Move ET 1st-Sully to clear PF logjam says Rival GMs and J. King?? is Utah ideal?

[Soytiz]

Thank you kind sir. I understand your position and heartily agree to some of them but making a completed trade and KG as an example doesn't really ram your argument through the door to the point that my proposal becomes laughable. There have been a plethora of completed trades that are far worse than the one I posited but that is neither here nor there. Just saying that since Rodney Hood is developing and expected to have a breakout season, Hayward 'may' be considered superfluous 'if' the players you are getting in a proposed trade fills the Jazz' needs with Exum being injured for the rest of the season.

Well first I apologize if the laughing thing offended you. I just thought that your proposal was a little offbase when I first saw it, but I appreciate you acknowledging my point and not shooting it down furiously. I can clearly see that you've given this some thought and I respect your optimism, but I firmly stand by that the Jazz, a team that has a phenomenal defense and barring any more injuries should capitalize on last season's surge, will trade their most proven offensive player. Don't get me wrong, I would love to have Gordon Hayward on this team and he would do wonders especially considering that he's played with Brad Stevens before, but trading Bradley, Olynyk, and Turner is trading about 30-40 cents on the dollar for Hayward.

Contrary to your belief, Utah is not making the playoffs this year and while they do indeed have a bright future, having Hayward 'may' hinder Rodney Hood and Alec Burks' (both good shooters and floor spacers) development. We of course know that trades happen to help foster the development of younger talents. So if you really look at it, there 'may' be more than meets the eye considering that you get a defensive talent in Avery Bradley, a play maker in Evan Turner and a competent Kelly Olynyk, who by measure is favorably compared to Hayward (see post above). These players are not scrubs, they are young players who have yet to hit their peaks and are not finished products in the common sense of the term (AB is 24, ET is 26 and Olynyk is 24). They contributed to our playoff run last season and should not be hastily boxed and labeled as productive players only because of coaching and the system they play in.

I must say I'm curious about your doubts about Utah. You and I both know they started putting it together after they traded Kanter and entrusted Gobert to anchor the defense. It worked wonderfully for them. They won 20 of their last 31 games and they did it with one of the younger teams in the league. That wasn't a fluke. The thing about young talent is if they show they can win in the NBA at a young age, they can only get better from there and further improve their team. Hence why I firmly believe Utah will be better even without Exum because the young talent (Hayward, Gobert, Favors, Hood, Burks) is starting to mature. Who in the west will be better than them other than the 6 juggernauts (Spurs, Warriors, Thunder, Rockets, Clippers, Grizzlies)?

Turner is a 2nd overall pick who is two seasons removed from averaging 17.4 points, 6 rebounds and 4 assists;

Yeah, on an awful Philadelphia 76ers team who dumped him for a 2nd round pick mid-season. It's called "Good stats/Bad team" or as I like to call it, the "Shareef Abdur-Rahim effect" Not to mention when he was put on team vying for a championship like Indiana, Turner failed so badly that he hardly played in the playoffs and the Celtics were one of only two teams that were interested in his services in the summer. If Turner really was that good, why did only 2 teams want him and how did the Celtics get him on that small contract? Even though I like Turner and thought he played well for the Celtics, he didn't replicate the same stats on the Celtics that he did for the Sixers. Turner is adequate, not special.

AB was a highly rated player in High School who went as high as No. 1 in ESPNU's rankings and is a career 43.5% FG and 36.0% 3P (Hayward: 43.9% and 36.5%), and was an NBA all-defensive 2nd team a year ago;

Don't use high school to prove anything about a basketball player. Kwame Brown and Eddy Curry were highly touted high school basketball players. How did they turn out? See at a glance stats may prove that two players are equal but when it comes to advanced metrics, they show that they couldn't be more different. At first glance, it looks like Bradley and Hayward are equal on FG% and 3P FG%, but how many of Hayward's shots were 1-on-1 and contested compared to Bradley? If you looked it up, it's be pretty steep. I'm pretty sure that since Hayward was Utah's go to guy, the defense focuses on him. Bradley can't create his shot and plays thrives off the ball. In conclusion, Bradley's offensive rating this year according to advanced metrics was 99. Hayward's was 111. That's pretty telling.

Olynyk averaged 10.3 points 4.7 rebounds and 1.7 assists on 47.5% FG and 34.9% 3P last season. I may be a homer, probably a very biased one at that but it just makes sense to me.

Those are decent numbers. I won't disagree, but that's not Hayward. I'm not as optimistic about Olynyk as some of the other guys on here are. I don't think Olynyk, Bradley, or Turner can give the same production as Hayward can.

Hood has a nice future ahead, but he's not completely proven. He had a string of good games at the end of the season in his rookie year, but plenty of players have done that. You should give it some time before crowning him the future. I think we both know as celtics fans we can't judge a player after just his rookie year. We gave away Chauncey Billups and Joe Johnson mid way through their rookie seasons.

I think most here 'may' have overestimated Hayward's offensive production and put him on a pedestal as if what he gives a team is irreplaceable.

This part bothers me the most. For a number of reasons. If Hayward isn't as good as posters such as myself think he is, then why do you want him? The Celtics need a superstar, and it sounds to me like you think that since he's overrated, he isn't that guy we're looking for. So why waste some of these supposed valuable young assets like Bradley, Turner, and Olynyk for Hayward?

However, I think you're wrong about Hayward as a player. Hayward has steadily improved his game every year since he joined the league. I think he will be an all star at sometime or another, and I can't say I have nearly the same confidence for KO, AB or ET, but you already know that.

Finally, Hayward is 25, Burks is 24, and Hood is 22. They are all young, they have multiple years left on their contracts, and Utah has the whole season to decide what's best for the team going forward. Even Utah doesn't know how good they are going to become in the next few years. They again have NO REASON to change things up when they have some great potential on their team that is going to be locked up for the next 2-3 years.

I'd love to have Hayward, and if the Jazz accepted that deal, I'd be ecstatic, but they aren't. Not just because I think that's a lowball offer, but because Hayward won't be available.

Bro, we are after all civilized beings capable of higher understanding through discourse and cooperation... Having said that (Loved the 'Curb Your Enthusiasm' episode on this), I believe my process of evaluation and deduction differs from yours in this instance. Trying to explicate the workings of my mind, I was listening to Zach Lowe's podacst last night (Manila time) as he and Amin Elhassan were discussing Dante Exum's injury and how it would affect the Jazz' late season surge going into the new season... Part of the discussion was both agreeing on how good Rodney Hood is. Hearing all of this talk, a thought suddenly emerged (The Trade), which as we all know 'may' contain some sprinkling of our prejudices (Not that there's anything wrong with that).

So, I asked myself, would you do this trade if it were proposed to you in one of your Fantasy Leagues? "Yes" suddenly came up and never a man who'd let good research get in the way of posting a 'brilliant' idea, I posted... But still, thinking of it over and over, I had managed to convince myself that I really had something.

For the sake of brevity, let me clarify a few points I may have been misunderstood: First, I was emphasizing 'potential' when I stated some of the statistics and achievements of the players at hand. It was meant to be a point about 'pedigree' and how that 'may' translate to future success in the NBA (I'm sure there is a measure of this somewhere). Second, I agree that the econometrics (or whatever term they use right now) clearly indicates that Hayward is a more valuable player compared to the players offered in the trade proposed. Hence, offering two more players to compensate for the distortion. Lastly, I believe that Gordon Hayward is the penultimate piece and not 'The Piece'. That will come later.

I hope this somewhat makes more salient the idea I am trying to justify. Thank you sir.

[droopdog7]

Here's one thing I know.  If a celtic fan is proposing a trade, then you better believe it is going to be one-sided in our favor. 

[MJohnnyboy]

Thank you kind sir. I understand your position and heartily agree to some of them but making a completed trade and KG as an example doesn't really ram your argument through the door to the point that my proposal becomes laughable. There have been a plethora of completed trades that are far worse than the one I posited but that is neither here nor there. Just saying that since Rodney Hood is developing and expected to have a breakout season, Hayward 'may' be considered superfluous 'if' the players you are getting in a proposed trade fills the Jazz' needs with Exum being injured for the rest of the season.

Well first I apologize if the laughing thing offended you. I just thought that your proposal was a little offbase when I first saw it, but I appreciate you acknowledging my point and not shooting it down furiously. I can clearly see that you've given this some thought and I respect your optimism, but I firmly stand by that the Jazz, a team that has a phenomenal defense and barring any more injuries should capitalize on last season's surge, will trade their most proven offensive player. Don't get me wrong, I would love to have Gordon Hayward on this team and he would do wonders especially considering that he's played with Brad Stevens before, but trading Bradley, Olynyk, and Turner is trading about 30-40 cents on the dollar for Hayward.

Contrary to your belief, Utah is not making the playoffs this year and while they do indeed have a bright future, having Hayward 'may' hinder Rodney Hood and Alec Burks' (both good shooters and floor spacers) development. We of course know that trades happen to help foster the development of younger talents. So if you really look at it, there 'may' be more than meets the eye considering that you get a defensive talent in Avery Bradley, a play maker in Evan Turner and a competent Kelly Olynyk, who by measure is favorably compared to Hayward (see post above). These players are not scrubs, they are young players who have yet to hit their peaks and are not finished products in the common sense of the term (AB is 24, ET is 26 and Olynyk is 24). They contributed to our playoff run last season and should not be hastily boxed and labeled as productive players only because of coaching and the system they play in.

I must say I'm curious about your doubts about Utah. You and I both know they started putting it together after they traded Kanter and entrusted Gobert to anchor the defense. It worked wonderfully for them. They won 20 of their last 31 games and they did it with one of the younger teams in the league. That wasn't a fluke. The thing about young talent is if they show they can win in the NBA at a young age, they can only get better from there and further improve their team. Hence why I firmly believe Utah will be better even without Exum because the young talent (Hayward, Gobert, Favors, Hood, Burks) is starting to mature. Who in the west will be better than them other than the 6 juggernauts (Spurs, Warriors, Thunder, Rockets, Clippers, Grizzlies)?

Turner is a 2nd overall pick who is two seasons removed from averaging 17.4 points, 6 rebounds and 4 assists;

Yeah, on an awful Philadelphia 76ers team who dumped him for a 2nd round pick mid-season. It's called "Good stats/Bad team" or as I like to call it, the "Shareef Abdur-Rahim effect" Not to mention when he was put on team vying for a championship like Indiana, Turner failed so badly that he hardly played in the playoffs and the Celtics were one of only two teams that were interested in his services in the summer. If Turner really was that good, why did only 2 teams want him and how did the Celtics get him on that small contract? Even though I like Turner and thought he played well for the Celtics, he didn't replicate the same stats on the Celtics that he did for the Sixers. Turner is adequate, not special.

AB was a highly rated player in High School who went as high as No. 1 in ESPNU's rankings and is a career 43.5% FG and 36.0% 3P (Hayward: 43.9% and 36.5%), and was an NBA all-defensive 2nd team a year ago;

Don't use high school to prove anything about a basketball player. Kwame Brown and Eddy Curry were highly touted high school basketball players. How did they turn out? See at a glance stats may prove that two players are equal but when it comes to advanced metrics, they show that they couldn't be more different. At first glance, it looks like Bradley and Hayward are equal on FG% and 3P FG%, but how many of Hayward's shots were 1-on-1 and contested compared to Bradley? If you looked it up, it's be pretty steep. I'm pretty sure that since Hayward was Utah's go to guy, the defense focuses on him. Bradley can't create his shot and plays thrives off the ball. In conclusion, Bradley's offensive rating this year according to advanced metrics was 99. Hayward's was 111. That's pretty telling.

Olynyk averaged 10.3 points 4.7 rebounds and 1.7 assists on 47.5% FG and 34.9% 3P last season. I may be a homer, probably a very biased one at that but it just makes sense to me.

Those are decent numbers. I won't disagree, but that's not Hayward. I'm not as optimistic about Olynyk as some of the other guys on here are. I don't think Olynyk, Bradley, or Turner can give the same production as Hayward can.

Hood has a nice future ahead, but he's not completely proven. He had a string of good games at the end of the season in his rookie year, but plenty of players have done that. You should give it some time before crowning him the future. I think we both know as celtics fans we can't judge a player after just his rookie year. We gave away Chauncey Billups and Joe Johnson mid way through their rookie seasons.

I think most here 'may' have overestimated Hayward's offensive production and put him on a pedestal as if what he gives a team is irreplaceable.

This part bothers me the most. For a number of reasons. If Hayward isn't as good as posters such as myself think he is, then why do you want him? The Celtics need a superstar, and it sounds to me like you think that since he's overrated, he isn't that guy we're looking for. So why waste some of these supposed valuable young assets like Bradley, Turner, and Olynyk for Hayward?

However, I think you're wrong about Hayward as a player. Hayward has steadily improved his game every year since he joined the league. I think he will be an all star at sometime or another, and I can't say I have nearly the same confidence for KO, AB or ET, but you already know that.

Finally, Hayward is 25, Burks is 24, and Hood is 22. They are all young, they have multiple years left on their contracts, and Utah has the whole season to decide what's best for the team going forward. Even Utah doesn't know how good they are going to become in the next few years. They again have NO REASON to change things up when they have some great potential on their team that is going to be locked up for the next 2-3 years.

I'd love to have Hayward, and if the Jazz accepted that deal, I'd be ecstatic, but they aren't. Not just because I think that's a lowball offer, but because Hayward won't be available.

Bro, we are after all civilized beings capable of higher understanding through discourse and cooperation... Having said that (Loved the 'Curb Your Enthusiasm' episode on this), I believe my process of evaluation and deduction differs from yours in this instance. Trying to explicate the workings of my mind, I was listening to Zach Lowe's podacst last night (Manila time) as he and Amin Elhassan were discussing Dante Exum's injury and how it would affect the Jazz' late season surge going into the new season... Part of the discussion was both agreeing on how good Rodney Hood is. Hearing all of this talk, a thought suddenly emerged (The Trade), which as we all know 'may' contain some sprinkling of our prejudices (Not that there's anything wrong with that).

So, I asked myself, would you do this trade if it were proposed to you in one of your Fantasy Leagues? "Yes" suddenly came up and never a man who'd let good research get in the way of posting a 'brilliant' idea, I posted... But still, thinking of it over and over, I had managed to convince myself that I really had something.

For the sake of brevity, let me clarify a few points I may have been misunderstood: First, I was emphasizing 'potential' when I stated some of the statistics and achievements of the players at hand. It was meant to be a point about 'pedigree' and how that 'may' translate to future success in the NBA (I'm sure there is a measure of this somewhere). Second, I agree that the econometrics (or whatever term they use right now) clearly indicates that Hayward is a more valuable player compared to the players offered in the trade proposed. Hence, offering two more players to compensate for the distortion. Lastly, I believe that Gordon Hayward is the penultimate piece and not 'The Piece'. That will come later.

I hope this somewhat makes more salient the idea I am trying to justify. Thank you sir.

Okay I don't mean to attack, I just saw this and respectfully disagreed with your proposal and then further disagreed with your assessment of these players. There's nothing wrong with coming up with a trade idea. Heck I try to think of good trade ideas, but I try to keep them within reason.

I might be misunderstanding you but it sounds to me like you think Bradley, Turner, and Olynyk have potential to become better players? Is that correct? Clearly we disagree on them because I think they are role players.

Nonetheless, my final point is Utah is not trading Hayward because they really don't have to. They are a team that surprised themselves with how good they were late in the season. They don't have to make any changes until they know who they truly are as a team this year. They can see who is the ideal fit in the future. It might be Hayward. It might be Hood. Call me crazy, but they might just let them both of them play together.

If you want to think otherwise, that's fine. I just don't agree with you.

[BornReady]

i support a turner trade as h has kind of been used as a primary play maker
which takes touches from smart

but i disagree with trade sully
as he was considered top 10 in draft until he had injury concerns
has had monster games without the conditioning
only shooting a low FG% because he is being asked to shoot more 3s

I would not trade perry jones as he has potential and weve seen stevens before make the most out of players

I would have to look at trading olynyk (he probably has hit his ceiling as a shooting big) or zeller (like him but he is probably most tradeable and able to get most return)
David lee and amir johnson are probably untradeable due to contracts and salary

[Future Celtics Owner]

Or we could have drafted Myles Turner like I said about a million times. Instead we miss him by 3 games and make the playoffs.....only to be swept.

"But Future Celtics Owner, we have such a young team". We have mostly guys that have peaked and coincidently they happen to be young.

[ahonui06]

Or we could have drafted Myles Turner like I said about a million times. Instead we miss him by 3 games and make the playoffs.....only to be swept.

"But Future Celtics Owner, we have such a young team". We have mostly guys that have peaked and coincidently they happen to be young.

I'm sure if Ainge coveted Myles Turner he would have offered a decent package to Indiana and move up to take that pick. Boston has a plethora of picks or players that Indiana could have used to move back a few spots.

I don't believe Boston wanted Turner and Ainge's primary candidate was a skilled wing such as Winslow.

[chambers]

I'd be on board with moving Sully. 

I'm still the slightest bit hesitant to move him right now though, just in case he DOES flip the switch.  I'd probably give him an ultimatum - give him until the All-Star break to prove he's serious, and if he hasn't by then ship him out. 

On that note, I've noticed that one of the things Sully gets most praise for is his inside game. 

I've attached an interesting chart I made up that shows what percentage of Sully's offense comes at the basket, what percentage he shoots at the basket, and how frequently he gets to the line - very interesting when comparing those numbers to the other bigs on our roster this year.



Compare to all the bigs on our roster:
1) Sully takes the lowest portion of his shots inside the paint
2) Shoots the lowest percentage on shots taken in the paint
3) Is the second worst at getting to the line

Also worth noting that all three of those figures mark significant drop-offs from Sully's rookie year numbers, and two of those three figures were career lows.

This indicates two things:
a) Sully arguably had less impact in the paint than any other Celtics big
b) He's only getting worse - his 'inside presence' has declined every year so far

In fact if you compare these figures to the ones he put up in his rookie year, the extent of his decline (in that part of his game) is scary.

A bit alarming for a guy who's greatest offensive asset is supposed to be his inside game.

P.S.
To those who have felt that we should start Sully over Lee, I think this little tidbit of information helps to settle that debate.  With the exception of Sully's three point shooting ability (if you can call it that) Lee really is better than him pretty much everywhere.

In fact Lee is basically best-case-scenario Sully.  He's the guy Sully would be if he were to get into shape, stop chucking ill-advised threes and start playing in the paint again.

I wonder how much of it has to do with playing against starting line ups.
Zeller and Olynyk have played more minutes vs second units and poorer defenders, whilst Sully's basically played vs starting units, often being guarded by the NBA's elite defnesive big men- especially considering he started with Bass, Olynyk or Zeller most nights.
 
 The above is why I can't wait to see him play next to Amir Johnson.

[Celtics4ever]

I think his 3-pt shooting is at the direction of Stevens, not really his own initiative.  I'd rather he cut the volume he takes and stick to the paint --> one of the coaching points I don't agree with about Stevens.

I love how guys make excuses for him.   He even shots them in the summer videos.   Did CBS tell him to shoot .28% from their, I am guessing not.  He takes them because he does not want to run the whole floor, I have seen Stevens shake his head at a few of Sully's threes.  It is simply not a good shot for him, the team, until he can make them.  Practice them now in summer, not when your being paid to make them.  He shoots them because he is lazy, doesn't have to run the floor.  People loved comparing him to Love, but he is no Kevin Love and the main similarity is he can rebound and can't D just like Love.

I just hate him shooting them at the end of games too.   He shot us out of a few games last year trying to be the man.  Stevens said he wants him to develop the shot.   But I hardly think he green lights him, otherwise he would not have jerked him out on some of the misses.

As for the impact, shooting percentage is a big part of being a big.    Sully has great hands but he is of dubious height, I doubt he is 6-9 sometimes and he can't jump.   He relies on bumping his man and uses his body to score.   One area though that he has definite impact, that it is ignored is on the boards.  I dislike his game, think he is lazy and squanders his talent but he is one, if not the best, rebounder on our team.  His D is poor and he is no rim protector.   But you have to acknowledge his prowess on the boards is better than KO, and Zeller and the other guys.

That being said, I hope we deal him.   I think he is fool's gold.  His ceiling is low with his poor athletic base.  He is a good rebounder and I would wager he probably is one of the best offensive rebounder when not out of position trying to be Kyle Korver.

[ImShakHeIsShaq]

With what people expect from Sully, you would think we wasted a lottery pick on him! He has given very nice production for the 20th pick! Of course I want him at his best, I think he has a good deal of improvement left but I'm not whining if the 20th pick never becomes better than he is right now! He is worth more than the 20th pick if he can stay healthy. He needs to figure that out but other than that, another great pick by DA. If you don't think Sully is a very good pick for #20 already, then I don't think your draft/player assessment is based in reality! Sully is still a good pick if it were the lotto, y'all are crying about someone picked at toss-up point!