Who plays PG if Kemba is traded? (split)

[Moranis]

It would obviously matter a great deal what the trade was on who would start.  I suspect most Kemba oriented trades would bring back a PG (not as good obviously, but a PG).  I mean most of the teams that would be in the market for Kemba would also be able to send back at least a short term starter.  Like the Clippers with Beverley or the Knicks with Payton.  Those guys are both starting PG's on what are currently playoff teams. 

If the trade doesn't bring back a PG, that is more problematic as Pritchard isn't ready, Teague is old, and Smart shouldn't be a starting PG (he is fine in the back-up role, but at this point he should mostly be a SG).  Now maybe you have Smart guard the opposing PG and a wing sort of play the point (kind of like what the Lakers do with lebron).   

[Vermont Green]

^^ That's a huge risk to take... You'd need all 3 of those new starters to hit their top end potential for that team to be competitive. It's just not likely.

I don't see it as risk exactly:

Pritchard replaces Kemba
Markkanen replaces Theis
RWilliams replaces Thompson

Williams is already playing equal to or better than Thompson and this should only continue in that direction and be a net plus over time.  Markkanen has a well established track record of way more production than Theis and this should be a big net plus over time.

The downside is losing Kemba from the equation but that is complicated due to age and injury concerns.  This is really more about Markkanen replacing Kemba.  Markkanen's current production is pretty close to what we are currently getting from Kemba and to me, getting this production from a big over a small is better in a meaningful way in terms of roster balance.

Realistically, if this team started to make noise and either Pritchard or RWilliams were not up to it, that could be addressed by a trade or signing.  The key to this is trading the commitment to Kemba for a commitment to Markkanen.  If he fails, we are in trouble but no more so than if Kemba tweaks his knee in the next game or just in general stays at his current level.  We are transferring the principle risk from an aging, injured, declining, undersized guard to a highly skilled, young, full-sized big.  To me, that is a major step in the right direction with still some risk but more strategic risk and more upside.

[td450]

All interesting possibilities but I prefer Markkanen to Barnes. I am with Danny in that our need is a true big who can shoot.  Durability is a concern but otherwise, Markkanen is the right age, right size, the right role, the right skill.  Pair him with RWilliams who provide the more Center role of rim protection and all that and we have a pretty good core team for the future.

Ideally, I prefer to trade Kemba in the off season if you are going to trade him but in this case, it would have to be at the deadline or before.  Trading Kemba this season pretty much puts the kibosh on it but I would be OK to do it for Markkanen and Porter.  Both can help us this season and at least Markkanen could be a key building block for the future.

Danny actually said we need ''shooting with size'', not ''a true big who can shoot''. Barnes fits the bill, as does Markkanen.

I'm not a big fan of Markkanen's game. Is he a PF or a C? He ain't mobile enough to defend swings on the perimeter. He ain't long/strong enough to defend Centers either. The Celtics are built around 2 switchable (s)wings in Tatum and Brown. I guess we'd use him at Center(?).

If Danny believes we can re-sign Markkanen on the cheap during the offseason, then sure why not? If not, I'd rather have Barnes.

OK, I guess you can read into that whatever you want.  To me, "size" means a big and I don't consider Barnes a big.

You say sign Markkanen "on the cheap".  What does that mean exactly.  I doubt he comes cheap.  And if for the same money as Barnes, I still rather have Markkanen.  He is 23 (24 in May).  The next 4-5 years are his peak.  Barnes just bores me.  Decent but no upside.  Consistently good but not great.

I don't understand this. If you watched any of last night, you'd agree we desperately need some guys who can be consistently good.

Is it so bad to replace Semi Ojeleye with someone who can play the same level of defense but provide an extra 12 points a game? That other teams might have to cover? I think that might help some.

I am saying replace Semi with Markkanen.  This season, Markkanen is scoring more points than Barnes in less minutes, has a better FG% and 3P% than Barnes and is bigger and younger.  I don't expect Markkanen to suddenly become all NBA.  I just like him better than Barnes for this team at this point in time.  I prefer a Wing-PF combo of Tatum-Markkanen to Barnes-Tatum.  This has nothing to do with Semi Ojeleye.

We end up with a young core of:

Pritchard - Brown - Tatum - Markkanen - RWilliams

With Smart, Langford, Nesmith, and say Theis plus maybe a drafted PF.

I am just not that excited about Barnes.

Markkanen would be an interesting choice, but its hard to see him becoming a plus defender, and it's impossible to see him as a defender who can support the switching that we can get from Tatum, Brown, Smart and Theis, so he forces us away from a fundamental strength of Tatum and Brown.

I'd be excited about getting someone of Markkanen's talent, but he would have to become very productive and reliable as an offensive player to make up for the defensive flexibility that someone boring like Barnes brings. He's capable of becoming such a scorer, but its a different direction.

As for the point guard, we can deal with this slot in the offseason easily enough. However, if you go after Markkanen, we could try to work Coby White or Satoransky into the deal.

[Moranis]

How about this 3-team trade

Boston - Bledsoe, Beverley, Kenard, L. Williams
New Orleans - Walker
LAC - Ball, Thompson, Edwards, Green

[Surferdad]

How about this 3-team trade

Boston - Bledsoe, Beverley, Kenard, L. Williams
New Orleans - Walker
LAC - Ball, Thompson, Edwards, Green

I think I'd rather have Ball than Bledsoe.

[Moranis]

How about this 3-team trade

Boston - Bledsoe, Beverley, Kenard, L. Williams
New Orleans - Walker
LAC - Ball, Thompson, Edwards, Green

I think I'd rather have Ball than Bledsoe.

Sure, but then LA doesn't do the trade.  now I could see just cutting LA out of it and just doing something like Bledsoe and Ball for Walker, but I think the trade as proposed makes a bit more sense.

[Quetzalcoatl]

What about Kemba for Michael Porter Jr (there's a hundred ways to do it, we'd have to take Harris) and Trade Exception for an Olidipo rental?

Olidipo
Brown
Tatum
Porter Jr
Time Lord

Bench
Smart
Harris
TT
Theis
Semi

[Vermont Green]

Markkanen would be an interesting choice, but its hard to see him becoming a plus defender, and it's impossible to see him as a defender who can support the switching that we can get from Tatum, Brown, Smart and Theis, so he forces us away from a fundamental strength of Tatum and Brown.

I'd be excited about getting someone of Markkanen's talent, but he would have to become very productive and reliable as an offensive player to make up for the defensive flexibility that someone boring like Barnes brings. He's capable of becoming such a scorer, but its a different direction.

As for the point guard, we can deal with this slot in the offseason easily enough. However, if you go after Markkanen, we could try to work Coby White or Satoransky into the deal.

To be honest, I have not seen him play enough to be able to fully judge his defense but keep in mind that he is essentially replacing Kemba on roster in my scenario who has all the same defensive limitations in addition to being undersized (which Markkanen is not).  My point really is that I believe the best thing for this team (and still somewhat realistic) would be a young big who is good, not necessarily an all star (we have two of those at other positions) or all NBA but a legit starter, maybe near all star level.

If you go down the list of who those players are in the league who fit this criteria, there are not that many where we will have much chance to get them.  Players like Randle, Sabonis, Collins, Wood, Adebayo, Siakam, Jerami Grant all fit the bill to me along with Markkanen but not many of these are "gettable".  Yeah, you can always say this one doesn't shoot the 3 well enough or that one doesn't switch on defense well enough but you are not going to find the perfect player or if you did, how would we get him?

[Jvalin]

you can always say this one doesn't shoot the 3 well enough or that one doesn't switch on defense well enough but you are not going to find the perfect player or if you did, how would we get him?

Well, Barnes would be a perfect fit in our system. He's exactly what we need:

- he defends multiple positions
- he's an above average passer
- he spaces the floor
- he's perfectly happy to play off the ball
- he can even create his own shot a little bit

Not to mention, he plays a position of need for us. I mean, we never replaced Hayward. Only downside is that he's overpaid (at least imo). That said, I bet Markkanen is about to become overpaid as well.

[Moranis]

What about Kemba for Michael Porter Jr (there's a hundred ways to do it, we'd have to take Harris) and Trade Exception for an Olidipo rental?

Olidipo
Brown
Tatum
Porter Jr
Time Lord

Bench
Smart
Harris
TT
Theis
Semi

and why would Denver do that?

[Vermont Green]

you can always say this one doesn't shoot the 3 well enough or that one doesn't switch on defense well enough but you are not going to find the perfect player or if you did, how would we get him?

Well, Barnes would be a perfect fit in our system. He's exactly what we need:

- he defends multiple positions
- he's an above average passer
- he spaces the floor
- he's perfectly happy to play off the ball
- he can even create his own shot a little bit

Not to mention, he plays a position of need for us. I mean, we never replaced Hayward. Only downside is that he's overpaid (at least imo).

I don't mean to always seeming to be against Barnes but I don't think either Barnes or Hayward play a position of need, at least not our principle need.  For both, their natural position is wing, just like Tatum.  Natural position doesn't mean a player can't have the versatility to play other positions but it is best for the player and the team if a player can play their natural position the most.  I see that the need is for a natural big/PF and Barnes is less that than say Marcus Morris was.  Tatum even less than Barnes and Hayward really not at all (he is more 2-3, not really 4 at all).

All this is subjective of course, it is simply how I see it.  I see Barnes as a decent starting wing on a below average team but if we bring him in to play him to play PF on a contending team, he will be something less than decent due to playing out of position.  He is having a decent year in SAC but playing almost exclusively as the SF/Wing (Holmes and Bagley play the bigs).  I don't see him as what we need.

I could see a nice role for Barnes off the bench as a versatile wing/swing.  That wing off the bench is a need as well but I don't think we can afford to pay $20M for that.

[Celtics2021]

you can always say this one doesn't shoot the 3 well enough or that one doesn't switch on defense well enough but you are not going to find the perfect player or if you did, how would we get him?

Well, Barnes would be a perfect fit in our system. He's exactly what we need:

- he defends multiple positions
- he's an above average passer
- he spaces the floor
- he's perfectly happy to play off the ball
- he can even create his own shot a little bit

Not to mention, he plays a position of need for us. I mean, we never replaced Hayward. Only downside is that he's overpaid (at least imo).

I don't mean to always seeming to be against Barnes but I don't think either Barnes or Hayward play a position of need, at least not our principle need.  For both, their natural position is wing, just like Tatum.  Natural position doesn't mean a player can't have the versatility to play other positions but it is best for the player and the team if a player can play their natural position the most.  I see that the need is for a natural big/PF and Barnes is less that than say Marcus Morris was.  Tatum even less than Barnes and Hayward really not at all (he is more 2-3, not really 4 at all).

All this is subjective of course, it is simply how I see it.  I see Barnes as a decent starting wing on a below average team but if we bring him in to play him to play PF on a contending team, he will be something less than decent due to playing out of position.  He is having a decent year in SAC but playing almost exclusively as the SF/Wing (Holmes and Bagley play the bigs).  I don't see him as what we need.

I could see a nice role for Barnes off the bench as a versatile wing/swing.  That wing off the bench is a need as well but I don't think we can afford to pay $20M for that.

Markkanen isn't any more of a PF than Theis is -- if anything, he's less than one.  And Theis is being relegated back to center, as the C's will only put one big on the floor barring very specific situations or simply a lack of healthy bodies.  It's fine to call Barnes a wing -- the Celtics plan to put out lineups that are 2 guards, 2 wings, and 1 big, and 1 guard, 3 wings, and 1 big.  It would be fine if the Celtics got Markkanen for a reasonable price, especially if they're able to move a couple of their current bigs, but he's probably not someone they're interested in if the only change being made is Kemba being traded (or if Kemba isn't traded, either).

[td450]

you can always say this one doesn't shoot the 3 well enough or that one doesn't switch on defense well enough but you are not going to find the perfect player or if you did, how would we get him?

Well, Barnes would be a perfect fit in our system. He's exactly what we need:

- he defends multiple positions
- he's an above average passer
- he spaces the floor
- he's perfectly happy to play off the ball
- he can even create his own shot a little bit

Not to mention, he plays a position of need for us. I mean, we never replaced Hayward. Only downside is that he's overpaid (at least imo).

I don't mean to always seeming to be against Barnes but I don't think either Barnes or Hayward play a position of need, at least not our principle need.  For both, their natural position is wing, just like Tatum.  Natural position doesn't mean a player can't have the versatility to play other positions but it is best for the player and the team if a player can play their natural position the most.  I see that the need is for a natural big/PF and Barnes is less that than say Marcus Morris was.  Tatum even less than Barnes and Hayward really not at all (he is more 2-3, not really 4 at all).

All this is subjective of course, it is simply how I see it.  I see Barnes as a decent starting wing on a below average team but if we bring him in to play him to play PF on a contending team, he will be something less than decent due to playing out of position.  He is having a decent year in SAC but playing almost exclusively as the SF/Wing (Holmes and Bagley play the bigs).  I don't see him as what we need.

I could see a nice role for Barnes off the bench as a versatile wing/swing.  That wing off the bench is a need as well but I don't think we can afford to pay $20M for that.

One way to look at it is that Barnes is not truly a PF. That is true.

The other way to look at it is he is pretty big for a wing and sturdy, like Hayward was. The C's wouldn't match up traditionally. Rather they come at you with a bet that they are better at the mismatches than the other team is, and that the interchangeability of the 3 guys, and even Smart, who is remarkable at covering bigger guys, is so seamless that it provides an advantage other teams can't match.

Yes, some 4's will try to bully our wings, and will win some of those battles. But the overall effect is that will be able to consistently outplay the other teams because our guys are more versatile than theirs are.

Its a different strategy that I thought worked quite well when Hayward was here, and Barnes is a pretty good substitute for Hayward. Not quite as talented offensively, but good, and more likely to accept his role.

[Jvalin]

you can always say this one doesn't shoot the 3 well enough or that one doesn't switch on defense well enough but you are not going to find the perfect player or if you did, how would we get him?

Well, Barnes would be a perfect fit in our system. He's exactly what we need:

- he defends multiple positions
- he's an above average passer
- he spaces the floor
- he's perfectly happy to play off the ball
- he can even create his own shot a little bit

Not to mention, he plays a position of need for us. I mean, we never replaced Hayward. Only downside is that he's overpaid (at least imo).

I don't mean to always seeming to be against Barnes but I don't think either Barnes or Hayward play a position of need, at least not our principle need.  For both, their natural position is wing, just like Tatum.  Natural position doesn't mean a player can't have the versatility to play other positions but it is best for the player and the team if a player can play their natural position the most.  I see that the need is for a natural big/PF and Barnes is less that than say Marcus Morris was.  Tatum even less than Barnes and Hayward really not at all (he is more 2-3, not really 4 at all).

All this is subjective of course, it is simply how I see it.  I see Barnes as a decent starting wing on a below average team but if we bring him in to play him to play PF on a contending team, he will be something less than decent due to playing out of position.  He is having a decent year in SAC but playing almost exclusively as the SF/Wing (Holmes and Bagley play the bigs).  I don't see him as what we need.

I could see a nice role for Barnes off the bench as a versatile wing/swing.  That wing off the bench is a need as well but I don't think we can afford to pay $20M for that.

Tatum is a swing. In fact he has played 19% of his minutes at the 4 this season. The respective number for last season was 65%. The same goes for Barnes. He has played 51% of his minutes at the 4 this season and 54% last season.

We ain't in the '00s anymore.  Did you like the 2-big lineup with Theis at the 4 and Thompson at the 5? Cause if you ask me, it was a disaster. Apparently, CBS didn't like it either. Here's a quote from last Monday.

Jared Weiss: "Brad Stevens said he talked to Daniel Theis at halftime, who barely played tonight after starting. Stevens says they are going to have to limit the center rotation to just two guys between Theis, TT and Time Lord as the season goes on and they look to play smaller".

And here's an older quote from CBS:

"I don't have the five positions anymore. It may be as simple as three positions now, where you're either a ball-handler, a wing or a big. It's really important. We've become more versatile as the years have gone on".

With these 2 quotes in mind, I fully believe CBS wants to start 1 big, 3 (s)wings and 1 ball handler. Alternatively, 1 big, 2 (s)wings and 2 ball handlers.

Ball handler: Kemba
Wing: Brown
Swing: Barnes (?)
Swing: Tatum
Big: Theis / Thompson / Timelord

[Who]

With these 2 quotes in mind, I fully believe CBS wants to start 1 big, 3 (s)wings and 1 ball handler. Alternatively, 1 big, 2 (s)wings and 2 ball handlers.

Ball handler: Kemba
Wing: Brown
Swing: Barnes (?)
Swing: Tatum
Big: Theis / Thompson / Timelord

Why is Barnes a swing but Jaylen a wing?

I don't see Barnes as being any better at covering big forwards defensively or at covering the backboards.