If KD really has torn his achilles

[Who]

Achilles injuries effect agility and explosiveness the most.

It is particularly painful for players who rely on explosive quickness / leaping ability such as slashers (Dominique Wilkins), small guards (like Westbrook) and undersized quick bigs (like AD).

Players like this find that they are unable to create separation from their defenders as well as before the injury. That forces them to take more contested jump-shots (low to medium percentage shot attempts) and less high shots around the basket and FTAs (high percentage shot attempts).

The thing about KD is that he is the best contested jump-shooter in the league. That is bread and butter. What makes him so special. He is going to be lethal - still be lethal - post-injury because his game is already geared for the type of opportunities he'll be forced to take more of post-injury.

Offensively there will be very little decline from an injury like this to a player with KD's physical size (7-0, 7-4 wingspan) and skill-set (amongst the best ever at contested jump-shooting, lethal midrange scorer and elite outside shooter). So what if he is more like Dirk (slower, more reliant on his size than quickness) than the Durant we are used to? Who cares? He is still going to be fantastic. One of the best offensive players in the league.

So offensively, no concerns. KD is still going to be amongst the best in the league.

Defensively is where the issues will be for KD.

That decline in agility makes it much harder for KD to change directions quickly which will make him vulnerable on defense. He will be more exposed on switches against smaller quicker players and less active as a team defender. And he'll probably move full time to PF rather than SF.

However, Durant is still 7-0 with a 7-4 wingspan so he can back off people and force them to shoot over him. This decreases his exposure significantly. Similar to Gallinari. Gallo has always had subpar quickness on defense but he works around it by being a very good position defender and using his size to intimidate smaller players. KD will be able to do the same.

So, Dirk-like offense + Gallo-like defense = that is an easy max contract decision in my book. I'd be happy to pay Durant whatever he wants in free agency. He should still be a dynamite player post-injury. A top 10 player in the league.

GSW or whoever else should still be lining up to get him to sign a max deal.

[Erik]

I don't think this affects Kyrie's decision at all, as I don't think Kyrie was ever really seriously considering the Knicks and I don't think Durant was ever considering the Nets at all.  Before the KD injury, from my outsider's view of the tea leaves, I'd put Irving at 75% to Nets, 22% to stay, 2% to Lakers, 1% to Knicks, and I don't think KD's injury changes that at all.  Someone like Kemba Walker though has to be more strongly be considering to stay in Charlotte rather than join KD in NY (if that is where KD ends up).

Not sure how you could say this. This leaves 1 free agent for Kyrie to pair up with (Butler). If he doesn't want to leave Philly or if he wants to go to LA, Kyrie really doesn't have many options left other than signing with a mediocre ball club (Nets) by himself just to run away from Boston. I can't say for certain what the guy is thinking, but at some point you'd have to assume that he's going to step back and look at the stacked Celtics roster, the extra year of contract after multiple knee surgeries, their ability to get AD fairly easily, and say "What am I doing?" Or maybe he just doesn't care, doesn't like the city, or doesn't like Stevens and just walks. Who knows. On paper, though, it looks like he either convinces Butler to join him in Brooklyn to lose in the 2nd round, or stay and win a title next year. With KD out next season, Celtics with him and AD have got to be the favorites...

The Nets and Celtics are basically the same team from a record standpoint if you take Irving off of them, except the Nets are a lot younger.  Russell, LeVert, and Allen are a very strong young trio, plus they have RHJ, Dinwiddie, Prince, Kurucs, and Harris.  They need the top end talent to truly compete, but they have a very strong base.  If you are Irving, you have to think that joining a 42 win team puts them at over 50 wins next year and just a move away from really being a contender.

That of course brings us to a move away and in that there is an outside shot of using Russell and some of those young players to acquire someone like Davis (assuming DLo agrees to a sign and trade there, which isn't a given).  If I'm the Pelicans, I'd prefer the Nets offer to that of the Lakers (as an example), and frankly unless Boston includes Tatum, I'd take the Nets offer over anything else Boston can offer.  I mean Russell, Allen, LeVert, and some future picks looks pretty good compared to the Lakers and Knicks deals and a non-Tatum Celtics deal.

Copied from my other post:

I’ve seen the line of logic posted here a few times that the Nets had almost as good a season as us so why not go there.

This is wrong for a few reasons:
1) The Nets didn't have to worry about minutes restrictions because there wasn't any expectation for them to matter in the playoffs. They just put their best roster in every night and won games against teams they had no business beating. The Celtics clearly valued preserving health over winning the #1 seed.
2) It wasn’t the expected outcome. You’re talking about the max performance from the Nets and just about the worst outcome for the Celtics. It’s important that we stick to expected results instead of what actually happened to avoid results based logical fallacies (I flipped a coin 10 times and it came up heads 7 times, therefore heads (or tails, if you’re one of those “it’s about time” folks) is more likely on the next flip.

The two teams are incomparable in terms of talent by all metrics. It's disingenuous to say that if you put Kyrie on the Nets roster, they're equal to what we are this year.

[Ilikesports17]

Remove Kyrie from both rosters and Boston is still far more talented than Brooklyn especially if you remove Russell from the Nets.

Smart, Brown, Tatum, Horford, Hayward, Baynes is a far superior roster to Russell, Levert, Dinwiddie, RHJ, Joe Harris, Allen.

[Moranis]

I don't think this affects Kyrie's decision at all, as I don't think Kyrie was ever really seriously considering the Knicks and I don't think Durant was ever considering the Nets at all.  Before the KD injury, from my outsider's view of the tea leaves, I'd put Irving at 75% to Nets, 22% to stay, 2% to Lakers, 1% to Knicks, and I don't think KD's injury changes that at all.  Someone like Kemba Walker though has to be more strongly be considering to stay in Charlotte rather than join KD in NY (if that is where KD ends up).

Not sure how you could say this. This leaves 1 free agent for Kyrie to pair up with (Butler). If he doesn't want to leave Philly or if he wants to go to LA, Kyrie really doesn't have many options left other than signing with a mediocre ball club (Nets) by himself just to run away from Boston. I can't say for certain what the guy is thinking, but at some point you'd have to assume that he's going to step back and look at the stacked Celtics roster, the extra year of contract after multiple knee surgeries, their ability to get AD fairly easily, and say "What am I doing?" Or maybe he just doesn't care, doesn't like the city, or doesn't like Stevens and just walks. Who knows. On paper, though, it looks like he either convinces Butler to join him in Brooklyn to lose in the 2nd round, or stay and win a title next year. With KD out next season, Celtics with him and AD have got to be the favorites...

The Nets and Celtics are basically the same team from a record standpoint if you take Irving off of them, except the Nets are a lot younger.  Russell, LeVert, and Allen are a very strong young trio, plus they have RHJ, Dinwiddie, Prince, Kurucs, and Harris.  They need the top end talent to truly compete, but they have a very strong base.  If you are Irving, you have to think that joining a 42 win team puts them at over 50 wins next year and just a move away from really being a contender.

That of course brings us to a move away and in that there is an outside shot of using Russell and some of those young players to acquire someone like Davis (assuming DLo agrees to a sign and trade there, which isn't a given).  If I'm the Pelicans, I'd prefer the Nets offer to that of the Lakers (as an example), and frankly unless Boston includes Tatum, I'd take the Nets offer over anything else Boston can offer.  I mean Russell, Allen, LeVert, and some future picks looks pretty good compared to the Lakers and Knicks deals and a non-Tatum Celtics deal.

Copied from my other post:

I’ve seen the line of logic posted here a few times that the Nets had almost as good a season as us so why not go there.

This is wrong for a few reasons:
1) The Nets didn't have to worry about minutes restrictions because there wasn't any expectation for them to matter in the playoffs. They just put their best roster in every night and won games against teams they had no business beating. The Celtics clearly valued preserving health over winning the #1 seed.
2) It wasn’t the expected outcome. You’re talking about the max performance from the Nets and just about the worst outcome for the Celtics. It’s important that we stick to expected results instead of what actually happened to avoid results based logical fallacies (I flipped a coin 10 times and it came up heads 7 times, therefore heads (or tails, if you’re one of those “it’s about time” folks) is more likely on the next flip.

The two teams are incomparable in terms of talent by all metrics. It's disingenuous to say that if you put Kyrie on the Nets roster, they're equal to what we are this year.

LeVert missed half the season and only at the very end started to really regain his form.   They were also a very young team that started out the year 8-18.  Once they found their groove, they finished 34-22.  Now obviously the whole season was a 42 win team, but they closed on a much better pace.  Now maybe they are much closer to a .500 team than a .607 win team, but young teams often hit their stride and continue to improve.

[jpotter33]

https://www.complex.com/sports/2019/06/kevin-durant-reportedly-wasnt-anywhere-close-to-100-percent-heading-into-game-5?utm_campaign=sportstw&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_medium=social

It’s being reported that KD was cleared to play even while being nowhere close to 100%. I’m sure it went both ways with KD begging to play, but it’s not a good look for GS either. Will be interesting to see how this dynamic affects his decision about free agency.

[PhoSita]

Remove Kyrie from both rosters and Boston is still far more talented than Brooklyn especially if you remove Russell from the Nets.

Smart, Brown, Tatum, Horford, Hayward, Baynes is a far superior roster to Russell, Levert, Dinwiddie, RHJ, Joe Harris, Allen.

Talent is subjective.

What I know for sure is that with or without Kyrie, Boston had an elite defense the last two years.  Boston was tops in defensive efficiency last year in the regular season and 6th this year.


Brooklyn not so much.  They were average / above average at 13th this year.  Last year they were abysmal - 25th.


On offense, the Nets this year were significantly below average - 19th.  Last year they were 21st.


In the playoffs last year without Kyrie, the Celtics had an offensive rating of 107.  That comes against playoff caliber opponents.  That number in the regular season this year would have placed the Celts in the mid to high teens, i.e. average to below average. 


Seems to me it's reasonable to think the Celts minus Kyrie are a mediocre to average offensive team with a top 5-10 defense. 

The Nets minus Kyrie but with D'Lo (diminishing returns anyone?) are a mediocre to average offensive team with an average to above average defense.



But I know that's not as satisfying for narrative purposes.

[CptZoogs]

I don't think this affects Kyrie's decision at all, as I don't think Kyrie was ever really seriously considering the Knicks and I don't think Durant was ever considering the Nets at all.  Before the KD injury, from my outsider's view of the tea leaves, I'd put Irving at 75% to Nets, 22% to stay, 2% to Lakers, 1% to Knicks, and I don't think KD's injury changes that at all.  Someone like Kemba Walker though has to be more strongly be considering to stay in Charlotte rather than join KD in NY (if that is where KD ends up).

Not sure how you could say this. This leaves 1 free agent for Kyrie to pair up with (Butler). If he doesn't want to leave Philly or if he wants to go to LA, Kyrie really doesn't have many options left other than signing with a mediocre ball club (Nets) by himself just to run away from Boston. I can't say for certain what the guy is thinking, but at some point you'd have to assume that he's going to step back and look at the stacked Celtics roster, the extra year of contract after multiple knee surgeries, their ability to get AD fairly easily, and say "What am I doing?" Or maybe he just doesn't care, doesn't like the city, or doesn't like Stevens and just walks. Who knows. On paper, though, it looks like he either convinces Butler to join him in Brooklyn to lose in the 2nd round, or stay and win a title next year. With KD out next season, Celtics with him and AD have got to be the favorites...

The Nets and Celtics are basically the same team from a record standpoint if you take Irving off of them, except the Nets are a lot younger.  Russell, LeVert, and Allen are a very strong young trio, plus they have RHJ, Dinwiddie, Prince, Kurucs, and Harris.  They need the top end talent to truly compete, but they have a very strong base.  If you are Irving, you have to think that joining a 42 win team puts them at over 50 wins next year and just a move away from really being a contender.

That of course brings us to a move away and in that there is an outside shot of using Russell and some of those young players to acquire someone like Davis (assuming DLo agrees to a sign and trade there, which isn't a given).  If I'm the Pelicans, I'd prefer the Nets offer to that of the Lakers (as an example), and frankly unless Boston includes Tatum, I'd take the Nets offer over anything else Boston can offer.  I mean Russell, Allen, LeVert, and some future picks looks pretty good compared to the Lakers and Knicks deals and a non-Tatum Celtics deal.

Copied from my other post:

I’ve seen the line of logic posted here a few times that the Nets had almost as good a season as us so why not go there.

This is wrong for a few reasons:
1) The Nets didn't have to worry about minutes restrictions because there wasn't any expectation for them to matter in the playoffs. They just put their best roster in every night and won games against teams they had no business beating. The Celtics clearly valued preserving health over winning the #1 seed.
2) It wasn’t the expected outcome. You’re talking about the max performance from the Nets and just about the worst outcome for the Celtics. It’s important that we stick to expected results instead of what actually happened to avoid results based logical fallacies (I flipped a coin 10 times and it came up heads 7 times, therefore heads (or tails, if you’re one of those “it’s about time” folks) is more likely on the next flip.

The two teams are incomparable in terms of talent by all metrics. It's disingenuous to say that if you put Kyrie on the Nets roster, they're equal to what we are this year.

LeVert missed half the season and only at the very end started to really regain his form.   They were also a very young team that started out the year 8-18.  Once they found their groove, they finished 34-22.  Now obviously the whole season was a 42 win team, but they closed on a much better pace.  Now maybe they are much closer to a .500 team than a .607 win team, but young teams often hit their stride and continue to improve.

With regards to Levert, don't you have to factor in his durability issues.  Poor guy has not been able to stay healthy dating back to his Michigan days (why he went as late in the draft as he did).

[Moranis]

I don't think this affects Kyrie's decision at all, as I don't think Kyrie was ever really seriously considering the Knicks and I don't think Durant was ever considering the Nets at all.  Before the KD injury, from my outsider's view of the tea leaves, I'd put Irving at 75% to Nets, 22% to stay, 2% to Lakers, 1% to Knicks, and I don't think KD's injury changes that at all.  Someone like Kemba Walker though has to be more strongly be considering to stay in Charlotte rather than join KD in NY (if that is where KD ends up).

Not sure how you could say this. This leaves 1 free agent for Kyrie to pair up with (Butler). If he doesn't want to leave Philly or if he wants to go to LA, Kyrie really doesn't have many options left other than signing with a mediocre ball club (Nets) by himself just to run away from Boston. I can't say for certain what the guy is thinking, but at some point you'd have to assume that he's going to step back and look at the stacked Celtics roster, the extra year of contract after multiple knee surgeries, their ability to get AD fairly easily, and say "What am I doing?" Or maybe he just doesn't care, doesn't like the city, or doesn't like Stevens and just walks. Who knows. On paper, though, it looks like he either convinces Butler to join him in Brooklyn to lose in the 2nd round, or stay and win a title next year. With KD out next season, Celtics with him and AD have got to be the favorites...

The Nets and Celtics are basically the same team from a record standpoint if you take Irving off of them, except the Nets are a lot younger.  Russell, LeVert, and Allen are a very strong young trio, plus they have RHJ, Dinwiddie, Prince, Kurucs, and Harris.  They need the top end talent to truly compete, but they have a very strong base.  If you are Irving, you have to think that joining a 42 win team puts them at over 50 wins next year and just a move away from really being a contender.

That of course brings us to a move away and in that there is an outside shot of using Russell and some of those young players to acquire someone like Davis (assuming DLo agrees to a sign and trade there, which isn't a given).  If I'm the Pelicans, I'd prefer the Nets offer to that of the Lakers (as an example), and frankly unless Boston includes Tatum, I'd take the Nets offer over anything else Boston can offer.  I mean Russell, Allen, LeVert, and some future picks looks pretty good compared to the Lakers and Knicks deals and a non-Tatum Celtics deal.

Copied from my other post:

I’ve seen the line of logic posted here a few times that the Nets had almost as good a season as us so why not go there.

This is wrong for a few reasons:
1) The Nets didn't have to worry about minutes restrictions because there wasn't any expectation for them to matter in the playoffs. They just put their best roster in every night and won games against teams they had no business beating. The Celtics clearly valued preserving health over winning the #1 seed.
2) It wasn’t the expected outcome. You’re talking about the max performance from the Nets and just about the worst outcome for the Celtics. It’s important that we stick to expected results instead of what actually happened to avoid results based logical fallacies (I flipped a coin 10 times and it came up heads 7 times, therefore heads (or tails, if you’re one of those “it’s about time” folks) is more likely on the next flip.

The two teams are incomparable in terms of talent by all metrics. It's disingenuous to say that if you put Kyrie on the Nets roster, they're equal to what we are this year.

LeVert missed half the season and only at the very end started to really regain his form.   They were also a very young team that started out the year 8-18.  Once they found their groove, they finished 34-22.  Now obviously the whole season was a 42 win team, but they closed on a much better pace.  Now maybe they are much closer to a .500 team than a .607 win team, but young teams often hit their stride and continue to improve.

With regards to Levert, don't you have to factor in his durability issues.  Poor guy has not been able to stay healthy dating back to his Michigan days (why he went as late in the draft as he did).

Absolutely.  He clearly has injury issues, but he is still pretty young.  Sometimes players are able to work through initial injury struggles to end up pretty healthy (Zydrunas Ilgauskas, for example), sometimes the early injury struggles are signs of things to come.  It does certainly lower his value (whatever you perceive that to be).

[celticsclay]

I don't think this affects Kyrie's decision at all, as I don't think Kyrie was ever really seriously considering the Knicks and I don't think Durant was ever considering the Nets at all.  Before the KD injury, from my outsider's view of the tea leaves, I'd put Irving at 75% to Nets, 22% to stay, 2% to Lakers, 1% to Knicks, and I don't think KD's injury changes that at all.  Someone like Kemba Walker though has to be more strongly be considering to stay in Charlotte rather than join KD in NY (if that is where KD ends up).

Not sure how you could say this. This leaves 1 free agent for Kyrie to pair up with (Butler). If he doesn't want to leave Philly or if he wants to go to LA, Kyrie really doesn't have many options left other than signing with a mediocre ball club (Nets) by himself just to run away from Boston. I can't say for certain what the guy is thinking, but at some point you'd have to assume that he's going to step back and look at the stacked Celtics roster, the extra year of contract after multiple knee surgeries, their ability to get AD fairly easily, and say "What am I doing?" Or maybe he just doesn't care, doesn't like the city, or doesn't like Stevens and just walks. Who knows. On paper, though, it looks like he either convinces Butler to join him in Brooklyn to lose in the 2nd round, or stay and win a title next year. With KD out next season, Celtics with him and AD have got to be the favorites...

The Nets and Celtics are basically the same team from a record standpoint if you take Irving off of them, except the Nets are a lot younger.  Russell, LeVert, and Allen are a very strong young trio, plus they have RHJ, Dinwiddie, Prince, Kurucs, and Harris.  They need the top end talent to truly compete, but they have a very strong base.  If you are Irving, you have to think that joining a 42 win team puts them at over 50 wins next year and just a move away from really being a contender.

That of course brings us to a move away and in that there is an outside shot of using Russell and some of those young players to acquire someone like Davis (assuming DLo agrees to a sign and trade there, which isn't a given).  If I'm the Pelicans, I'd prefer the Nets offer to that of the Lakers (as an example), and frankly unless Boston includes Tatum, I'd take the Nets offer over anything else Boston can offer.  I mean Russell, Allen, LeVert, and some future picks looks pretty good compared to the Lakers and Knicks deals and a non-Tatum Celtics deal.

Copied from my other post:

I’ve seen the line of logic posted here a few times that the Nets had almost as good a season as us so why not go there.

This is wrong for a few reasons:
1) The Nets didn't have to worry about minutes restrictions because there wasn't any expectation for them to matter in the playoffs. They just put their best roster in every night and won games against teams they had no business beating. The Celtics clearly valued preserving health over winning the #1 seed.
2) It wasn’t the expected outcome. You’re talking about the max performance from the Nets and just about the worst outcome for the Celtics. It’s important that we stick to expected results instead of what actually happened to avoid results based logical fallacies (I flipped a coin 10 times and it came up heads 7 times, therefore heads (or tails, if you’re one of those “it’s about time” folks) is more likely on the next flip.

The two teams are incomparable in terms of talent by all metrics. It's disingenuous to say that if you put Kyrie on the Nets roster, they're equal to what we are this year.

LeVert missed half the season and only at the very end started to really regain his form.   They were also a very young team that started out the year 8-18.  Once they found their groove, they finished 34-22.  Now obviously the whole season was a 42 win team, but they closed on a much better pace.  Now maybe they are much closer to a .500 team than a .607 win team, but young teams often hit their stride and continue to improve.

With regards to Levert, don't you have to factor in his durability issues.  Poor guy has not been able to stay healthy dating back to his Michigan days (why he went as late in the draft as he did).

Oh the average fan absolutely has to factor in those issues. He has played in 168 out of a possible 246 games in his 3 year career and also had a serious injury in college. Some fans seem to fall into the trap of constantly putting on rose colored glasses for other team's players and poop colored glasses for our own. For example, many on here discounted the hot start of the Celtics two years ago when we were discussing how good they were, but not any of the bad stretches. Where here we have a fan wanting to discount the bad start of the nets and focus on their strong finish . We also have excuses for the Nets poor start because they were young. The Nets average rotation age was 26 years old. I would never hear our age used as an excuse for last year, but our average age for rotation was 26.7. By experience the Nets rotation was 11th youngest, we were 13th youngest. Their seasons experience was 4.3 and ours was 4.8. It is just a weird bunch of mental gymnastics to constantly put down our own assets and players while doing the inverse for other teams. It is a practice by some fans that has boggled my mind for years, but I do think it is important call this kind of stuff out so that the average fan doesn't get pumped full of misinformation when they skim our board.
   

[tstorey_97]

I don't think this affects Kyrie's decision at all, as I don't think Kyrie was ever really seriously considering the Knicks and I don't think Durant was ever considering the Nets at all.  Before the KD injury, from my outsider's view of the tea leaves, I'd put Irving at 75% to Nets, 22% to stay, 2% to Lakers, 1% to Knicks, and I don't think KD's injury changes that at all.  Someone like Kemba Walker though has to be more strongly be considering to stay in Charlotte rather than join KD in NY (if that is where KD ends up).

Not sure how you could say this. This leaves 1 free agent for Kyrie to pair up with (Butler). If he doesn't want to leave Philly or if he wants to go to LA, Kyrie really doesn't have many options left other than signing with a mediocre ball club (Nets) by himself just to run away from Boston. I can't say for certain what the guy is thinking, but at some point you'd have to assume that he's going to step back and look at the stacked Celtics roster, the extra year of contract after multiple knee surgeries, their ability to get AD fairly easily, and say "What am I doing?" Or maybe he just doesn't care, doesn't like the city, or doesn't like Stevens and just walks. Who knows. On paper, though, it looks like he either convinces Butler to join him in Brooklyn to lose in the 2nd round, or stay and win a title next year. With KD out next season, Celtics with him and AD have got to be the favorites...

The Nets and Celtics are basically the same team from a record standpoint if you take Irving off of them, except the Nets are a lot younger.  Russell, LeVert, and Allen are a very strong young trio, plus they have RHJ, Dinwiddie, Prince, Kurucs, and Harris.  They need the top end talent to truly compete, but they have a very strong base.  If you are Irving, you have to think that joining a 42 win team puts them at over 50 wins next year and just a move away from really being a contender.

That of course brings us to a move away and in that there is an outside shot of using Russell and some of those young players to acquire someone like Davis (assuming DLo agrees to a sign and trade there, which isn't a given).  If I'm the Pelicans, I'd prefer the Nets offer to that of the Lakers (as an example), and frankly unless Boston includes Tatum, I'd take the Nets offer over anything else Boston can offer.  I mean Russell, Allen, LeVert, and some future picks looks pretty good compared to the Lakers and Knicks deals and a non-Tatum Celtics deal.

Copied from my other post:

I’ve seen the line of logic posted here a few times that the Nets had almost as good a season as us so why not go there.

This is wrong for a few reasons:
1) The Nets didn't have to worry about minutes restrictions because there wasn't any expectation for them to matter in the playoffs. They just put their best roster in every night and won games against teams they had no business beating. The Celtics clearly valued preserving health over winning the #1 seed.
2) It wasn’t the expected outcome. You’re talking about the max performance from the Nets and just about the worst outcome for the Celtics. It’s important that we stick to expected results instead of what actually happened to avoid results based logical fallacies (I flipped a coin 10 times and it came up heads 7 times, therefore heads (or tails, if you’re one of those “it’s about time” folks) is more likely on the next flip.

The two teams are incomparable in terms of talent by all metrics. It's disingenuous to say that if you put Kyrie on the Nets roster, they're equal to what we are this year.

LeVert missed half the season and only at the very end started to really regain his form.   They were also a very young team that started out the year 8-18.  Once they found their groove, they finished 34-22.  Now obviously the whole season was a 42 win team, but they closed on a much better pace.  Now maybe they are much closer to a .500 team than a .607 win team, but young teams often hit their stride and continue to improve.

With regards to Levert, don't you have to factor in his durability issues.  Poor guy has not been able to stay healthy dating back to his Michigan days (why he went as late in the draft as he did).

Oh the average fan absolutely has to factor in those issues. He has played in 168 out of a possible 246 games in his 3 year career and also had a serious injury in college. Some fans seem to fall into the trap of constantly putting on rose colored glasses for other team's players and poop colored glasses for our own. For example, many on here discounted the hot start of the Celtics two years ago when we were discussing how good they were, but not any of the bad stretches. Where here we have a fan wanting to discount the bad start of the nets and focus on their strong finish . We also have excuses for the Nets poor start because they were young. The Nets average rotation age was 26 years old. I would never hear our age used as an excuse for last year, but our average age for rotation was 26.7. By experience the Nets rotation was 11th youngest, we were 13th youngest. Their seasons experience was 4.3 and ours was 4.8. It is just a weird bunch of mental gymnastics to constantly put down our own assets and players while doing the inverse for other teams. It is a practice by some fans that has boggled my mind for years, but I do think it is important call this kind of stuff out so that the average fan doesn't get pumped full of misinformation when they skim our board.
 

TP to clay on ^

[MaxAMillion]

https://www.complex.com/sports/2019/06/kevin-durant-reportedly-wasnt-anywhere-close-to-100-percent-heading-into-game-5?utm_campaign=sportstw&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_medium=social

It’s being reported that KD was cleared to play even while being nowhere close to 100%. I’m sure it went both ways with KD begging to play, but it’s not a good look for GS either. Will be interesting to see how this dynamic affects his decision about free agency.

Cleared to play by whom? Team Doctors? This is why Kawhi was right not to play. Go get independent doctors and if you feel like you are not 100%, don't go out there. Doesn't matter what type of pressure the organization and teammates put on you. There was clearly pressure just based on the comments Kerr and players were making leading up to the last game. If they truly cared about Durant and his health, they would have stated that we are not going to speak publicly on Durant's availability. We know he will play when he is 100%. Until then we focus on trying to win with the players we have.

[jpotter33]

https://twitter.com/TheHoopCentral/status/1138623218317647873?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1138624204125794304&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fbleacherreport.com%2Flos-angeles-lakers

Lakers, Nets, Knicks, and Clippers all still fully interested in signing Kevin Durant, per @davidaldridgedc.

Would be hilarious if Kyrie just went through this with Hayward, leaves to Brooklyn with Durant, and then has to go through it all over again with Durant lol It would be especially funny if the Nets then didn't even make the playoffs next year with Durant out, as that roster without Durant or Russell (who would have to be let go to afford both Kyrie and Durant) is likely a low playoff seed or just out of the playoffs, dependent upon health and chemistry (which Kyrie was a big part of the chemistry problems last year).

It's also interesting given Kyrie's comments about the young'uns this year why he would go to an even younger team. Pretty clear that a decision to go to the Nets is about something beyond basketball, as it seems to run counter to everything he's said about his free agency over the past several years.

[hpantazo]

https://twitter.com/TheHoopCentral/status/1138623218317647873?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1138624204125794304&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fbleacherreport.com%2Flos-angeles-lakers

Lakers, Nets, Knicks, and Clippers all still fully interested in signing Kevin Durant, per @davidaldridgedc.

Would be hilarious if Kyrie just went through this with Hayward, leaves to Brooklyn with Durant, and then has to go through it all over again with Durant lol It would be especially funny if the Nets then didn't even make the playoffs next year with Durant out, as that roster without Durant or Russell (who would have to be let go to afford both Kyrie and Durant) is likely a low playoff seed or just out of the playoffs, dependent upon health and chemistry (which Kyrie was a big part of the chemistry problems last year).

It's also interesting given Kyrie's comments about the young'uns this year why he would go to an even younger team. Pretty clear that a decision to go to the Nets is about something beyond basketball, as it seems to run counter to everything he's said about his free agency over the past several years.

Yeah, that's the main reason I can't see Kyrie signing with another team along with Durant this summer. He clearly suffered the last 2 years going through Hayward's injury, he can't waste another 2 years of his prime going through it again.

[celticsclay]

I don't think this affects Kyrie's decision at all, as I don't think Kyrie was ever really seriously considering the Knicks and I don't think Durant was ever considering the Nets at all.  Before the KD injury, from my outsider's view of the tea leaves, I'd put Irving at 75% to Nets, 22% to stay, 2% to Lakers, 1% to Knicks, and I don't think KD's injury changes that at all.  Someone like Kemba Walker though has to be more strongly be considering to stay in Charlotte rather than join KD in NY (if that is where KD ends up).

Not sure how you could say this. This leaves 1 free agent for Kyrie to pair up with (Butler). If he doesn't want to leave Philly or if he wants to go to LA, Kyrie really doesn't have many options left other than signing with a mediocre ball club (Nets) by himself just to run away from Boston. I can't say for certain what the guy is thinking, but at some point you'd have to assume that he's going to step back and look at the stacked Celtics roster, the extra year of contract after multiple knee surgeries, their ability to get AD fairly easily, and say "What am I doing?" Or maybe he just doesn't care, doesn't like the city, or doesn't like Stevens and just walks. Who knows. On paper, though, it looks like he either convinces Butler to join him in Brooklyn to lose in the 2nd round, or stay and win a title next year. With KD out next season, Celtics with him and AD have got to be the favorites...

The Nets and Celtics are basically the same team from a record standpoint if you take Irving off of them, except the Nets are a lot younger.  Russell, LeVert, and Allen are a very strong young trio, plus they have RHJ, Dinwiddie, Prince, Kurucs, and Harris.  They need the top end talent to truly compete, but they have a very strong base.  If you are Irving, you have to think that joining a 42 win team puts them at over 50 wins next year and just a move away from really being a contender.

That of course brings us to a move away and in that there is an outside shot of using Russell and some of those young players to acquire someone like Davis (assuming DLo agrees to a sign and trade there, which isn't a given).  If I'm the Pelicans, I'd prefer the Nets offer to that of the Lakers (as an example), and frankly unless Boston includes Tatum, I'd take the Nets offer over anything else Boston can offer.  I mean Russell, Allen, LeVert, and some future picks looks pretty good compared to the Lakers and Knicks deals and a non-Tatum Celtics deal.

Copied from my other post:

I’ve seen the line of logic posted here a few times that the Nets had almost as good a season as us so why not go there.

This is wrong for a few reasons:
1) The Nets didn't have to worry about minutes restrictions because there wasn't any expectation for them to matter in the playoffs. They just put their best roster in every night and won games against teams they had no business beating. The Celtics clearly valued preserving health over winning the #1 seed.
2) It wasn’t the expected outcome. You’re talking about the max performance from the Nets and just about the worst outcome for the Celtics. It’s important that we stick to expected results instead of what actually happened to avoid results based logical fallacies (I flipped a coin 10 times and it came up heads 7 times, therefore heads (or tails, if you’re one of those “it’s about time” folks) is more likely on the next flip.

The two teams are incomparable in terms of talent by all metrics. It's disingenuous to say that if you put Kyrie on the Nets roster, they're equal to what we are this year.

LeVert missed half the season and only at the very end started to really regain his form.   They were also a very young team that started out the year 8-18.  Once they found their groove, they finished 34-22.  Now obviously the whole season was a 42 win team, but they closed on a much better pace.  Now maybe they are much closer to a .500 team than a .607 win team, but young teams often hit their stride and continue to improve.

With regards to Levert, don't you have to factor in his durability issues.  Poor guy has not been able to stay healthy dating back to his Michigan days (why he went as late in the draft as he did).

Oh the average fan absolutely has to factor in those issues. He has played in 168 out of a possible 246 games in his 3 year career and also had a serious injury in college. Some fans seem to fall into the trap of constantly putting on rose colored glasses for other team's players and poop colored glasses for our own. For example, many on here discounted the hot start of the Celtics two years ago when we were discussing how good they were, but not any of the bad stretches. Where here we have a fan wanting to discount the bad start of the nets and focus on their strong finish . We also have excuses for the Nets poor start because they were young. The Nets average rotation age was 26 years old. I would never hear our age used as an excuse for last year, but our average age for rotation was 26.7. By experience the Nets rotation was 11th youngest, we were 13th youngest. Their seasons experience was 4.3 and ours was 4.8. It is just a weird bunch of mental gymnastics to constantly put down our own assets and players while doing the inverse for other teams. It is a practice by some fans that has boggled my mind for years, but I do think it is important call this kind of stuff out so that the average fan doesn't get pumped full of misinformation when they skim our board.
 

TP to clay on ^

thank you

[RJ87]

He really does:

Shams Charania
‏
Verified account
 
@ShamsCharania
 6m6 minutes ago
More
Warriors All-Star Kevin Durant has underwent surgery to repair a ruptured Achilles tendon.