The guy everyone seemingly wants to trade....

[Roy H.]

The team is 8-7 since Jaylen came back, which includes tonight's win. I'm sorry, but the blame for being a .500 team has to rest on the shoulders of your best players. If a team has 2 "all stars", I would think .500 is not meeting expectations. Your best players have to make everyone around them better, and Jayson and Jaylen play more of an individualistic  rather than a team game.

Now, I'm not saying we should trade Jaylen, but I'm not putting blinders on either and just blaming everyone else besides the Jays.

This makes no sense unless you are willing to admit that:

The Lakers being only one game above .500 is a Lebron issue.
The Nuggets being only one game above .500 is a Jokic issue.
The Sixers being 16-16 at one point was an Embiid issue.
And.
The Hawks being 5 games under .500 is a Trae Young issue.

Are the stars the issues with these teams, or maybe it's what's happening with the other players around those stars that's the problem? I am going with the latter.

Not entirely the same thing.  I mean the Sixers are 20-9 with Embiid and 3-8 without him.  Even the Lakers are 16-14 with Lebron and 5-7 without him and in the last 12 are 5-7 with Lebron, but without Davis.  Nuggets are 19-15 with Jokic and 1-4 without him.  Now the Hawks, are actually better without Trae Young this year.  And while Boston is not better without either Tatum or Brown, they aren't worse either as they are .500 with or without those guys.  So yeah if the team isn't worse when you don't play there may actually be something there.

The difference with and without Lebron isn’t that far off.  The problem in LA is a supporting cast that isn’t good enough to win, despite having a guy who is still first team All-NBA.

[nickagneta]

The team is 8-7 since Jaylen came back, which includes tonight's win. I'm sorry, but the blame for being a .500 team has to rest on the shoulders of your best players. If a team has 2 "all stars", I would think .500 is not meeting expectations. Your best players have to make everyone around them better, and Jayson and Jaylen play more of an individualistic  rather than a team game.

Now, I'm not saying we should trade Jaylen, but I'm not putting blinders on either and just blaming everyone else besides the Jays.

This makes no sense unless you are willing to admit that:

The Lakers being only one game above .500 is a Lebron issue.
The Nuggets being only one game above .500 is a Jokic issue.
The Sixers being 16-16 at one point was an Embiid issue.
And.
The Hawks being 5 games under .500 is a Trae Young issue.

Are the stars the issues with these teams, or maybe it's what's happening with the other players around those stars that's the problem? I am going with the latter.

Not entirely the same thing.  I mean the Sixers are 20-9 with Embiid and 3-8 without him.  Even the Lakers are 16-14 with Lebron and 5-7 without him and in the last 12 are 5-7 with Lebron, but without Davis.  Nuggets are 19-15 with Jokic and 1-4 without him.  Now the Hawks, are actually better without Trae Young this year.  And while Boston is not better without either Tatum or Brown, they aren't worse either as they are .500 with or without those guys.  So yeah if the team isn't worse when you don't play there may actually be something there.

The difference with and without Lebron isn’t that far off.  The problem in LA is a supporting cast that isn’t good enough to win, despite having a guy who is still first team All-NBA.

Even 19-15 with Jokic, the league MVP, isn't that far off and should be better, if not for his surrounding casts issues.

My point still remains, the issues aren't the superstars, it's the cast of characters around them.

[Donoghus]

I think the idea of trading Jaylen is nuts.

[Moranis]

The team is 8-7 since Jaylen came back, which includes tonight's win. I'm sorry, but the blame for being a .500 team has to rest on the shoulders of your best players. If a team has 2 "all stars", I would think .500 is not meeting expectations. Your best players have to make everyone around them better, and Jayson and Jaylen play more of an individualistic  rather than a team game.

Now, I'm not saying we should trade Jaylen, but I'm not putting blinders on either and just blaming everyone else besides the Jays.

This makes no sense unless you are willing to admit that:

The Lakers being only one game above .500 is a Lebron issue.
The Nuggets being only one game above .500 is a Jokic issue.
The Sixers being 16-16 at one point was an Embiid issue.
And.
The Hawks being 5 games under .500 is a Trae Young issue.

Are the stars the issues with these teams, or maybe it's what's happening with the other players around those stars that's the problem? I am going with the latter.

Not entirely the same thing.  I mean the Sixers are 20-9 with Embiid and 3-8 without him.  Even the Lakers are 16-14 with Lebron and 5-7 without him and in the last 12 are 5-7 with Lebron, but without Davis.  Nuggets are 19-15 with Jokic and 1-4 without him.  Now the Hawks, are actually better without Trae Young this year.  And while Boston is not better without either Tatum or Brown, they aren't worse either as they are .500 with or without those guys.  So yeah if the team isn't worse when you don't play there may actually be something there.

The difference with and without Lebron isn’t that far off.  The problem in LA is a supporting cast that isn’t good enough to win, despite having a guy who is still first team All-NBA.

Even 19-15 with Jokic, the league MVP, isn't that far off and should be better, if not for his surrounding casts issues.

My point still remains, the issues aren't the superstars, it's the cast of characters around them.

Or maybe it is that Tatum and Brown aren't good enough coupled with a terrible supporting cast.  I mean aside from Young, the other 3 guys are all clearly better than Tatum and Brown.  Additionally, who is the 2nd player on those teams currently?  I'm pretty confident every single one of us would take Brown over Westbrook, Harris, Gordon, and Collins.  So why is it that Boston with 2 all star level players can't win?  Maybe just maybe it is the 2 all stars that quite simply aren't good enough.  And perhaps they aren't good enough because they don't maximize each other's ability, which is why you see people like me, saying the team should trade Brown for better fitting pieces around Tatum.

[nickagneta]

I think the idea of trading Jaylen is nuts.

[Vermont Green]

Or maybe it is that Tatum and Brown aren't good enough coupled with a terrible supporting cast.  I mean aside from Young, the other 3 guys are all clearly better than Tatum and Brown.  Additionally, who is the 2nd player on those teams currently?  I'm pretty confident every single one of us would take Brown over Westbrook, Harris, Gordon, and Collins.  So why is it that Boston with 2 all star level players can't win?  Maybe just maybe it is the 2 all stars that quite simply aren't good enough.  And perhaps they aren't good enough because they don't maximize each other's ability, which is why you see people like me, saying the team should trade Brown for better fitting pieces around Tatum.

Those 4 "second fiddles" that you mention all support the most elite, MVP level players; LeBron, Embiid, Jokic, and to some extent Young.  It is true that Tatum is not currently as impactful as LeBron, Embiid, and Jokic (I would put Tatum over Young).  So what does it prove that Tatum is not as impactful as LeBron?

And yes, Brown is better than Westbrook, Harris, Gordon, and Collins.  If you were going to try and win a championship this year, would you take LeBron + Westbrook or Tatum + Brown?  What does that prove?

Memphis is winning with a big 2 of Morant and Jackson.  Phoenix with Booker and Paul.  Utah with Mitchell and Gobert  Are they better than Tatum and Brown?  Or is the difference the 3-15 players?

Another key point in my mind is that most of these key "big 2" combinations include at least one really good big.  My theory is that the problem with the Celtics is not Tatum and Brown but rather Horford, Williams, and Williams.

Most of the top teams are a combination of a top big and a top wing.  A few has a PG as one of the top 2 but most don't.  I guess the ideal combination would be to have your best player be a wing and then 2/3 be a big and a PG.  That would be total balance.  That is PHO (wing-PG-big).  But the defending champions has a big as the best player with probably the PG as number 2 and then a wing.  The Lakers did it in 2020 with LeBron (kind of a big), Davis (a true big) and then really no clear #3 (Schroeder?).

[todd_days_41]

I hadn't noticed that Marcus was putting up numbers like that.  Haha.

JB is the guy that only short-sighted people want to trade in most cases.

Hahaha this was my exact expectation when I clicked on the post. Then I saw the OP author and knew that was a wrong assumption.

+1

Objectively speaking, I think there are very few folks here who actually WANT to trade Brown. Those who discuss it:

a) are frustrated with the amount of losing despite having two stars;

b) question Brown's fit with Tatum, who would likely be our keeper if the Cs decided to break them up;

and / or:

c) don't see the harm / disloyalty in debating his value in the market.

Now, if we're talking about Smart? Conversation changes. There are def folks who a eager to see him go.

footnote: @nick, you'll be please to know my kids rocked a #JKJB posterboard sign at a recent game, so you're a trend setter. I hoped we'd get some jumbotron time, but apparently it hasn't caught on yet.....

 

[johnnygreen]

The team is 8-7 since Jaylen came back, which includes tonight's win. I'm sorry, but the blame for being a .500 team has to rest on the shoulders of your best players. If a team has 2 "all stars", I would think .500 is not meeting expectations. Your best players have to make everyone around them better, and Jayson and Jaylen play more of an individualistic  rather than a team game.

Now, I'm not saying we should trade Jaylen, but I'm not putting blinders on either and just blaming everyone else besides the Jays.

This makes no sense unless you are willing to admit that:

The Lakers being only one game above .500 is a Lebron issue.
The Nuggets being only one game above .500 is a Jokic issue.
The Sixers being 16-16 at one point was an Embiid issue.
And.
The Hawks being 5 games under .500 is a Trae Young issue.

Are the stars the issues with these teams, or maybe it's what's happening with the other players around those stars that's the problem? I am going with the latter.

This has been a .500 team, over the last two seasons, since the reigns were handed over to Tatum and Brown. This past offseason, Brad Stevens made changes to the supporting cast, in hopes of improving from last season’s .500 team. I think the problem that no one wants to admit is that Tatum and Brown may not be alpha type of players that can lead a team. There is a massive difference between being an alpha (LeBron) and an elite scorer (Carmelo). The Jays may just be two Carmelo’s. Also, neither one of them seems to hate losing. Maybe Jayson and Jaylen are more #2 options, and the team needs to get that #1 player. For me, this is where the idea of including Jaylen in a trade comes into play.

I also do think it’s getting ridiculous lately, where so many people are blaming the supporting cast/role players. The problem is how those role players are being used. Why are these players being asked to shoot so many 3’s, when they’re not elite three point shooters? Why not take advantage of their strengths, and have them occasionally shoot the 3?