Exactly what do you people want?

[kraidstar]

At this point, 8mil doesn't even seem like a lot. Especially when any SG worth a lick is getting the max (Hayward, Klay, and now potentially Jimmy Butler). Other than Lance Stephenson, I can't imagine there was ever a better(?) alternative to Avery, unless we wanted to play rookie carousel with Smart and Young. Keith Bogans may still be available?

Judging by the early returns this season, both Hayward and Thompson are considerably better players than Bradley.

hayward has been very efficient this season. i'll be surprised if he doesn't tail off some.
hayward career stats (295 games) .439FG% .369 3pt% 3.5reb 3.2 ast .5 block .9 steals 2.1 TO
bradley career stats (211 games) ..439FG% .366 3pt% 2.3reb 1.4 ast .2 blk .9steals  1.3 TO
and IMO bradley plays much better defense overall. so unless hayward continues to light it up this season and beyond, it's hard to call him "considerably better."

[Moranis]

Bradley is arguably our most consistent player.

In 6 games so far, Bradley has shot .530 or better three times, and .340 or worse  three times. In the process, he's had a 6-point game, and 11-point game, and a 32-point game. Same story last year, he seems really adept at having a high number of really good and really bad games.

I guess by some twisted logic this passes for consistent.

Measuring "consistency" on a game-to-game basis is a fool's errand except for players getting high USG numbers (and thus a consistently high number of shot each game).

But Bradley has had a consistent number of shots.

13 shots, 64%
11 shots, 27%
22 shots, 59%
13 shots, 39%
12 shots, 33%
10 shots, 60%

aside from the 22 shot game, he has had 10-13 shots a game and half the time is 59% or better and the other half the time is 39% or worse.  So he has had a consistent usage, but a god awful consistency in putting the ball in the hoop.  Now sure 6 games isn't a large sample size, but thus far you have no idea what Bradley is going to show up night in and night out.  Also, there is no consistency to Boston's results in those games, so Bradley's shooting has had no bearing on the outcome of Boston's wins and losses.

[BballTim]

Bradley is arguably our most consistent player.

In 6 games so far, Bradley has shot .530 or better three times, and .340 or worse  three times. In the process, he's had a 6-point game, and 11-point game, and a 32-point game. Same story last year, he seems really adept at having a high number of really good and really bad games.

I guess by some twisted logic this passes for consistent.

Measuring "consistency" on a game-to-game basis is a fool's errand except for players getting high USG numbers (and thus a consistently high number of shot each game).

But Bradley has had a consistent number of shots.

13 shots, 64%
11 shots, 27%
22 shots, 59%
13 shots, 39%
12 shots, 33%
10 shots, 60%

aside from the 22 shot game, he has had 10-13 shots a game and half the time is 59% or better and the other half the time is 39% or worse.  So he has had a consistent usage, but a god awful consistency in putting the ball in the hoop.  Now sure 6 games isn't a large sample size, but thus far you have no idea what Bradley is going to show up night in and night out.  Also, there is no consistency to Boston's results in those games, so Bradley's shooting has had no bearing on the outcome of Boston's wins and losses.

  He doesn't have god awful consistency putting the ball in the net. It's just magnified because he's not taking a lot of shots. The more shots you take, the more consistent your shooting becomes. You can have a 2-7 stretch and a 5-9 stretch in the same game. Bradley's got about 30 games since the start of the 2012 season where he's taken 15 or more shots, he's been between 40% and 60% in 20 of them.

[mmmmm]

Bradley is arguably our most consistent player.

In 6 games so far, Bradley has shot .530 or better three times, and .340 or worse  three times. In the process, he's had a 6-point game, and 11-point game, and a 32-point game. Same story last year, he seems really adept at having a high number of really good and really bad games.

I guess by some twisted logic this passes for consistent.

Measuring "consistency" on a game-to-game basis is a fool's errand except for players getting high USG numbers (and thus a consistently high number of shot each game).

But Bradley has had a consistent number of shots.

13 shots, 64%
11 shots, 27%
22 shots, 59%
13 shots, 39%
12 shots, 33%
10 shots, 60%

aside from the 22 shot game, he has had 10-13 shots a game and half the time is 59% or better and the other half the time is 39% or worse.  So he has had a consistent usage, but a god awful consistency in putting the ball in the hoop.  Now sure 6 games isn't a large sample size, but thus far you have no idea what Bradley is going to show up night in and night out.  Also, there is no consistency to Boston's results in those games, so Bradley's shooting has had no bearing on the outcome of Boston's wins and losses.

My point stands.  Taking a 'consistent' 10-13 shots per game is nowhere near 'high USG'.  A single miss for a 10 shot player is a 10% swing compared to just 5% for a 20 shot player.   I've done this study in the past and the results are very clear game-to-game consistency in point-production is extremely hard to maintain for any players who aren't getting a lot of touches and shots -- and by that I mean USG% numbers up well above 25% and at least 18 shots per game.

Guys averaging below those numbers will show much wider variance in their production.  They'll have the occasional 'hot' game where they are 'feeling it' or the match up is great and the game plan is to feed them.  And they'll also have the 'cold' game where they seem to disappear or because they aren't feeling it, the ball just won't go in on their measly number of shots.

I would also add:

Measuring "consistency" on a game-to-game basis based on a 6-game sample at the start of the season is another fool's errand.

[D.o.s.]

Now I want a better cup of coffee than the one I have right now.

[cb8883]

What I want is for a homegrown team full of athletic talent that will eventually win a title. Not this treadmill bunch on the court. Do the right thing and tank hard for Towns or Okafor.

[Quetzalcoatl]

I like the current direction of developing young talent, while not making dumb long term moves and waiting for the Bass, Wallace, Green, Thorton and Faverani contracts to go away, then figuring out Rondo's new deal.  Hopefully we get at least one lotto pick this year, although it's looking a little unlikely at this point.  Then, we'll have tons of flexibility and draft picks, plus better versions of Sully, Bradley, Klynyk, Young, Smart and hopefully Zeller and Turner, while potentially keeping Rondo.  That's a really solid set up.

[wayupnorth]

i'm done with Bradley. no flip-flopping here. his D that he was known for is completely gone. I don't care if stats say otherwise. watching him play D is getting comical at this point. saw him completely give up on a play in Chicago, also saw him get shook by Brooks like he was wearing roller skates and it was his first day playing defense.

the guy isn't even a shadow of his former self. and definitely not worth the money he got. we could go get a guard off the street right now that will shoot the ball early in the shot-clock and play the same level of D for less money.

lol wow....

[incoherent]

MT