman?
« Reply #82 on: October 24, 2020, 03:42:18 PM »

Offline Who

  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 47136
  • Tommy Points: 2401
Time to take that next step....I just hope us as a Fan Base are ready for what that may entail......

What I'm trying to say is that "IF" we make a trade IMO Danny needs to swing for the fences......

Greek Freak or some other Big Time C or PF that we as a fanbase may not have on our radar.

The above quote is from another thread - The Hayward to Indiana thread and is only part of the comment ....

But I wanted to cut it out and add it to this topic because I like how it interlinks with this trade idea of Smart for Wiseman.

Trading Smart for Wiseman does not cost the team one of it's top assets in Jaylen or Tatum. It keeps those bullets to be used in a bigger trade if that trade presents itself. It also keeps Kemba and Hayward who are our two supporting veteran stars. It costs Smart but allows us to maintain our 4 main stars for (1) winning now (2) staying setup for a mega-trade in the future.

Plus, Wiseman could be a hugely valuable trade asset in such a trade. An athletic talented 7 footer as a secondary piece next to one of those 4 main pieces to land a prime time talent like Giannis or someone else. That is a trade piece that has a lot of good value.

Re: Smart for Wiseman?
« Reply #83 on: October 24, 2020, 03:47:57 PM »

Offline GreenFaith1819

  • NCE
  • Reggie Lewis
  • ***************
  • Posts: 15402
  • Tommy Points: 2785
Time to take that next step....I just hope us as a Fan Base are ready for what that may entail......

What I'm trying to say is that "IF" we make a trade IMO Danny needs to swing for the fences......

Greek Freak or some other Big Time C or PF that we as a fanbase may not have on our radar.

The above quote is from another thread - The Hayward to Indiana thread and is only part of the comment ....

But I wanted to cut it out and add it to this topic because I like how it interlinks with this trade idea of Smart for Wiseman.

Trading Smart for Wiseman does not cost the team one of it's top assets in Jaylen or Tatum. It keeps those bullets to be used in a bigger trade if that trade presents itself. It also keeps Kemba and Hayward who are our two supporting veteran stars. It costs Smart but allows us to maintain our 4 main stars for (1) winning now (2) staying setup for a mega-trade in the future.

Plus, Wiseman could be a hugely valuable trade asset in such a trade. An athletic talented 7 footer as a secondary piece next to one of those 4 main pieces to land a prime time talent like Giannis or someone else. That is a trade piece that has a lot of good value.

The crazy thing with this suggestion is that I can see Danny doing such a trade....and it would work.

Count me onboard with such trades like this if it helps us nab #18.....I am going to hate losing one (or even TWO) of our top 5 but LAL getting #17 has upped the ante....

And the East has gotten tougher.

Re: Smart for Wiseman?
« Reply #84 on: October 24, 2020, 03:57:08 PM »

Offline footey

  • Reggie Lewis
  • ***************
  • Posts: 15965
  • Tommy Points: 1833
And this is why Boston won't win the title any time soon.  You just can't do that.  You have to pick a direction because otherwise you are just going to keep plodding along like Boston has for the last 5 years i.e. a good team, but not one that is going to realistically win the title. 


Man, I don't even know what you're talking about.  They have picked a direction -- they're building around Tatum and Brown and trying to win now, while doing what they can to set the team up to maintain an open window during the time those guys are under contract.


It seems to me that you think that if the Celtics don't have a clear cut top 5 MVP candidate, they should be in a permanent state of rebuilding and/or compiling assets.


Do you actually watch the Celtics?  I only ask that because it seems to me that your preferred strategy would make the team very difficult to enjoy if you actually watch them.  What you're advocating for only makes sense if you're happy to kind of keep the team on the side burner of your attention until they're at the top of the league again, at which time you'll buy in again.


You're entitled to that version of fandom, if that's what you like.  I just can't get on board with it.


Even if the idea is "well they should go absolutely all in on the short term," that's not a smart strategy either.  No team can be built to definitively win in any given season.  Look at the Clippers this year.  You do not want to be in a situation where you are all in on one season.  That's a precarious place to be as a team or as a fan.  The best strategy is to build a team that has the basic ingredients to be very, very good, and then make moves to maintain those ingredients and build a sustainable support system around them.
building around Tatum and Brown and trying to win now is not picking a direction.  That is trying to have your cake and eat it to.  If the goal was really to try and build around Tatum/Brown, then you don't make the Irving trade.  Then you move on from Morris and get something for him.  And countless other similar trades.  If the goal is really trying to win now, then you don't pass on a Kawhi or Davis trade after making the Irving trade.  Then you bring in players at the trade deadline in any of the last 3 seasons, even at the expense of future picks or assets.  That is what I'm saying.  And that continued last summer when they dumped Baynes with a 1st round pick just to clear cap space (which probably wasn't necessary as it turned out because of Charlotte agreed to a sign and trade of Rozier).  How much better are Boston's title odds with SGA or Porter on this team right now?  Boston very likely has another title right now if it had pulled the trigger on the Brown or Kawhi trade (Boston had better remaining pieces than Toronto did). 

I truly don't care what the direction Boston take is, but the indecision on a long term plan has set the title chances back for the C's significantly.  And it isn't coming next season either as the team isn't good enough.

Danny made the Kyrie trade because he wanted to try to "win now" for the sake of Al Horford and Gordon Hayward. He said as much at the time he made the trade.

He wasn't counting on Hayward getting a catastrophic injury 5 minutes in to his first game, or Irving getting injured, and being a bad fit chemistry wise. 

Re: Smart for Wiseman?
« Reply #85 on: October 24, 2020, 06:13:33 PM »

Offline Moranis

  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 33461
  • Tommy Points: 1533
And this is why Boston won't win the title any time soon.  You just can't do that.  You have to pick a direction because otherwise you are just going to keep plodding along like Boston has for the last 5 years i.e. a good team, but not one that is going to realistically win the title. 


Man, I don't even know what you're talking about.  They have picked a direction -- they're building around Tatum and Brown and trying to win now, while doing what they can to set the team up to maintain an open window during the time those guys are under contract.


It seems to me that you think that if the Celtics don't have a clear cut top 5 MVP candidate, they should be in a permanent state of rebuilding and/or compiling assets.


Do you actually watch the Celtics?  I only ask that because it seems to me that your preferred strategy would make the team very difficult to enjoy if you actually watch them.  What you're advocating for only makes sense if you're happy to kind of keep the team on the side burner of your attention until they're at the top of the league again, at which time you'll buy in again.


You're entitled to that version of fandom, if that's what you like.  I just can't get on board with it.


Even if the idea is "well they should go absolutely all in on the short term," that's not a smart strategy either.  No team can be built to definitively win in any given season.  Look at the Clippers this year.  You do not want to be in a situation where you are all in on one season.  That's a precarious place to be as a team or as a fan.  The best strategy is to build a team that has the basic ingredients to be very, very good, and then make moves to maintain those ingredients and build a sustainable support system around them.
building around Tatum and Brown and trying to win now is not picking a direction.  That is trying to have your cake and eat it to.  If the goal was really to try and build around Tatum/Brown, then you don't make the Irving trade.  Then you move on from Morris and get something for him.  And countless other similar trades.  If the goal is really trying to win now, then you don't pass on a Kawhi or Davis trade after making the Irving trade.  Then you bring in players at the trade deadline in any of the last 3 seasons, even at the expense of future picks or assets.  That is what I'm saying.  And that continued last summer when they dumped Baynes with a 1st round pick just to clear cap space (which probably wasn't necessary as it turned out because of Charlotte agreed to a sign and trade of Rozier).  How much better are Boston's title odds with SGA or Porter on this team right now?  Boston very likely has another title right now if it had pulled the trigger on the Brown or Kawhi trade (Boston had better remaining pieces than Toronto did). 

I truly don't care what the direction Boston take is, but the indecision on a long term plan has set the title chances back for the C's significantly.  And it isn't coming next season either as the team isn't good enough.

Danny made the Kyrie trade because he wanted to try to "win now" for the sake of Al Horford and Gordon Hayward. He said as much at the time he made the trade.

He wasn't counting on Hayward getting a catastrophic injury 5 minutes in to his first game, or Irving getting injured, and being a bad fit chemistry wise.
And that was a terrible trade if he wasn't going to follow it up because a trio of Irving, Horford, and Hayward was no where near good enough to win a title (and it isn't like he didn't give up a prime asset, a young player, a role player on a decent contract, and whatever IT was at the time - so it wasn't cheap).  Boston just didn't have the prime talent you need to realistically win.  That talent was however available for a reasonable price in Kawhi (or to a lesser extent Davis) and he just didn't pull that trigger.  I mean Boston more than likely wins the title two seasons ago with Kawhi and may very well have won it last year with Davis (and that is even if Irving still leaves). 

Boston is further from a title than it would be right now as a direct result of the ill fated Irving trade, which Ainge never went all in around like he should have.  He didn't even make minor trades that would have improved the team.  I mean 3 straight trade deadlines without doing a thing.  That is what happens when you waste assets, waste time, etc.  Ainge's one real failure as a GM has been his inability to pick a direction.  But for him getting lucky and landing KG, Boston would be lucky to be the Milwaukee Bucks of the 80's.
« Last Edit: October 24, 2020, 06:19:32 PM by Moranis »
2023 Historical Draft - Brooklyn Nets - 9th pick

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

Re: Smart for Wiseman?
« Reply #86 on: October 24, 2020, 06:20:27 PM »

Offline JBcat

  • Ray Allen
  • ***
  • Posts: 3642
  • Tommy Points: 512
Time to take that next step....I just hope us as a Fan Base are ready for what that may entail......

What I'm trying to say is that "IF" we make a trade IMO Danny needs to swing for the fences......

Greek Freak or some other Big Time C or PF that we as a fanbase may not have on our radar.

The above quote is from another thread - The Hayward to Indiana thread and is only part of the comment ....

But I wanted to cut it out and add it to this topic because I like how it interlinks with this trade idea of Smart for Wiseman.

Trading Smart for Wiseman does not cost the team one of it's top assets in Jaylen or Tatum. It keeps those bullets to be used in a bigger trade if that trade presents itself. It also keeps Kemba and Hayward who are our two supporting veteran stars. It costs Smart but allows us to maintain our 4 main stars for (1) winning now (2) staying setup for a mega-trade in the future.

Plus, Wiseman could be a hugely valuable trade asset in such a trade. An athletic talented 7 footer as a secondary piece next to one of those 4 main pieces to land a prime time talent like Giannis or someone else. That is a trade piece that has a lot of good value.

This is a very good point. It’s like a chess match thinking 2 or 3 steps ahead that Wiseman could be a hugely valuable trade chip in the future or if he reaches his full potential just keep him, and as much as I love Smart maybe his trade value won’t be any higher than it is right now.  So I’m starting to come around on this idea.  If all it takes is Smart to get the 2nd pick we still have the 14th, 26th, and 30th picks to move up to around the 7th pick to draft my binky Killian Hayes 😊, or someone else Ainge may like a lot. 

This may lead to a secondary trade of Robert Williams or Theis (his trade value may never be higher than it is now too), if we are taking on Wiseman.

If the Celtics brass are really high on Langford as they seem to be this kind of move allows him to backfill some of Smart’s minutes, and we could use the MLE on someone to help fill the void as well.

We would hopefully not suffer much at all with these moves in the immediate future while we still have a very effective Hayward and Walker, while expanding our young talent base even more for long term sustainable success.

This is kind of trade idea made me think of trading away Gerald Henderson for a future pick that ended up 2nd overall.

Re: Smart for Wiseman?
« Reply #87 on: October 24, 2020, 06:34:00 PM »

Offline Ogaju

  • Bill Sharman
  • *******************
  • Posts: 19479
  • Tommy Points: 1871
And this is why Boston won't win the title any time soon.  You just can't do that.  You have to pick a direction because otherwise you are just going to keep plodding along like Boston has for the last 5 years i.e. a good team, but not one that is going to realistically win the title. 


Man, I don't even know what you're talking about.  They have picked a direction -- they're building around Tatum and Brown and trying to win now, while doing what they can to set the team up to maintain an open window during the time those guys are under contract.


It seems to me that you think that if the Celtics don't have a clear cut top 5 MVP candidate, they should be in a permanent state of rebuilding and/or compiling assets.


Do you actually watch the Celtics?  I only ask that because it seems to me that your preferred strategy would make the team very difficult to enjoy if you actually watch them.  What you're advocating for only makes sense if you're happy to kind of keep the team on the side burner of your attention until they're at the top of the league again, at which time you'll buy in again.


You're entitled to that version of fandom, if that's what you like.  I just can't get on board with it.


Even if the idea is "well they should go absolutely all in on the short term," that's not a smart strategy either.  No team can be built to definitively win in any given season.  Look at the Clippers this year.  You do not want to be in a situation where you are all in on one season.  That's a precarious place to be as a team or as a fan.  The best strategy is to build a team that has the basic ingredients to be very, very good, and then make moves to maintain those ingredients and build a sustainable support system around them.
building around Tatum and Brown and trying to win now is not picking a direction.  That is trying to have your cake and eat it to.  If the goal was really to try and build around Tatum/Brown, then you don't make the Irving trade.  Then you move on from Morris and get something for him.  And countless other similar trades.  If the goal is really trying to win now, then you don't pass on a Kawhi or Davis trade after making the Irving trade.  Then you bring in players at the trade deadline in any of the last 3 seasons, even at the expense of future picks or assets.  That is what I'm saying.  And that continued last summer when they dumped Baynes with a 1st round pick just to clear cap space (which probably wasn't necessary as it turned out because of Charlotte agreed to a sign and trade of Rozier).  How much better are Boston's title odds with SGA or Porter on this team right now?  Boston very likely has another title right now if it had pulled the trigger on the Brown or Kawhi trade (Boston had better remaining pieces than Toronto did). 

I truly don't care what the direction Boston take is, but the indecision on a long term plan has set the title chances back for the C's significantly.  And it isn't coming next season either as the team isn't good enough.

Danny made the Kyrie trade because he wanted to try to "win now" for the sake of Al Horford and Gordon Hayward. He said as much at the time he made the trade.

He wasn't counting on Hayward getting a catastrophic injury 5 minutes in to his first game, or Irving getting injured, and being a bad fit chemistry wise.
And that was a terrible trade if he wasn't going to follow it up because a trio of Irving, Horford, and Hayward was no where near good enough to win a title (and it isn't like he didn't give up a prime asset, a young player, a role player on a decent contract, and whatever IT was at the time - so it wasn't cheap).  Boston just didn't have the prime talent you need to realistically win.  That talent was however available for a reasonable price in Kawhi (or to a lesser extent Davis) and he just didn't pull that trigger.  I mean Boston more than likely wins the title two seasons ago with Kawhi and may very well have won it last year with Davis (and that is even if Irving still leaves). 

Boston is further from a title than it would be right now as a direct result of the ill fated Irving trade, which Ainge never went all in around like he should have.  He didn't even make minor trades that would have improved the team.  I mean 3 straight trade deadlines without doing a thing.  That is what happens when you waste assets, waste time, etc.  Ainge's one real failure as a GM has been his inability to pick a direction.  But for him getting lucky and landing KG, Boston would be lucky to be the Milwaukee Bucks of the 80's.

that was a hefty price to pay for Kyrie Irving.

Re: Smart for Wiseman?
« Reply #88 on: October 25, 2020, 12:26:20 AM »

Offline Somebody

  • Tiny Archibald
  • *******
  • Posts: 7816
  • Tommy Points: 560
  • STAND FIRM, SAY NO TO VIBE MEN
Quote
2018 - 55-27, 17-11
2019 - 49-33, 1-1
2020 - 48-24, 9-3


125-69 (.644) without; 27-18 (.600) without

That difference doesn’t sound like a lot, but the difference in win percentages is about four wins per season.
But that is without replacing him at all and just removing him from the lineup. This is the exact same argument I was making with Kyrie his last year in Boston.  That the team isn't better without him, but they aren't appreciably worse either and that is just removing him without replacing him with assets acquired in a trade.  And low and behold, Kyrie leaves and the team is just flat out better by replacing him with a different, though lesser, player that fits better. 

Defensive role players that know their role and don't over extend offensively are nice to have, but they don't move the needle much as they are role player.  But that isn't even Smart.  He over extends and makes terrible offensive decisions time and time again, which negates a lot of his defensive value.  And because offense is so much more important than defense, it is a real problem. 

Boston would be far more likely to win a title by upgrading from Smart to the #2 pick in the draft.  Not next season, but probably stating in year 2 on, and since Boston's title window hinges on Tatum, it is far more critical to find the pieces that make sense around Tatum, and with Brown already in tow, Smart isn't that guy.
The bolded can be somewhat approximated with more advanced one-number metrics like RPM, RAPM and PIPM and they all rate Smart as a pretty valuable player who's in the top 40 range with some context added in.
Jaylen Brown for All-NBA