The false timeline narrative

[droopdog7]

I’m hearing too many posters using timeline as a way to defend certain moves.  First of all, everyone on the team doesn’t need to be around the same age.  Our issues last year were less about young versus old than they were about having too many ball dominant players and not enough shooters or complimentary players.  Plus, Kyrie is a weirdo.

Second, if Tatum and brown are the actual future of this team, I’d say they are no longer to be considered young.  Brown will be entering year 4 which is plenty of experience.  Tatum year three.  The greats in this league blow up by now.  Kobe was an all star year 2 (out of high school).

Yes, some guys take a little longer but my point is, if they’ve got it, then we damm well better see it THIS year.  They’ll need some veterans to bring them along right now, not in 2-3 years.

[BOSuprhand]

You were wrong before you even put your first period after a sentence.


I don't think people are "defending" a timeline

The "timeline" is just a base that surrounds an age group...  that's how I use it and I'm sure many posters do, too

[droopdog7]

You were wrong before you even put your first period after a sentence.


I don't think people are "defending" a timeline

The "timeline" is just a base that surrounds an age group...  that's how I use it and I'm sure many posters do, too

Wuh?

[Silky]

I’m hearing too many posters using timeline as a way to defend certain moves.  First of all, everyone on the team doesn’t need to be around the same age.  Our issues last year were less about young versus old than they were about having too many ball dominant players and not enough shooters or complimentary players.  Plus, Kyrie is a weirdo.

Second, if Tatum and brown are the actual future of this team, I’d say they are no longer to be considered young.  Brown will be entering year 4 which is plenty of experience.  Tatum year three.  The greats in this league blow up by now.  Kobe was an all star year 2 (out of high school).

Yes, some guys take a little longer but my point is, if they’ve got it, then we damm well better see it THIS year.  They’ll need some veterans to bring them along right now, not in 2-3 years.

You need people to continue to improve WITH the jays.

22 amd 21 years old. Of you bring in otherbunder 25yo players you can theoretically have them together for a decade.

And continuity matters as much as chemistry, and at times that outweighs individual talent.

Spurs for example would not have been such a dominate dynastybwithout the continuity.

How long has core of GSW been together?

The bulls of the 90s?

Cannot be swapping the deck chairs every 2 years around the jays.


To use cooking analogy, you cant keep opening the oven checking on roast, trust the timing because you are just letting out all the heat

[wdleehi]

"Fitting the timeline" has everything ti do with larger contracts.  If the Celtics spend alot on a player in terms of money and years, that player needs to both help the young Celtics grow and still be as useful when they do mature.

Short term contracts for older players are fine if it helps the team grow.

[keevsnick]

I’m hearing too many posters using timeline as a way to defend certain moves.  First of all, everyone on the team doesn’t need to be around the same age.  Our issues last year were less about young versus old than they were about having too many ball dominant players and not enough shooters or complimentary players.  Plus, Kyrie is a weirdo.

Second, if Tatum and brown are the actual future of this team, I’d say they are no longer to be considered young.  Brown will be entering year 4 which is plenty of experience.  Tatum year three.  The greats in this league blow up by now.  Kobe was an all star year 2 (out of high school).

Yes, some guys take a little longer but my point is, if they’ve got it, then we damm well better see it THIS year.  They’ll need some veterans to bring them along right now, not in 2-3 years.

Not everyone needs to be the same age, that's true. But most of your best players should be. I think we can all agree that to win a title you need talented players playing at a high level. I think we can also agree that player performance peaks somewhere between 25-31 (ie prime years). It stands to reason that to reach a title level you should maximize the overlap of your best players in that age range. That's what people mean when they say a guy does, or does, fit our timeline. Will ge be playing his best ball when Tatum and Brown begin to peak? That question matters.

Also your assertion that guys blow up by now is partly true, sure many if the all time greats are all star or all NBA by year 3 or 4, if so we will see that next year. But plenty of really good players take off after that like Oladipo leap, and other continually improve like Gordon Hayward's career. Player progression is not neat or linear,. But even if it was it's hard to judge the young guys because they have thus far devoped in an environment where they haven't had the chance to put up the raw numbers that lead to accolades. In short, it's too soon to say whether they are or aren't stars. But I think we will in the next two seasons have a pretty good idea. That's exactly why it's a good idea to fit players around them that will best allow us to see if these guys can be stars. Hence another way it's important to find guys who fit our timeline.

[keevsnick]

I’m hearing too many posters using timeline as a way to defend certain moves.  First of all, everyone on the team doesn’t need to be around the same age.  Our issues last year were less about young versus old than they were about having too many ball dominant players and not enough shooters or complimentary players.  Plus, Kyrie is a weirdo.

Second, if Tatum and brown are the actual future of this team, I’d say they are no longer to be considered young.  Brown will be entering year 4 which is plenty of experience.  Tatum year three.  The greats in this league blow up by now.  Kobe was an all star year 2 (out of high school).

Yes, some guys take a little longer but my point is, if they’ve got it, then we damm well better see it THIS year.  They’ll need some veterans to bring them along right now, not in 2-3 years.

  lastly the timeline is important for how you build the team lining up contracts to have cap room in good free agents years will allow us to add significant talent at at time when the Jay's will just be hitting their stride as players. That allows us to maximize a window 3-7 years from now, rather than just the next two. 

[TheSundanceKid]

I think OP is right. You don't want everyone to be young. You need vets to teach them how to deal with situations, how to get through the downs etc. You need a good mix.

What we do want is one more guy who can be viewed as a longer term piece. Because we have the cap space to do that now.

It's why I don't like the idea of Randle on the team. He's not gonna make an impact in 3 years when we want to contend. He's just mediocre and youngish. If you could get Russell then I can see him being a long term piece. Same with Porzingis.

I'd like to see vets like Dudley in the rotation. Complementary players for the Jays to learn around so that when we compete, they are used to playing off role players and leading.

Let's not spend money on anyone just because we have it. Look at quality and role.

[hodgy03038]

TP droopdog. I think this timeline thing is as Tommy would say "Bogus". You need players that get along with each other and are playing team ball. There needs to be chemistry not just a "top dog" doing all the offense while people watch.

What kind of a "timeline" did Toronto have? Oh and they had some older guys like Gasol and I am guessing Ibaka is up there a bit.So timeline is ridiculous. Toronto did it in ONE YEAR - no timeline.
We just need guys that like playing together and are not SELFISH.

[Evantime34]

I think timeline is an issue, but it's the timeline of contracts not one of age.

The Celtics would be better served to line up cap space so that they can sign a max free agent to pair with Tatum before he signs his first max contract. In two years Tatum's cap hold will be a lot lower than what he ends up making.

Not interested in a deal over two years unless it's a value deal that could be moved in return for compensation. I'm worried that by the end of Vuc's contract he won't be worth it.

[RodyTur10]

I think timeline is an issue, but it's the timeline of contracts not one of age.

The Celtics would be better served to line up cap space so that they can sign a max free agent to pair with Tatum before he signs his first max contract. In two years Tatum's cap hold will be a lot lower than what he ends up making.

Not interested in a deal over two years unless it's a value deal that could be moved in return for compensation. I'm worried that by the end of Vuc's contract he won't be worth it.

You might be disappointed. Cap hold for Tatum in 2021 will be 250% of his previous year's salary ($9,897 million), so that's a cap hold of 24,74 million. If the projected salary cap is right (121,8 million) the maximum contract for Tatum starts at: 30,45 million (25% of 121,8) a year. That's a difference of only 5,71 million.

So even though Hayward's contract expires in 2021 it will still be some work to create max cap space.