Lance Stephenson, worth looking into or not?

[SHAQATTACK]

Can't believe I'm say n this ......but I believe I d keep ET over Lance

Lance is poison

[BudweiserCeltic]

On this team right now as its currently constructed? No.

As a Turner replacement if ET leaves this summer? Absolutely. Stephenson would be cheaper and I think he could do exactly what Turner does only better. Of course the difference is Stephenson is a risk. He's like Josh Smith. An unconventional but exciting talent that needs to be put in the right system in order to thrive. However, if he doesn't fit, not only is he terrible but he becomes a diva. As long as he's on a cheap deal, I would take him for all the talent he definitely has.

Stephenson needs to be put with a coach who knows how to use him which oddly was the case with Evan Turner when the Celtics originally picked him up. Two years later the tables have turned with Turner looking like he's found a role to play in the league while Stephenson has lost his. If you have the chance to do a reclamation project on a young player who was a borderline all-star talent two years ago, I say go for it

Really don't understand your position in all honesty. If that's your position, I don't see why you wouldn't want to trade for him now.

Because we already have Turner doing what Stephenson would do on this team and it's working. My main point is, I'd rather have Stephenson for cheap this summer than add him mid-season while he's being paid $9 million and possibly disrupt chemistry.

So you'd only entertain Stephenson next Summer if Turner isn't an option or would you rather have Stephenson even if Turner is an option?

Though I get what you're saying.

I simply am/was confused as why you'd analyse Stephenson as an improvement yet refrain from pulling the trigger.

Chemistry issues. Yeah OK, but how much chemistry does this team actually have with Turner on the floor? He does help with his playmaking ability... but is he really resulting in improved chemistry on the floor?

I guess my angle in this is this: improved defense + improved shooting. Isn't that worth a half a season gamble with a team option?

And then I ask, past issues between them aside... if Turner is not part of the trade, wouldn't you project Stephenson's production for us this year to be better than whatever Hunter and Young are giving us or would give us, with the bonus of being able to guard better including tough guys in the LeBron mold?

Personally I'm seeing little downside overall. With all the jumbling Stevens is doing right now, I don't think there's all that much chemistry to protect in all honesty.

But I know what you're saying, as I'm also very hesitant in this.

[nickagneta]

There are very few players in this league I would stay away from because they are bad apples/divas/locker room problems/etc. Lance Stephenson isn't quite in that category but it's dang close and that, couple with the fact he has apparently forgotten how to play basketball since leaving Indiana makes me say no.

[Celtics4ever]

Nope, not worth it, check into a psych ward if you think it is?

[BudweiserCeltic]

There are very few players in this league I would stay away from because they are bad apples/divas/locker room problems/etc. Lance Stephenson isn't quite in that category but it's dang close and that, couple with the fact he has apparently forgotten how to play basketball since leaving Indiana makes me say no.

I was peeking at what Clipper fandom's opinion on him is this season, and I really haven't heard a pip of him being a locker room problem this year despite his little playing time. In fact most are besides themselves as to the reason why Doc isn't playing him more since he's apparently been playing well this year.

He brings with him 3 things we're lacking in our bench right now: SF defense, Wing shooting, and an additional playmaker.

I do think he's shown this year that isn't as bad as last season made him look, but even if not at the level of Indiana's time, he seems better than we have for an alternative right now.

Though I do respect the concern over attitude and what not. I just think there's a lot of dismissiveness right now for his basketball ability, and putting a lot of weight on his attitude when at least this year it doesn't seem to have been a problem.

I mean, was he a problem for the Hornets as well? I don't recall, but this seems to indicate that his attitude wasn't really an issue:

http://www.charlotteobserver.com/sports/spt-columns-blogs/scott-fowler/article24553354.html

"It wasn’t that Stephenson blew in LeBron James’ ear while in Charlotte like he infamously did while with Indiana. He acted like a professional when he quickly fell out of favor with coach Steve Clifford and got benched for long stretches. It wasn’t that he stopped trying.

It’s just that he could not play. The Hornets were not a good team last season, but they were even worse when Stephenson was in the game."

[Big333223]

Pass. Indiana let him walk because he had so poisoned that locker room. Then Charlotte couldn't get rid of him fast enough. Now he can't get consistent minutes on the Clippers even though they're desperate for a SF who can play defense. He's clearly bad news.

[BudweiserCeltic]

Pass. Indiana let him walk because he had so poisoned that locker room. Then Charlotte couldn't get rid of him fast enough. Now he can't get consistent minutes on the Clippers even though they're desperate for a SF who can play defense. He's clearly bad news.

False. Indiana didn't let him walk, they just had a difference of opinion on value (they're a small market team). Their offer was richer than what he accepted with the Hornets.

They let Turner walk though, and we grabbed him. So...

http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nba/2014/07/20/lance-stephenson-contract-larry-bird-indiana-pacers-charlotte-hornets/12919801/

"I really feel bad about losing him,'' Bird said. "I hope it doesn't interfere with our relationship. But I did what I could possibly do to keep him here. Even if he didn't have any other offers, I was committed to giving him that $44 million because I believe in the kid. If you look at our roster, we have five or six guys in the last year of their deals, plus David (West) and Roy (Hibbert) can opt out, so don't you think I wanted to keep Lance and Paul (George) locked into long-term deals?''

[MJohnnyboy]

On this team right now as its currently constructed? No.

As a Turner replacement if ET leaves this summer? Absolutely. Stephenson would be cheaper and I think he could do exactly what Turner does only better. Of course the difference is Stephenson is a risk. He's like Josh Smith. An unconventional but exciting talent that needs to be put in the right system in order to thrive. However, if he doesn't fit, not only is he terrible but he becomes a diva. As long as he's on a cheap deal, I would take him for all the talent he definitely has.

Stephenson needs to be put with a coach who knows how to use him which oddly was the case with Evan Turner when the Celtics originally picked him up. Two years later the tables have turned with Turner looking like he's found a role to play in the league while Stephenson has lost his. If you have the chance to do a reclamation project on a young player who was a borderline all-star talent two years ago, I say go for it

Really don't understand your position in all honesty. If that's your position, I don't see why you wouldn't want to trade for him now.

Because we already have Turner doing what Stephenson would do on this team and it's working. My main point is, I'd rather have Stephenson for cheap this summer than add him mid-season while he's being paid $9 million and possibly disrupt chemistry.

So you'd only entertain Stephenson next Summer if Turner isn't an option or would you rather have Stephenson even if Turner is an option?

Though I get what you're saying.

I simply am/was confused as why you'd analyse Stephenson as an improvement yet refrain from pulling the trigger.

Chemistry issues. Yeah OK, but how much chemistry does this team actually have with Turner on the floor? He does help with his playmaking ability... but is he really resulting in improved chemistry on the floor?

I guess my angle in this is this: improved defense + improved shooting. Isn't that worth a half a season gamble with a team option?

And then I ask, past issues between them aside... if Turner is not part of the trade, wouldn't you project Stephenson's production for us this year to be better than whatever Hunter and Young are giving us or would give us, with the bonus of being able to guard better including tough guys in the LeBron mold?

Personally I'm seeing little downside overall. With all the jumbling Stevens is doing right now, I don't think there's all that much chemistry to protect in all honesty.

But I know what you're saying, as I'm also very hesitant in this.

I can see that. I guess the reason why I don't want to pull the trigger now is because 1. The Celtics aren't in win-now mode so there's no rush and 2. There is a solid chance it won't work because the last time Stephenson played consistently good basketball was 2014.

I'd rather have him get a training camp in, get acclimated with what his role is, and be on a bargain contract where the Celtics have the upperhand than take the chances of him coming in mid-season, failing to fit in just a few months, and then just get waived after the season's over. The reason why I think that is because he hasn't fit on his past few teams that he's been on.

I guess its a matter of preference. I totally see why you want to do it now. I just see him better served as a diamond in the rough in the summer, but what do I know?

[BudweiserCeltic]

On this team right now as its currently constructed? No.

As a Turner replacement if ET leaves this summer? Absolutely. Stephenson would be cheaper and I think he could do exactly what Turner does only better. Of course the difference is Stephenson is a risk. He's like Josh Smith. An unconventional but exciting talent that needs to be put in the right system in order to thrive. However, if he doesn't fit, not only is he terrible but he becomes a diva. As long as he's on a cheap deal, I would take him for all the talent he definitely has.

Stephenson needs to be put with a coach who knows how to use him which oddly was the case with Evan Turner when the Celtics originally picked him up. Two years later the tables have turned with Turner looking like he's found a role to play in the league while Stephenson has lost his. If you have the chance to do a reclamation project on a young player who was a borderline all-star talent two years ago, I say go for it

Really don't understand your position in all honesty. If that's your position, I don't see why you wouldn't want to trade for him now.

Because we already have Turner doing what Stephenson would do on this team and it's working. My main point is, I'd rather have Stephenson for cheap this summer than add him mid-season while he's being paid $9 million and possibly disrupt chemistry.

So you'd only entertain Stephenson next Summer if Turner isn't an option or would you rather have Stephenson even if Turner is an option?

Though I get what you're saying.

I simply am/was confused as why you'd analyse Stephenson as an improvement yet refrain from pulling the trigger.

Chemistry issues. Yeah OK, but how much chemistry does this team actually have with Turner on the floor? He does help with his playmaking ability... but is he really resulting in improved chemistry on the floor?

I guess my angle in this is this: improved defense + improved shooting. Isn't that worth a half a season gamble with a team option?

And then I ask, past issues between them aside... if Turner is not part of the trade, wouldn't you project Stephenson's production for us this year to be better than whatever Hunter and Young are giving us or would give us, with the bonus of being able to guard better including tough guys in the LeBron mold?

Personally I'm seeing little downside overall. With all the jumbling Stevens is doing right now, I don't think there's all that much chemistry to protect in all honesty.

But I know what you're saying, as I'm also very hesitant in this.

I can see that. I guess the reason why I don't want to pull the trigger now is because 1. The Celtics aren't in win-now mode so there's no rush and 2. There is a solid chance it won't work because the last time Stephenson played consistently good basketball was 2014.

I'd rather have him get a training camp in, get acclimated with what his role is, and be on a bargain contract where the Celtics have the upperhand than take the chances of him coming in mid-season, failing to fit in just a few months, and then just get waived after the season's over.

I guess its a matter of preference. I totally see why you want to do it now. I just see him better served as a diamond in the rough in the summer, but what do I know?

Oh, I'm not sure I want to do it now. I'd strongly consider it. I was just having trouble understanding your POV since I understood you had a few conflicting ideas clashing against one another.

[MJohnnyboy]

On this team right now as its currently constructed? No.

As a Turner replacement if ET leaves this summer? Absolutely. Stephenson would be cheaper and I think he could do exactly what Turner does only better. Of course the difference is Stephenson is a risk. He's like Josh Smith. An unconventional but exciting talent that needs to be put in the right system in order to thrive. However, if he doesn't fit, not only is he terrible but he becomes a diva. As long as he's on a cheap deal, I would take him for all the talent he definitely has.

Stephenson needs to be put with a coach who knows how to use him which oddly was the case with Evan Turner when the Celtics originally picked him up. Two years later the tables have turned with Turner looking like he's found a role to play in the league while Stephenson has lost his. If you have the chance to do a reclamation project on a young player who was a borderline all-star talent two years ago, I say go for it

Really don't understand your position in all honesty. If that's your position, I don't see why you wouldn't want to trade for him now.

Because we already have Turner doing what Stephenson would do on this team and it's working. My main point is, I'd rather have Stephenson for cheap this summer than add him mid-season while he's being paid $9 million and possibly disrupt chemistry.

So you'd only entertain Stephenson next Summer if Turner isn't an option or would you rather have Stephenson even if Turner is an option?

Though I get what you're saying.

I simply am/was confused as why you'd analyse Stephenson as an improvement yet refrain from pulling the trigger.

Chemistry issues. Yeah OK, but how much chemistry does this team actually have with Turner on the floor? He does help with his playmaking ability... but is he really resulting in improved chemistry on the floor?

I guess my angle in this is this: improved defense + improved shooting. Isn't that worth a half a season gamble with a team option?

And then I ask, past issues between them aside... if Turner is not part of the trade, wouldn't you project Stephenson's production for us this year to be better than whatever Hunter and Young are giving us or would give us, with the bonus of being able to guard better including tough guys in the LeBron mold?

Personally I'm seeing little downside overall. With all the jumbling Stevens is doing right now, I don't think there's all that much chemistry to protect in all honesty.

But I know what you're saying, as I'm also very hesitant in this.

I can see that. I guess the reason why I don't want to pull the trigger now is because 1. The Celtics aren't in win-now mode so there's no rush and 2. There is a solid chance it won't work because the last time Stephenson played consistently good basketball was 2014.

I'd rather have him get a training camp in, get acclimated with what his role is, and be on a bargain contract where the Celtics have the upperhand than take the chances of him coming in mid-season, failing to fit in just a few months, and then just get waived after the season's over.

I guess its a matter of preference. I totally see why you want to do it now. I just see him better served as a diamond in the rough in the summer, but what do I know?

Oh, I'm not sure I want to do it now. I'd strongly consider it. I was just having trouble understanding your POV since I understood you had a few conflicting ideas clashing against one another.

Sorry. Hopefully I clarified?

[BudweiserCeltic]

On this team right now as its currently constructed? No.

As a Turner replacement if ET leaves this summer? Absolutely. Stephenson would be cheaper and I think he could do exactly what Turner does only better. Of course the difference is Stephenson is a risk. He's like Josh Smith. An unconventional but exciting talent that needs to be put in the right system in order to thrive. However, if he doesn't fit, not only is he terrible but he becomes a diva. As long as he's on a cheap deal, I would take him for all the talent he definitely has.

Stephenson needs to be put with a coach who knows how to use him which oddly was the case with Evan Turner when the Celtics originally picked him up. Two years later the tables have turned with Turner looking like he's found a role to play in the league while Stephenson has lost his. If you have the chance to do a reclamation project on a young player who was a borderline all-star talent two years ago, I say go for it

Really don't understand your position in all honesty. If that's your position, I don't see why you wouldn't want to trade for him now.

Because we already have Turner doing what Stephenson would do on this team and it's working. My main point is, I'd rather have Stephenson for cheap this summer than add him mid-season while he's being paid $9 million and possibly disrupt chemistry.

So you'd only entertain Stephenson next Summer if Turner isn't an option or would you rather have Stephenson even if Turner is an option?

Though I get what you're saying.

I simply am/was confused as why you'd analyse Stephenson as an improvement yet refrain from pulling the trigger.

Chemistry issues. Yeah OK, but how much chemistry does this team actually have with Turner on the floor? He does help with his playmaking ability... but is he really resulting in improved chemistry on the floor?

I guess my angle in this is this: improved defense + improved shooting. Isn't that worth a half a season gamble with a team option?

And then I ask, past issues between them aside... if Turner is not part of the trade, wouldn't you project Stephenson's production for us this year to be better than whatever Hunter and Young are giving us or would give us, with the bonus of being able to guard better including tough guys in the LeBron mold?

Personally I'm seeing little downside overall. With all the jumbling Stevens is doing right now, I don't think there's all that much chemistry to protect in all honesty.

But I know what you're saying, as I'm also very hesitant in this.

I can see that. I guess the reason why I don't want to pull the trigger now is because 1. The Celtics aren't in win-now mode so there's no rush and 2. There is a solid chance it won't work because the last time Stephenson played consistently good basketball was 2014.

I'd rather have him get a training camp in, get acclimated with what his role is, and be on a bargain contract where the Celtics have the upperhand than take the chances of him coming in mid-season, failing to fit in just a few months, and then just get waived after the season's over.

I guess its a matter of preference. I totally see why you want to do it now. I just see him better served as a diamond in the rough in the summer, but what do I know?

Oh, I'm not sure I want to do it now. I'd strongly consider it. I was just having trouble understanding your POV since I understood you had a few conflicting ideas clashing against one another.

Sorry. Hopefully I clarified?

Yep.

[Big333223]

Pass. Indiana let him walk because he had so poisoned that locker room. Then Charlotte couldn't get rid of him fast enough. Now he can't get consistent minutes on the Clippers even though they're desperate for a SF who can play defense. He's clearly bad news.

False. Indiana didn't let him walk, they just had a difference of opinion on value (they're a small market team). Their offer was richer than what he accepted with the Hornets.

They let Turner walk though, and we grabbed him. So...

http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nba/2014/07/20/lance-stephenson-contract-larry-bird-indiana-pacers-charlotte-hornets/12919801/

"I really feel bad about losing him,'' Bird said. "I hope it doesn't interfere with our relationship. But I did what I could possibly do to keep him here. Even if he didn't have any other offers, I was committed to giving him that $44 million because I believe in the kid. If you look at our roster, we have five or six guys in the last year of their deals, plus David (West) and Roy (Hibbert) can opt out, so don't you think I wanted to keep Lance and Paul (George) locked into long-term deals?''

I get why he'd say that in the media, but the truth is they low-balled him knowing he'd get a higher offer coming off a season where some thought he should've been an all star. If Bird actually believed in Stephenson's talent he'd have offered him a contract commenserate with that talent and he didn't do that. No, it's not the level of disenchantment Indy felt over Turner but there were obvious signs that Bird and the team weren't prepared to really invest in him despite his talent.

Also (and this is some personal conjecture but...) I think he was a big reason behind that epic Indy collapse in '14. After he didn't make the all star team that year, he turned that locker room into a terrible place to be.

[BudweiserCeltic]

Pass. Indiana let him walk because he had so poisoned that locker room. Then Charlotte couldn't get rid of him fast enough. Now he can't get consistent minutes on the Clippers even though they're desperate for a SF who can play defense. He's clearly bad news.

False. Indiana didn't let him walk, they just had a difference of opinion on value (they're a small market team). Their offer was richer than what he accepted with the Hornets.

They let Turner walk though, and we grabbed him. So...

http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nba/2014/07/20/lance-stephenson-contract-larry-bird-indiana-pacers-charlotte-hornets/12919801/

"I really feel bad about losing him,'' Bird said. "I hope it doesn't interfere with our relationship. But I did what I could possibly do to keep him here. Even if he didn't have any other offers, I was committed to giving him that $44 million because I believe in the kid. If you look at our roster, we have five or six guys in the last year of their deals, plus David (West) and Roy (Hibbert) can opt out, so don't you think I wanted to keep Lance and Paul (George) locked into long-term deals?''

I get why he'd say that in the media, but the truth is they low-balled him knowing he'd get a higher offer coming off a season where some thought he should've been an all star. If Bird actually believed in Stephenson's talent he'd have offered him a contract commenserate with that talent and he didn't do that. No, it's not the level of disenchantment Indy felt over Turner but there were obvious signs that Bird and the team weren't prepared to really invest in him despite his talent.

Also (and this is some personal conjecture but...) I think he was a big reason behind that epic Indy collapse in '14. After he didn't make the all star team that year, he turned that locker room into a terrible place to be.

So... they low-balled him yet he didn't get a better contract than what Indiana offered him? Something there isn't quite computing.

[Eja117]

Ab solutely not