I want brook lopez on the celtics

[Hemingway]

I like you, but I disagree with this. I think surrounding Lopez with 4 shooters in Thomas/Bradley/Crowder/Olynyk would be ideal. And I think we have the perfect forwards to match with him both offensively and defensively. Could you explain more on why we aren't set up to succeed?

First of all, quick note, who says you can't like somebody and disagree with them?  I don't really dislike anybody on these forums, and I disagree with people all of the time.

To answer your question, I don't think this team has enough size, scoring versatility, or creativity in the half-court to succeed playing a slow-it-down, post-heavy style.  This team does much better when they can get out in transition a lot, and when they are in the half-court, they're better off with everybody constantly moving and spreading the floor.

That's not to say Brad Stevens couldn't find a way to get Brook Lopez integrated and have some success.  I'm just doubtful that it would be worth it.  I think integrating Brook might hurt the team enough in other areas (e.g. it might limit Isaiah's and Crowder's ability to attack the rim) that it'll at best be a wash.

I really think if you want to build a team around a post-scorer, you need to go all-in on that style.  That means finding guys who are big, skilled, and who can score in a lot of different ways (posting up, iso, running off screens, and so on).  The Grizzlies at their best, and the Nets starting lineup the last couple of years, are good examples.  The Celts have had success by leveraging the limited, but still valuable, skillset of a roster of players that are, for the most part, undersized.

This is one of the few posts here that has made me change my mind on anything.

[LooseCannon]

we need a big who can score and rebound.

Isn't that just David Lee?

[PhoSita]

I don't think that the Nets will trade him though.  Why not see who you can attract via FA to around him and Young? 

Given that Prokhorov is still talking about the Nets contending next season, it's hard to see him OKing a Lopez trade that sends back expirings and a 1st or two.

I agree, I think the Nets will hold onto Young and Lopez and try to reload their starting lineup by overpaying some lesser free agents.

[ReadyFor17]

We would get sick of Brook Lopez as our go-to scorer very quickly. He's slow, not a quick decision maker, not much of a passer, he tends to fade in games and often doesn't play to his size. Bad fit for the offense and not the closer we're looking for even if we did run something more suitable to his abilities.

If he were a different player on defense this might be enough, but beyond some blocks there's really not much to say about him on that end of the floor.

Suggesting we give back two of Brooklyn's picks is lunacy. Acquiring him is really only logical if you are approaching it from the strict mindset of "We need points! Hey, that guy scores points let's get him!" without considering any extenuating circumstances.

[slamtheking]

I like you, but I disagree with this. I think surrounding Lopez with 4 shooters in Thomas/Bradley/Crowder/Olynyk would be ideal. And I think we have the perfect forwards to match with him both offensively and defensively. Could you explain more on why we aren't set up to succeed?

First of all, quick note, who says you can't like somebody and disagree with them?  I don't really dislike anybody on these forums, and I disagree with people all of the time.

To answer your question, I don't think this team has enough size, scoring versatility, or creativity in the half-court to succeed playing a slow-it-down, post-heavy style.  This team does much better when they can get out in transition a lot, and when they are in the half-court, they're better off with everybody constantly moving and spreading the floor.

That's not to say Brad Stevens couldn't find a way to get Brook Lopez integrated and have some success.  I'm just doubtful that it would be worth it.  I think integrating Brook might hurt the team enough in other areas (e.g. it might limit Isaiah's and Crowder's ability to attack the rim) that it'll at best be a wash.

I really think if you want to build a team around a post-scorer, you need to go all-in on that style.  That means finding guys who are big, skilled, and who can score in a lot of different ways (posting up, iso, running off screens, and so on).  The Grizzlies at their best, and the Nets starting lineup the last couple of years, are good examples.  The Celts have had success by leveraging the limited, but still valuable, skillset of a roster of players that are, for the most part, undersized.

I don't usually agree with you lately but this is spot on.

[PhoSita]

Forum dynamics are so interesting to me.

First somebody wants to disagree and they preface it with, "You know, I like you, but I have to disagree," as if disagreement normally implies a general negative comment on a person's character.

Later, I get people saying, "You know, usually I disagree with the things you have to say, but this time I actually agree with you!", because it's important to make clear that agreement in this instance does not imply agreement across the board.


 

Well, I'm glad that every once in a while I post something that rises slightly above the level of random words smashed together.   


I also really liked what Hemingway posted above -- somebody said something that changed his mind!  And he says that's really rare!  On the face of it, that sounds amazing.  But if you think about it, how many times do you read a thread and change your mind about some aspect of what's being discussed?  I don't think it happens to me very often.  Changing your mind is tough.  Sometimes I think you need to actually make a point of being willing to change your mind or it won't happen no matter what.  Personally I think I should try do it more often.


Anyway, a totally indulgent aside, but I just found all of that really interesting.

[PhoSita]

Suggesting we give back two of Brooklyn's picks is lunacy. Acquiring him is really only logical if you are approaching it from the strict mindset of "We need points! Hey, that guy scores points let's get him!" without considering any extenuating circumstances.

I mean, it could also theoretically make sense as a pure asset acquisition.  Danny has shown plenty of times that he's not averse to acquiring a guy simply because he thinks he can get them for less than they might be worth in 6 months to a year, even if that player is a questionable-at-best fit for the roster.

With Lopez, though, I think his value is probably as high as it's gonna get.

[Irish Stew]

While I understand that the Nets will likely keep Lopez and use their $40 million in cap space to try to build around him, it is possible that they might prefer to have a virtually clean roster and $60+ million in cap space. Jerebko,Lee and a 2016 nonBrooklyn pick and maybe either a future nonBrooklyn pick or a 2016 2nd round pick seems reasonable for both sides. It's highly unlikely that we will be very successful in what will be the most competitive free agent market in NBA history, simply because of cap expansion. Virtually everyone will have cap space. This is the kind of opportunity to upgrade our roster, even if the asset is not a perfect fit, that we have to take advantage of. Having said that, a four man Bigs rotation of Lopez, Johnson, Olynyk and Mickey would be kind of interesting. We would try to move Sullinger at the trade deadline.

[Celtics4ever]

It is pure fantasy, I doubt they trade with us again after Ainge got them in the last trade.   They went all in to win, they lost out and who do you think they will blame?

[celticsfan8591]

We would get sick of Brook Lopez as our go-to scorer very quickly. He's slow, not a quick decision maker, not much of a passer, he tends to fade in games and often doesn't play to his size. Bad fit for the offense and not the closer we're looking for even if we did run something more suitable to his abilities.

If he were a different player on defense this might be enough, but beyond some blocks there's really not much to say about him on that end of the floor.

Suggesting we give back two of Brooklyn's picks is lunacy. Acquiring him is really only logical if you are approaching it from the strict mindset of "We need points! Hey, that guy scores points let's get him!" without considering any extenuating circumstances.

It's also logical if you want to make the Nets worse this season and improve our pick.  That's the only reason I'd have any interest in acquiring Brook.

[sawick48]

we need a big who can score and rebound. THESE ARE OUR TWO WEAKEST POINTS. Brook lopez fits the bill. He is the lone star with no hope and we hold the keys to their future. I would give them their 2017 and 2018 pick back. Along with david lee, tyler zeller, terry rosier and james young. What do you think?

response: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e__bsqUs648

[obnoxiousmime]

Forum dynamics are so interesting to me.

First somebody wants to disagree and they preface it with, "You know, I like you, but I have to disagree," as if disagreement normally implies a general negative comment on a person's character.

Later, I get people saying, "You know, usually I disagree with the things you have to say, but this time I actually agree with you!", because it's important to make clear that agreement in this instance does not imply agreement across the board.


 

Well, I'm glad that every once in a while I post something that rises slightly above the level of random words smashed together.   


I also really liked what Hemingway posted above -- somebody said something that changed his mind!  And he says that's really rare!  On the face of it, that sounds amazing.  But if you think about it, how many times do you read a thread and change your mind about some aspect of what's being discussed?  I don't think it happens to me very often.  Changing your mind is tough.  Sometimes I think you need to actually make a point of being willing to change your mind or it won't happen no matter what.  Personally I think I should try do it more often.


Anyway, a totally indulgent aside, but I just found all of that really interesting.

Usually I despise you, your family, your friends, and your entire existence. That being said, you make a good point here.

Seriously, I don't really have a large presence on this forum and I doubt I've changed many minds on topics. More commonly, I think that good posts reinforce something you already suspected or believed but did not know how to verbalize.

It seems on certain topics there is just a partisan divide with little common ground, similar to politics. Tanking is definitely one of those issues. How far away the team is from actually competing is also largely split, probably in part based on whether you are an optimist or a pessimist. Of course, it doesn't help that the team currently is around .500 and on the playoff borderline. While one person is excited that we're "close to being right behind the conference leaders!" another person is browsing draftexpress for players expected to be taken around pick 10-14.