Author Topic: Smart for Wiseman?  (Read 4109 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: Smart for Wiseman?
« Reply #60 on: October 23, 2020, 05:22:40 PM »

Offline PhoSita

  • NCE
  • Johnny Most
  • ********************
  • Posts: 20329
  • Tommy Points: 2070
Stars win in the NBA far more often than grinders. You take a chance at a star for the cost of a grinder. No emotion.

The Celtics already have stars -- they've got 3 guys currently who can go off for 20-30 on any given night, not to mention Hayward who can also give you 20+ at any point if he's healthy (big if).

What they need is supporting players who bring intensity, are positive for team culture, and who can be counted on to impact a game no matter the stage / situation without having to take a lot of shots.  That's Smart. 


The #2 pick, even he becomes a star, probably isn't going to be a reliable contributor to winning for a few years.  In the meantime the Celts will be very much in need of contributors like Smart if they want to win series against the toughest opponents.
You’ll have to excuse my lengthiness—the reason I dread writing letters is because I am so apt to get to slinging wisdom & forget to let up. Thus much precious time is lost.
- Mark Twain

Re: Smart for Wiseman?
« Reply #61 on: October 23, 2020, 06:10:47 PM »

Online gouki88

  • Global Moderator
  • Kevin Garnett
  • *****************
  • Posts: 17012
  • Tommy Points: 958
  • 2019 CS Historical Draft Champion
Stars win in the NBA far more often than grinders. You take a chance at a star for the cost of a grinder. No emotion.

The Celtics already have stars -- they've got 3 guys currently who can go off for 20-30 on any given night, not to mention Hayward who can also give you 20+ at any point if he's healthy (big if).

What they need is supporting players who bring intensity, are positive for team culture, and who can be counted on to impact a game no matter the stage / situation without having to take a lot of shots.  That's Smart. 


The #2 pick, even he becomes a star, probably isn't going to be a reliable contributor to winning for a few years.  In the meantime the Celts will be very much in need of contributors like Smart if they want to win series against the toughest opponents.
I’m not sure the extent to which an All-Defensive level guard with incredibly inconsistent offence helps winning over guys who could be two-way All-Stars. Especially when said guy would be cost controlled for years.

I think the reality is that as good as Smart is his wild inconsistency is brutal for the team. The Miami series was the crystal clear example of this. Sure, he averaged 17/5/5 with strong defence. But he shot 39% on 14FGA a game and 32% on 8 3PA per game. His inability to control himself and reign it in time and again loses us games.

Yeah, he wins more with his defence, hustle and passing. But his reliance on streaky shooting is painful. I love what he does, but he’s far from infallible.

I also think if we traded him for the #2 pick it would extend our window. There wouldn’t be the pressure to win it all now but I still think we’d have the ability to do so. I think if we turned Smart into Wiseman our championship hopes look better, not worse. We and Dallas are the only teams built for long-term contention - I don’t think losing Smart would hurt that. I think his production can be replicated more easily than I’d like to admit
Historical Draft - Memphis Grizzlies

Picks remaining: 24, 37, 44, 57, 64, 77, 84, 97, 104, 117

PG:
SG: Kobe Bryant /
SF:
PF:
C: Artis Gilmore /

Re: Smart for Wiseman?
« Reply #62 on: October 23, 2020, 10:36:24 PM »

Offline indeedproceed

  • In The Rafters
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 42524
  • Tommy Points: 2745
  • You ain't the boss of the freakin' bedclothes.
NOOOOOOPE NOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPE

Trading Marcus Smart from this Celtics team will be like...it would be catastrophic for the team chemistry. It would take all ideals of culture they've built into this thing and turn it on it's head. And no team in the league values Smart on that kind of level. Nobody is trading Smart for James Wiseman. And if someone would, it would be Golden State, which is run by some smart dudes. If they like that trade, don't do it. 

"You've gotta respect a 15-percent 3-point shooter. A guy
like that is always lethal." - Evan 'The God' Turner

Re: Smart for Wiseman?
« Reply #63 on: October 23, 2020, 11:24:30 PM »

Offline Somebody

  • Paul Silas
  • ******
  • Posts: 6135
  • Tommy Points: 405
  • KANSEI DORIFUTO
Quote
2018 - 55-27, 17-11
2019 - 49-33, 1-1
2020 - 48-24, 9-3


125-69 (.644) without; 27-18 (.600) without

That difference doesn’t sound like a lot, but the difference in win percentages is about four wins per season.
To drive already good teams to even more wins is a strong indicator of a player's value. Smart isn't a bonafide star, but what he does puts him in the category just below it, and those players absolutely move the needle when they're used to surround better players.
Celticsstrong 2021 Historical Draft - Houston Rockets
PG:
SG:
SF: Jimmy Butler
PF:
C: Rudy Gobert

Re: Smart for Wiseman?
« Reply #64 on: October 23, 2020, 11:26:17 PM »

Offline Somebody

  • Paul Silas
  • ******
  • Posts: 6135
  • Tommy Points: 405
  • KANSEI DORIFUTO
Quote
2018 - 55-27, 17-11
2019 - 49-33, 1-1
2020 - 48-24, 9-3


125-69 (.644) without; 27-18 (.600) without

That difference doesn’t sound like a lot, but the difference in win percentages is about four wins per season.

But I don't think anyone is suggesting getting rid of Smart is a net addition by subtraction (though that may be a component). It's a matter of how easy it is to trade Smart for value that increases net team production. Adding back those 4 team wins (using Smart's trade value) plus adding a little possible upside might not be that difficult in theory.
It's not as easy as it sounds to add ~4 wins to a .600+ team with a player or two lol.
Celticsstrong 2021 Historical Draft - Houston Rockets
PG:
SG:
SF: Jimmy Butler
PF:
C: Rudy Gobert

Re: Smart for Wiseman?
« Reply #65 on: October 23, 2020, 11:27:54 PM »

Offline Somebody

  • Paul Silas
  • ******
  • Posts: 6135
  • Tommy Points: 405
  • KANSEI DORIFUTO
It's amazing to me that in the year of our lord 2020 after watching 6 seasons of Marcus Smart we still have to have debates about whether he makes a difference to winning.

This is one topic on which I am firmly in the "come at me with whatever numbers you want, Smart is my guy, the end" camp.

We can have debates about his shot selection or whether an elite defensive guard can actually make that big of a difference, etc etc.  We've had all these arguments before.

Smart's my guy, I think if the Celts win a title anytime soon he'll be a part of it.  Trading him for anything less than an absolute home run lopsided trade would be a mistake. 

I know Smart is a guy I want on the floor at the end of a close elimination game -- remember that block against Toronto, anyone, or have you already forgotten?  I have no idea if Wiseman, or whoever else would be there at #2, will ever be that.




If the Celts were rebuilding and this was all about taking shots on talent, fine.  You trade an elite role player for a roll of the dice, that makes sense.


That is not the situation.  The Celtics have the ingredients to contend already.  Right now it's about finding the right mix of guys to support the top of the roster.  Trading Smart to accomplish that seems to me like a wrestler cutting off his foot to drop weight.
The numbers generally like him, he's doing alright even though his defensive metrics are dampened by our tendency to play him as a wing or even a swing when we go small.
Celticsstrong 2021 Historical Draft - Houston Rockets
PG:
SG:
SF: Jimmy Butler
PF:
C: Rudy Gobert

Re: Smart for Wiseman?
« Reply #66 on: October 23, 2020, 11:51:28 PM »

Offline Somebody

  • Paul Silas
  • ******
  • Posts: 6135
  • Tommy Points: 405
  • KANSEI DORIFUTO
Quote
  He really doesn't matter all that much to actual wins and losses

It’s very difficult to measure things like this, but there are metrics that try.  For instance, RPM is an attempt to measure impact.  Smart is 42nd in the league, putting him in the top 10% of all players.

I don’t think Smart is impact neutral.  He’s a positive player who makes major contributions.  I don’t think his value is necessarily the second pick in the draft, but I could see a team offering a top-10 pick for him.
Boston's W/L record for Smart's entire career and the W/L record of the team without Smart

2015 - 40-42, 5-10
2016 - 48-34, 12-9
2017 - 53-29, 2-1
2018 - 55-27, 17-11
2019 - 49-33, 1-1
2020 - 48-24, 9-3

So overall the team is 46-35, however after his first two seasons the team is 29-16 without Smart (which isn't much different then when he plays).  And that is obviously just removing him, sometimes suddenly, from the lineup without a replacement.

Defensive role players don't drive wins and losses, especially when the defensive role players are by and large terrible offensive players.  Every shot Smart takes is a shot that Tatum, Brown, Hayward, and Walker don't take.  Every time Smart initiates the offense, Walker and Hayward aren't.  Every turnover Smart commits, eliminates a possession. 

Offense is far more important than defense to actually winning basketball games and they are often very limited offensive players and unlike Smart they act like it.  Imagine if someone like Rodman was chucking up 8.8 shots a game with a TS% of 50 (for his career Rodman was 5.8 with a 54.6 TS% and he was much worse later in his career than he was starting out).  Rodman would still impact the game because he is perhaps the greatest defender and rebounder in history, but his impact would have been lessoned because you wouldn't trust him at all offensively.  Even a wide open 3 pointer for Smart is a bad shot.  If he was at 2 three point attempts a game, he would be a much more impactful player, but that isn't Smart and obviously never will be.

Defensive role players don't drive team success like defensive anchors do, but what they do is very additive: the value of their defence doesn't get dampened next to better and better teammates and that translates to extra wins on high level teams due to their presence, which is difficult to do as what a player usually does becomes replaceable or redundant on high level teams. Smart's value is somewhat captured in +/- metrics like multi-year RAPM, where he still cracked the top 100 from 2017-2020 even when he had a terrible offensive season in 2017-2018 (that was the year before he made leaps in shooting and passing) and our tendency to play smaller lineups dampens his defensive +/-.

You're right that most defensive role players are limited offensive players, but their offence is usually additive as well: Rodman's massive offensive rebounding was quite valuable to good teams due to how he didn't need the ball at all to push his teams to the elite in that category and further improve a presumably very good/elite offence (he did that in Detroit and Chicago where he gobbled up the relatively small amount of misses those teams had to further pound opponents into oblivion) while Smart's extra passing and passable outside shooting on medium-high volume (34.7% on over 6 attempts per game is actually alright, it translates to 52.05% eFG) can be additive to any team with a high level offence as the former generates even better looks for teammates without dominating the ball while the benefits of the latter have been discussed at length in the past decade. They might be neutral or even negatives on that end on average or bad teams, but their offence is actually a slight positive on good teams and we belong to the latter. Add that small positive value to All-League calibre defence and that's a really valuable package to good teams.
Celticsstrong 2021 Historical Draft - Houston Rockets
PG:
SG:
SF: Jimmy Butler
PF:
C: Rudy Gobert

Re: Smart for Wiseman?
« Reply #67 on: October 23, 2020, 11:57:38 PM »

Offline PhoSita

  • NCE
  • Johnny Most
  • ********************
  • Posts: 20329
  • Tommy Points: 2070


I think the reality is that as good as Smart is his wild inconsistency is brutal for the team. The Miami series was the crystal clear example of this. Sure, he averaged 17/5/5 with strong defence. But he shot 39% on 14FGA a game and 32% on 8 3PA per game. His inability to control himself and reign it in time and again loses us games.



I don't know how to say this other than that I completely disagree.

I don't think that Smart loses the team games. I also don't think that he's especially inconsistent in the way he plays or what he adds.  Yes there are times when his shot selection could be better.
He is by nature a streaky shooter. But it's an integral part of everything else he brings on and off the court. Also his streaky shooting kept the Celtics in several games during their playoff run.

Smart is a winning player. The Celts are better with him. That's the bottom line for me.  I'm pretty surprised that anybody who watches the Celtics regularly has any doubts about that at this point, honestly. I'm not saying that to impugn the fandom or basketball savvy of anyone here. I'm just genuinely surprised.


I think IP said it really well. The Celts would be fools to trade Smart unless they had some reason to think there was no point in trying to compete for the title over the rest of Smart's contract, or somebody wildly overpaid for him. To me, the #2 pick in a weak draft is not a wild overpay when you consider that the Celts are trying to be an elite team in the present as well as in the future.
You’ll have to excuse my lengthiness—the reason I dread writing letters is because I am so apt to get to slinging wisdom & forget to let up. Thus much precious time is lost.
- Mark Twain

Re: Smart for Wiseman?
« Reply #68 on: October 24, 2020, 12:03:50 AM »

Offline Moranis

  • Dave Cowens
  • ***********************
  • Posts: 23782
  • Tommy Points: 1129
Quote
2018 - 55-27, 17-11
2019 - 49-33, 1-1
2020 - 48-24, 9-3


125-69 (.644) without; 27-18 (.600) without

That difference doesn’t sound like a lot, but the difference in win percentages is about four wins per season.
But that is without replacing him at all and just removing him from the lineup.  This is the exact same argument I was making with Kyrie his last year in Boston.  That the team isn't better without him, but they aren't appreciably worse either and that is just removing him without replacing him with assets acquired in a trade.  And low and behold, Kyrie leaves and the team is just flat out better by replacing him with a different, though lesser, player that fits better. 

Defensive role players that know their role and don't over extend offensively are nice to have, but they don't move the needle much as they are role player.  But that isn't even Smart.  He over extends and makes terrible offensive decisions time and time again, which negates a lot of his defensive value.  And because offense is so much more important than defense, it is a real problem. 

Boston would be far more likely to win a title by upgrading from Smart to the #2 pick in the draft.  Not next season, but probably stating in year 2 on, and since Boston's title window hinges on Tatum, it is far more critical to find the pieces that make sense around Tatum, and with Brown already in tow, Smart isn't that guy. 
2021 Historical Draft - 5th Pick - Raptors
PG - Tiny Archibald 73
SG -
SF -
PF - Karl Malone 97
C -

Re: Smart for Wiseman?
« Reply #69 on: October 24, 2020, 12:16:57 AM »

Offline Moranis

  • Dave Cowens
  • ***********************
  • Posts: 23782
  • Tommy Points: 1129


I think the reality is that as good as Smart is his wild inconsistency is brutal for the team. The Miami series was the crystal clear example of this. Sure, he averaged 17/5/5 with strong defence. But he shot 39% on 14FGA a game and 32% on 8 3PA per game. His inability to control himself and reign it in time and again loses us games.



I don't know how to say this other than that I completely disagree.

I don't think that Smart loses the team games. I also don't think that he's especially inconsistent in the way he plays or what he adds.  Yes there are times when his shot selection could be better.
He is by nature a streaky shooter. But it's an integral part of everything else he brings on and off the court. Also his streaky shooting kept the Celtics in several games during their playoff run.

Smart is a winning player. The Celts are better with him. That's the bottom line for me.  I'm pretty surprised that anybody who watches the Celtics regularly has any doubts about that at this point, honestly. I'm not saying that to impugn the fandom or basketball savvy of anyone here. I'm just genuinely surprised.


I think IP said it really well. The Celts would be fools to trade Smart unless they had some reason to think there was no point in trying to compete for the title over the rest of Smart's contract, or somebody wildly overpaid for him. To me, the #2 pick in a weak draft is not a wild overpay when you consider that the Celts are trying to be an elite team in the present as well as in the future.
And this is why Boston won't win the title any time soon.  You just can't do that.  You have to pick a direction because otherwise you are just going to keep plodding along like Boston has for the last 5 years i.e. a good team, but not one that is going to realistically win the title.  Boston would either have or be closer to a title had it just picked a direction at any time over the last few seasons.  Instead, Ainge keeps making win now moves at the expense of the future, but isn't going all in.  You can't just keep cutting the cake in half so you can have it and eat at the same time, because all you are doing is cutting your cake in half. 

The sooner Boston management actually picks a direction the better.  And frankly, the irony here is that unloading Smart for the 2nd pick in the draft is probably the one move that might actually allow the team to do both as I think the team might actually get better in both the short term and the long term with that sort of move.  Of course I really like Ball, Edwards, and Wiseman (and as I've said Avdija intrigues me).  LaMelo Ball in particular I think could be a superstar.  He has been better than Lonzo at every age.  He is far more athletic, a better shooter, and frankly just been better.  And Lonzo is a nice solid NBA starter level player.  I believe you put LaMelo next to the Jay's and they could wreck havoc on the league for a decade.  They would be impossible to guard for just about every team.  And if by chance, LaMelo goes #1, that leaves Edwards available, who I believe will be able to score almost immediately in the league.  He would be the perfect 6th man for a season or two until Hayward leaves (or ages out). 
2021 Historical Draft - 5th Pick - Raptors
PG - Tiny Archibald 73
SG -
SF -
PF - Karl Malone 97
C -

Re: Smart for Wiseman?
« Reply #70 on: October 24, 2020, 12:52:20 AM »

Online gouki88

  • Global Moderator
  • Kevin Garnett
  • *****************
  • Posts: 17012
  • Tommy Points: 958
  • 2019 CS Historical Draft Champion


I think the reality is that as good as Smart is his wild inconsistency is brutal for the team. The Miami series was the crystal clear example of this. Sure, he averaged 17/5/5 with strong defence. But he shot 39% on 14FGA a game and 32% on 8 3PA per game. His inability to control himself and reign it in time and again loses us games.



I don't know how to say this other than that I completely disagree.

I don't think that Smart loses the team games. I also don't think that he's especially inconsistent in the way he plays or what he adds.  Yes there are times when his shot selection could be better.
He is by nature a streaky shooter. But it's an integral part of everything else he brings on and off the court. Also his streaky shooting kept the Celtics in several games during their playoff run.

Smart is a winning player. The Celts are better with him. That's the bottom line for me.  I'm pretty surprised that anybody who watches the Celtics regularly has any doubts about that at this point, honestly. I'm not saying that to impugn the fandom or basketball savvy of anyone here. I'm just genuinely surprised.


I think IP said it really well. The Celts would be fools to trade Smart unless they had some reason to think there was no point in trying to compete for the title over the rest of Smart's contract, or somebody wildly overpaid for him. To me, the #2 pick in a weak draft is not a wild overpay when you consider that the Celts are trying to be an elite team in the present as well as in the future.
Fair enough that you disagree, I do too. I think saying something like "I don't think Smart loses us games" or that Smart isn't inconsistent is indefensible. Going from G4 where he shot 25% on 12 shots, fouled out and turned it over 4 times (assist:to ratio of 2.75:1) in a loss to G5 where he shot 33% on 9 shots (still bad), turned it over 1 time (assist:to ratio of 8:1) and didn't foul out in a win is a perfect example of both his inconsistency and him losing us a game.
We lost G4 by 3 points and he was 1/8 from the three point line.

I get disliking the idea of trading Smart for #2. That's fair, I guess. I disagree wildly with the evaluation of the draft. If Wiseman doesn't get suspended for things Penny Hardaway did without his knowledge, and this was a normal year, he'd be lauded as a great prospect.

I fear that a time might come where Smart's delusions of grandeur regarding his offensive ability will start to hold the team back, if they aren't already.
Historical Draft - Memphis Grizzlies

Picks remaining: 24, 37, 44, 57, 64, 77, 84, 97, 104, 117

PG:
SG: Kobe Bryant /
SF:
PF:
C: Artis Gilmore /

Re: Smart for Wiseman?
« Reply #71 on: October 24, 2020, 11:37:04 AM »

Offline mrceltics2013

  • Kemba Walker
  • Posts: 420
  • Tommy Points: 15


I think the reality is that as good as Smart is his wild inconsistency is brutal for the team. The Miami series was the crystal clear example of this. Sure, he averaged 17/5/5 with strong defence. But he shot 39% on 14FGA a game and 32% on 8 3PA per game. His inability to control himself and reign it in time and again loses us games.



I don't know how to say this other than that I completely disagree.

I don't think that Smart loses the team games. I also don't think that he's especially inconsistent in the way he plays or what he adds.  Yes there are times when his shot selection could be better.
He is by nature a streaky shooter. But it's an integral part of everything else he brings on and off the court. Also his streaky shooting kept the Celtics in several games during their playoff run.

Smart is a winning player. The Celts are better with him. That's the bottom line for me.  I'm pretty surprised that anybody who watches the Celtics regularly has any doubts about that at this point, honestly. I'm not saying that to impugn the fandom or basketball savvy of anyone here. I'm just genuinely surprised.


I think IP said it really well. The Celts would be fools to trade Smart unless they had some reason to think there was no point in trying to compete for the title over the rest of Smart's contract, or somebody wildly overpaid for him. To me, the #2 pick in a weak draft is not a wild overpay when you consider that the Celts are trying to be an elite team in the present as well as in the future.
Fair enough that you disagree, I do too. I think saying something like "I don't think Smart loses us games" or that Smart isn't inconsistent is indefensible. Going from G4 where he shot 25% on 12 shots, fouled out and turned it over 4 times (assist:to ratio of 2.75:1) in a loss to G5 where he shot 33% on 9 shots (still bad), turned it over 1 time (assist:to ratio of 8:1) and didn't foul out in a win is a perfect example of both his inconsistency and him losing us a game.
We lost G4 by 3 points and he was 1/8 from the three point line.

I get disliking the idea of trading Smart for #2. That's fair, I guess. I disagree wildly with the evaluation of the draft. If Wiseman doesn't get suspended for things Penny Hardaway did without his knowledge, and this was a normal year, he'd be lauded as a great prospect.

I fear that a time might come where Smart's delusions of grandeur regarding his offensive ability will start to hold the team back, if they aren't already.

The fact that Smart is in a position that we have to rely on him to be consistent on OFFENSE is the issue in its own. He shouldn’t have to be the leader on offense and the fact that there is none he decides to step up.

If we had a real offensive leader on the court we would have no Smart problems whatsoever. He shouldn’t be in the position to have the ball in his hands so much in order to even make these mishaps.

Brown and Tatum are not offensive leaders, not saying they are incapable of growing into the role but right now no. On offense the shorter amount of time these guys have the ball the better. Any one of them have the ball for more than 8 seconds we are in trouble!

Re: Smart for Wiseman?
« Reply #72 on: October 24, 2020, 11:57:16 AM »

Offline footey

  • Ed Macauley
  • ***********
  • Posts: 11951
  • Tommy Points: 1463


I think the reality is that as good as Smart is his wild inconsistency is brutal for the team. The Miami series was the crystal clear example of this. Sure, he averaged 17/5/5 with strong defence. But he shot 39% on 14FGA a game and 32% on 8 3PA per game. His inability to control himself and reign it in time and again loses us games.



I don't know how to say this other than that I completely disagree.

I don't think that Smart loses the team games. I also don't think that he's especially inconsistent in the way he plays or what he adds.  Yes there are times when his shot selection could be better.
He is by nature a streaky shooter. But it's an integral part of everything else he brings on and off the court. Also his streaky shooting kept the Celtics in several games during their playoff run.

Smart is a winning player. The Celts are better with him. That's the bottom line for me.  I'm pretty surprised that anybody who watches the Celtics regularly has any doubts about that at this point, honestly. I'm not saying that to impugn the fandom or basketball savvy of anyone here. I'm just genuinely surprised.


I think IP said it really well. The Celts would be fools to trade Smart unless they had some reason to think there was no point in trying to compete for the title over the rest of Smart's contract, or somebody wildly overpaid for him. To me, the #2 pick in a weak draft is not a wild overpay when you consider that the Celts are trying to be an elite team in the present as well as in the future.
Fair enough that you disagree, I do too. I think saying something like "I don't think Smart loses us games" or that Smart isn't inconsistent is indefensible. Going from G4 where he shot 25% on 12 shots, fouled out and turned it over 4 times (assist:to ratio of 2.75:1) in a loss to G5 where he shot 33% on 9 shots (still bad), turned it over 1 time (assist:to ratio of 8:1) and didn't foul out in a win is a perfect example of both his inconsistency and him losing us a game.
We lost G4 by 3 points and he was 1/8 from the three point line.

I get disliking the idea of trading Smart for #2. That's fair, I guess. I disagree wildly with the evaluation of the draft. If Wiseman doesn't get suspended for things Penny Hardaway did without his knowledge, and this was a normal year, he'd be lauded as a great prospect.

I fear that a time might come where Smart's delusions of grandeur regarding his offensive ability will start to hold the team back, if they aren't already.

Stepien report doesn’t concern you? Wouldn’t you rather trade up for Okongwu without giving up so much?

Re: Smart for Wiseman?
« Reply #73 on: October 24, 2020, 12:32:35 PM »

Offline gift

  • Jim Loscutoff
  • **
  • Posts: 2844
  • Tommy Points: 223
Quote
2018 - 55-27, 17-11
2019 - 49-33, 1-1
2020 - 48-24, 9-3


125-69 (.644) without; 27-18 (.600) without

That difference doesn’t sound like a lot, but the difference in win percentages is about four wins per season.

But I don't think anyone is suggesting getting rid of Smart is a net addition by subtraction (though that may be a component). It's a matter of how easy it is to trade Smart for value that increases net team production. Adding back those 4 team wins (using Smart's trade value) plus adding a little possible upside might not be that difficult in theory.
It's not as easy as it sounds to add ~4 wins to a .600+ team with a player or two lol.

In a vacuum, no. But when your asset is worth ~4 wins, presumably an average move gets you close to that in return, and an unconventional, avant-garde move nets positive. I’m not saying that move is out there. But I’m open to the possibility.

Re: Smart for Wiseman?
« Reply #74 on: October 24, 2020, 12:38:12 PM »

Offline hpantazo

  • Johnny Most
  • ********************
  • Posts: 20833
  • Tommy Points: 868
NOOOOOOPE NOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPE

Trading Marcus Smart from this Celtics team will be like...it would be catastrophic for the team chemistry. It would take all ideals of culture they've built into this thing and turn it on it's head. And no team in the league values Smart on that kind of level. Nobody is trading Smart for James Wiseman. And if someone would, it would be Golden State, which is run by some smart dudes. If they like that trade, don't do it.


I absolutely love Smart, he's my favorite current Celtic and I would never trade him in 99% of the plausible scenarios. That said, I would have to consider this because it would be a move that could prevent the Lakers from passing us in # of titles in two ways, which is the #1 goal overall.

First, we swing for the fences to build a perennial contender around Tatum and Brown and save some salary in the process.

Second, it would make GS a legit threat to the Lakers for the next few years.