Doesn't add up.
If I recall, the Celts needed Horford's cap hold freed up to give Kemba the max.
Boston could have theoretically kept Horford and then sign and traded for Walker. Boston just had to remain below the tax line to do it, so something like Rozier (sign and traded) plus Smart, probably would have worked financially. Still might have even been able to add Kanter depending on what Horford's contract actually looked like.
So is a Walker, Brown, Hayward, Tatum, Horford with Kanter, Theis, Langford, etc. a better team. Probably, but it still isn't a contender, so I again am not sure what the point of all those moves would be. Of course I have no idea why Boston signed Walker and kept Hayward, if the goal is to build a contender around Tatum.
That team doesn't look like a contender when compared to the NBA since 2008 with loads of superteams with 3-5 stars per team.
But this year's NBA isn't made of superteams. At best you have teams with 2-3 stars on them and some of those teams don't have great depth or have injury problems.
Then add in that there could be even more injury issues and, as far as I am concerned, you could argue any one of 6-9 teams could be the champion if they remain healthy.
A team of
Kemba
Brown
Tatum
Horford
Kanter
Edwards
Smart
Utah Hayward
Theis
Williams
Williams
Semi
That gelled and stayed healthy could have been a contender in today's game with the talent more evenly distributed.
I'm confused, who are these teams that had 3-5 stars on them? Sure the Warriors, but after that, what are we talking about recently (I'll give you the Heat and C's before that, but the heat were 5 years ago - perhaps the Cavs when they had Irving). The Clippers and Lakers this year project to be better than any team not named the Warriors (when healthy) the last 5 years. The Rockets are probably better with Westbrook than Paul (at least in theory). The Nuggets, Jazz, and Blazers are all better than that Celtics team. Heck if Klay comes back, I'd take the Warriors over them in a playoff series. The East is weaker, as it has been for years, but that team is pretty clearly behind the Bucks. The Sixers are harder to gauge because in that scenario they don't have Horford, but they would have used that money on someone and they still have Embiid and Simmons so I'd rate them higher. Obviously that team is better than the Nets on paper this year, but not going forward. That hypothetical Celtics team is at absolute best, the 7th best team in the league this year and they are arguably more like 9th or 10th. That isn't a contender.
I love the enthusiasm and the positivity so many have, but the C's aren't close to contending. The team just doesn't have enough high end talent and the roster construction is terrible. Even if your hypothetical team was somehow possible (I think it is impossible as Smart couldn't really be on the team unless Horford took a very small contract), it isn't a contender either. Better than the current group, absolutely, but just not in the same class as the elite teams, because quite simply the elite teams have elite top end talent, something Boston does not (Walker has 1 3rd Team All NBA, the only such award from anyone on that team - and I don't see Walker as a top 15 player despite him having a top 15 season last year). Top end talent wins. This has been shown time and time again that the team with the best player in a playoff series wins that series at a significantly higher rate than the team without the best player (there are exceptions obviously).
Yeah, well let's just say I completely disagree with your usual Celtic pessimism if Horford was on this team. The league is wide open this year, especially for a team like this Celtics team if they had Horford, a deep team, I think under the right circumstances would have had a chance.
The current group, not so much. Yes, I think a healthy Horford, on this team, could make that much of a difference, especially in a league where the talent is much better spread out and injuries to stars(Durant, George, Thompson, more Kawhi load managing, more load managing Anthony Davis, an older and more broken LeBron, a face hurting Kyrie, the always brittle Embiid) could affect the rest of the league in a way that if that Celtic team stayed healthy, they could take advantage of it.
Those are arguments as to why Boston might have a fine regular season record, which I don't disagree with, but they are not reasons that Boston would have been an actual contender. That lineup (which as I said probably would have been impossible) is at best the 8th best playoff lineup in the league. It is clearly not better than Milwaukee, LA, LA, Houston, Utah, Denver, or Portland. Golden State (if Klay is back for the playoffs) is arguably better and Philadelphia would have been unknown without Horford, but even still would have still had the 2 best players in a playoff series against the C's. That theoretical Boston team would have been solidly ahead of the grouping the team is in in the East though (the current squad could realistically finish anywhere from 3rd to 9th in the conference).
The league has more balance this year and doesn't have the super team that was Golden State, but it certainly doesn't mean a team with mediocre top end talent and solid depth is all of a sudden going to be a realistic contender come playoff time. That just isn't how playoff basketball works. Depth is great for nice regular season records, but top end talent wins in the playoffs. That has always been the case and has always been the case with very rare exceptions. And Boston doesn't have a single top 15 player, while there are at least 4 teams that have 2 top 15 players (ESPN's top 15 has LA, LA, HOU, POR, PHI) and that doesn't even include the team with the best player in the world.
And you guys can call it pessimism all you want, but I was dead on in my assessment last year on the playoff potential of Boston because of the reasons I cited above. Boston quite simply didn't have the top end talent needed to be a realistic contender come playoff time. Same as this year except the team has a worse best player, a worst second player, worse depth, and a much worse interior. This Boston team just isn't very good unless Tatum all of a sudden vaults himself into the league's elite players (which is unrealistic at least for next year, especially with him playing PF).
I don't care about ESPN's rankings lol, the garbage they churn out can't even hold a candle to the "stat monkey" sites like Backpicks which you guys despise. If CJ McCollum and Ben Simmons are top 15 players, Kemba Walker definitely fits your description of a top shelf player. And contrary to popular opinion, there's only so much value in a first option: if you can't get a bonafide top 5-7 player who can take up the role of a high volume+high efficiency offensive centerpiece, you're better off stacking a bunch of good players who mesh with each other well with one guy who can up his volume while maintaining or increasing his efficiency when needed ala Pierce/Miller/Billups (Miller is incredible btw, dude anchored a decade's worth of elite playoff offenses with one of the most resilient individual offenses in NBA history). I certainly believe that the Celtics with Horford would have been a contender this season.
You can certainly believe that, but it doesn't make it so. Horford would be worse than last year. Walker is worse than Irving (even with better chemistry that still matters). The bench depth is lessened (Kanter takes Baynes role), but no Rozier, no Morris, and most importantly no Smart (Smart almost certainly has to go to Charlotte in the Walker deal if Horford is on the team). I expect Hayward to be better and Tatum to continue to improve. Brown should get nominally better (most players with consistent playing time for 3 years that have only nominally improved from year 2 to 3 don't take a huge leap in year 4).
Simmons is absolutely better than Walker, especially as a #2 type player. He has a much more balanced overall game and is a better defender. I wouldn't want Simmons to be the lead player, I'd much rather have Walker in that role, but as a #2 Simmons is the better guy. McCollum and Walker are very similar players. Walker is a better passer and rebounder, but McCollum is the much more efficient shooter and is the better defender. They have had different roles (i.e. a #1 vs a #2), so it is a bit hard to compare them (though when Lillard has missed time McCollum has played like a #1), but I can see arguments for either one. Beal is also right there in that range. Of course, McCollum is clearly a #2 guy and in that role he is fantastic. Lillard is by far better than anyone on the Celtics. If Nurkic comes back, the Blazers are a significantly better team than the Celtics (even in that Horford scenario) and frankly even if he isn't back to form they still might be, especially if Whiteside can fit in there or Collins can take a year 3 jump.
I just don't see the team below (and I'll even include Smart despite its unlikeliness) as a contender.
Starters: Kemba, Brown, Tatum, Horford, Kanter
Bench: Edwards, Smart, Utah Hayward, Theis, Williams, Williams, Semi
I'd certainly rather have this team
Starters: Lillard, McCollum, Hood, Collins, Nurkic (assuming back in February)
Bench: Bazemore, Whiteside, Labissierre, Gasol, Hezonja
That team has more top end talent and that quite simply is what makes a team a contender. Though them being in the West really hurts them in Vegas (only the 7th best odds out West and would clearly be 3rd best odds in the East).
Topic: Horford gives his first detailed interview since FA, talks about why he left (Read 12829 times)