Celtics News

[Silas]

Everything Stevens said about Paul George is true. It does not mean that he is better than Brown.  More complementary is not the same as better.  They have to make up for that with the picks.  And maybe what they get if they trade George.

They suggestion that he is one of the most impactful players when it comes to winning isn't only not true, it's laughable. I don't care what analytics say, guys need to be on the court to impact winning.

I agree with you that guys need to be on the court to impact winning, however, the number of games needed is a subjective point....remember KP missed lots of games but had an impact on winning.  Also, a minor point, Brad did not say George is one of the most impactful players, he said said George is one of the more impactful players.  I believe if George can stay healthy, a big if, the Cs should have a good season and, who knows, maybe make it to the finals again.  I am approaching this season with a positive outlook...

[Roy H.]

Everything Stevens said about Paul George is true. It does not mean that he is better than Brown.  More complementary is not the same as better.  They have to make up for that with the picks.  And maybe what they get if they trade George.

They suggestion that he is one of the most impactful players when it comes to winning isn't only not true, it's laughable. I don't care what analytics say, guys need to be on the court to impact winning.

I agree with you that guys need to be on the court to impact winning, however, the number of games needed is a subjective point....remember KP missed lots of games but had an impact on winning.  Also, a minor point, Brad did not say George is one of the most impactful players, he said said George is one of the more impactful players.  I believe if George can stay healthy, a big if, the Cs should have a good season and, who knows, maybe make it to the finals again.  I am approaching this season with a positive outlook...

What is the definition of "one of the more impactful" players?  What percentile?

The past two seasons George has *combined* for 3.5 win shares total.  That's less than Walsh or Scheierman gave last year alone.

It's just a stupid thing to say, and it's not true.

[Silas]

Everything Stevens said about Paul George is true. It does not mean that he is better than Brown.  More complementary is not the same as better.  They have to make up for that with the picks.  And maybe what they get if they trade George.

They suggestion that he is one of the most impactful players when it comes to winning isn't only not true, it's laughable. I don't care what analytics say, guys need to be on the court to impact winning.

I agree with you that guys need to be on the court to impact winning, however, the number of games needed is a subjective point....remember KP missed lots of games but had an impact on winning.  Also, a minor point, Brad did not say George is one of the most impactful players, he said said George is one of the more impactful players.  I believe if George can stay healthy, a big if, the Cs should have a good season and, who knows, maybe make it to the finals again.  I am approaching this season with a positive outlook...

What is the definition of "one of the more impactful" players?  What percentile?

The past two seasons George has *combined* for 3.5 win shares total.  That's less than Walsh or Scheierman gave last year alone.

It's just a stupid thing to say, and it's not true.

Take it easy Roy!  You are trying to have it both ways...
First you said "I don't care what analytics say, guys need to be on the court to impact winning".  Ok, I said I agree with you that guys need to be on the court to impact winning, however, the number of games needed is a subjective point....remember KP missed lots of games but had an impact on winning.

Then you followed with the following..."What is the definition of "one of the more impactful" players?  What percentile?
The past two seasons George has *combined* for 3.5 win shares total."

Let's agree that we want George to play as many games as possible and that we hope his impact on winning will be positive.   His impact on the game will be a subjective assessment, and that is not, as you like to say, "a stupid thing to say and it's not true".  Let's wait till later during the season an assess what has happened before we imply someone has said a stupid thing....

[Roy H.]

Everything Stevens said about Paul George is true. It does not mean that he is better than Brown.  More complementary is not the same as better.  They have to make up for that with the picks.  And maybe what they get if they trade George.

They suggestion that he is one of the most impactful players when it comes to winning isn't only not true, it's laughable. I don't care what analytics say, guys need to be on the court to impact winning.

I agree with you that guys need to be on the court to impact winning, however, the number of games needed is a subjective point....remember KP missed lots of games but had an impact on winning.  Also, a minor point, Brad did not say George is one of the most impactful players, he said said George is one of the more impactful players.  I believe if George can stay healthy, a big if, the Cs should have a good season and, who knows, maybe make it to the finals again.  I am approaching this season with a positive outlook...

What is the definition of "one of the more impactful" players?  What percentile?

The past two seasons George has *combined* for 3.5 win shares total.  That's less than Walsh or Scheierman gave last year alone.

It's just a stupid thing to say, and it's not true.

Take it easy Roy!  You are trying to have it both ways...
First you said "I don't care what analytics say, guys need to be on the court to impact winning".  Ok, I said I agree with you that guys need to be on the court to impact winning, however, the number of games needed is a subjective point....remember KP missed lots of games but had an impact on winning.

Then you followed with the following..."What is the definition of "one of the more impactful" players?  What percentile?
The past two seasons George has *combined* for 3.5 win shares total."

Let's agree that we want George to play as many games as possible and that we hope his impact on winning will be positive.   His impact on the game will be a subjective assessment, and that is not, as you like to say, "a stupid thing to say and it's not true".  Let's wait till later during the season an assess what has happened before we imply someone has said a stupid thing....

How am I having it both ways?  I'm not even sure what the other way is, in that George is both frequently unavailable (and thus, not only not positively impacting games, but presumably negatively impacting them by taking up a roster spot but not playing) *and* he sucks in terms of at least one manner of measuring impact, win shares.  That's not both ways, that's one way stated twice.

And, I'm just saying that part of Brad's pitch is a big steaming pile of malarkey.  But, you seemed to defend Brad's use of the term "one of the more impactful players", so what's that based upon?  Subjective can be fine, but it has to be based on something.  Otherwise, it's just an unfounded opinion.

You say I'm wrong.  What's your criteria?  A hope and a prayer?  Or are you basing it on anything at all?  The onus is on those making or defending the statement "one of the more impactful players in terms of winning" to defend that statement.  Let's hear that defense.

The one Brad Stevens quote I buy into this off-season:  "I might be wrong. I'm not gonna stand here and be defensive about that."

If Brad doesn't even have complete confidence in the trade, why should I?  At this point, he's just spinning things like a politician.

[Neurotic Guy]

If the Cs are going to match last year?s regular season success in terms of wins in a tougher EC, I don?t think it?s going to be because of a rejuvenated and healthy PG. I think it?s going to be because a 100% JT is scoring in the 30s, DW and PP  are playing solid roles consistently, Q takes a step forward offensively, MR is healthy and plays excellent D and boards like a madman, PG is a consistent third or fourth contributor when he plays, and one or two of the random wings makes an unexpected huge leap. 

But I?m not counting on PG to be a JB replacement - just hoping he plays good D and gets an efficient 12-15 ppg when he plays.

[Silas]

Everything Stevens said about Paul George is true. It does not mean that he is better than Brown.  More complementary is not the same as better.  They have to make up for that with the picks.  And maybe what they get if they trade George.

They suggestion that he is one of the most impactful players when it comes to winning isn't only not true, it's laughable. I don't care what analytics say, guys need to be on the court to impact winning.

I agree with you that guys need to be on the court to impact winning, however, the number of games needed is a subjective point....remember KP missed lots of games but had an impact on winning.  Also, a minor point, Brad did not say George is one of the most impactful players, he said said George is one of the more impactful players.  I believe if George can stay healthy, a big if, the Cs should have a good season and, who knows, maybe make it to the finals again.  I am approaching this season with a positive outlook...

What is the definition of "one of the more impactful" players?  What percentile?

The past two seasons George has *combined* for 3.5 win shares total.  That's less than Walsh or Scheierman gave last year alone.

It's just a stupid thing to say, and it's not true.

Take it easy Roy!  You are trying to have it both ways...
First you said "I don't care what analytics say, guys need to be on the court to impact winning".  Ok, I said I agree with you that guys need to be on the court to impact winning, however, the number of games needed is a subjective point....remember KP missed lots of games but had an impact on winning.

Then you followed with the following..."What is the definition of "one of the more impactful" players?  What percentile?
The past two seasons George has *combined* for 3.5 win shares total."

Let's agree that we want George to play as many games as possible and that we hope his impact on winning will be positive.   His impact on the game will be a subjective assessment, and that is not, as you like to say, "a stupid thing to say and it's not true".  Let's wait till later during the season an assess what has happened before we imply someone has said a stupid thing....

How am I having it both ways?

you said I don't care what analytics say, then used analytics to defend your point

I'm not even sure what the other way is, in that George is both frequently unavailable (and thus, not only not positively impacting games, but presumably negatively impacting them by taking up a roster spot but not playing) *and* he sucks in terms of at least one manner of measuring impact, win shares.  That's not both ways, that's one way stated twice.

And, I'm just saying that part of Brad's pitch is a big steaming pile of malarkey.  But, you seemed to defend Brad's use of the term "one of the more impactful players", so what's that based upon?

Check carefully, I did not defend his words at all, I stated that you misquoted his statement using most vs. more

Subjective can be fine, but it has to be based on something.  Otherwise, it's just an unfounded opinion.

You say I'm wrong.

wrong about what?  I just said you miss-quoted Brad.

  What's your criteria?  A hope and a prayer?  Or are you basing it on anything at all?  The onus is on those making or defending the statement "one of the more impactful players in terms of winning" to defend that statement.  Let's hear that defense.

Roy this is a sports forum where we all have fun....this is not a court room.

The one Brad Stevens quote I buy into this off-season:  "I might be wrong. I'm not gonna stand here and be defensive about that."

If Brad doesn't even have complete confidence in the trade, why should I?

Fine, you don't like the trade.

At this point, he's just spinning things like a politician.

[SparzWizard]

If the Cs are going to match last year?s regular season success in terms of wins in a tougher EC, I don?t think it?s going to be because of a rejuvenated and healthy PG. I think it?s going to be because a 100% JT is scoring in the 30s, DW and PP  are playing solid roles consistently, Q takes a step forward offensively, MR is healthy and plays excellent D and boards like a madman, PG is a consistent third or fourth contributor when he plays, and one or two of the random wings makes an unexpected huge leap. 

But I?m not counting on PG to be a JB replacement - just hoping he plays good D and gets an efficient 12-15 ppg when he plays.

I'm still not sold on Derrick White rediscovering himself. His efficiency has declined and slumping. I think some of us were ready for him to be on the chopping block.

[No Nickname]

If the Cs are going to match last year?s regular season success in terms of wins in a tougher EC, I don?t think it?s going to be because of a rejuvenated and healthy PG. I think it?s going to be because a 100% JT is scoring in the 30s, DW and PP  are playing solid roles consistently, Q takes a step forward offensively, MR is healthy and plays excellent D and boards like a madman, PG is a consistent third or fourth contributor when he plays, and one or two of the random wings makes an unexpected huge leap. 

But I?m not counting on PG to be a JB replacement - just hoping he plays good D and gets an efficient 12-15 ppg when he plays.

I'm still not sold on Derrick White rediscovering himself. His efficiency has declined and slumping. I think some of us were ready for him to be on the chopping block.

Depending on how this regular season goes, if it doesn?t look like we?re a top-four team in the East, I think White could be traded by the deadline.

If we?re looking up at NY, Phi, Det, Cleveland, and maybe even Miami, Brad could look to sell (sort of) high on White.

If San Antonio wants him back I could see something happen there. 
 

[Vermont Green]

I predict White has a bounce back year. He will be better with Tatum than Brown.  He will also benefit some from Paul George.

[BitterJim]

If the Cs are going to match last year?s regular season success in terms of wins in a tougher EC, I don?t think it?s going to be because of a rejuvenated and healthy PG. I think it?s going to be because a 100% JT is scoring in the 30s, DW and PP  are playing solid roles consistently, Q takes a step forward offensively, MR is healthy and plays excellent D and boards like a madman, PG is a consistent third or fourth contributor when he plays, and one or two of the random wings makes an unexpected huge leap. 

But I?m not counting on PG to be a JB replacement - just hoping he plays good D and gets an efficient 12-15 ppg when he plays.

I agree. It's hard to compare this team to 2024-25, but compared to 2025-26 this team looks better. JT replaces JB (a clear upgrade), and we should get more games out of PG than we did from Tatum last year so his injuries won't be as much of a detriment.

Whether or not White bounces back is gonna matter more to our success than how much PG plays. It's not gonna be a 2 headed monster like in the JB/JT era anymore, this will be Tatum's team with very good sub-all star players supporting him. Will that make a better post season team? I tend to think no, but apparently Brad disagrees. We'll see.

[Vermont Green]

Last regular season, our top scorers were:

Brown         28.7 pts
Pritchard     17.0 pts
White          16.5 pts
Simons        14.2 pts

Of course, now subtract Brown and Simons and add in Tatum and Paul George.  You can look at this a number of ways.  I don't think the subtraction of Simons is all that important.  I think Hauser, Scheierman, Hugo, and so on can make up for his scoring.

Tatum replacing Brown will be good for White, I think.  He may not score much more if any, but hopefully better efficiency.  And if Paul George can stay on the court, I think he helps a lot.  I actually agree in general with what Stevens said.  He is an efficient player who does a lot of the things that contribute to winning, even at this age.  Obviously he has to stay on the court though.

But mostly it is about Tatum.  I view him as much better at making others better than Brown.  This will help White and everyone else to be more efficient; more productive.  If George is healthy and playing well for the playoff run, I think this team can make some noise.  Hard to see them as the favorite to get to the finals or win the title without some real surprise leap from one of the young random wings or Cenac or something but I see them as in the mix.

[Roy H.]

Last regular season, our top scorers were:

Brown         28.7 pts
Pritchard     17.0 pts
White          16.5 pts
Simons        14.2 pts

Of course, now subtract Brown and Simons and add in Tatum and Paul George.  You can look at this a number of ways.  I don't think the subtraction of Simons is all that important.  I think Hauser, Scheierman, Hugo, and so on can make up for his scoring.

Tatum replacing Brown will be good for White, I think.  He may not score much more if any, but hopefully better efficiency.  And if Paul George can stay on the court, I think he helps a lot.  I actually agree in general with what Stevens said.  He is an efficient player who does a lot of the things that contribute to winning, even at this age.  Obviously he has to stay on the court though.

But mostly it is about Tatum.  I view him as much better at making others better than Brown.  This will help White and everyone else to be more efficient; more productive.  If George is healthy and playing well for the playoff run, I think this team can make some noise.  Hard to see them as the favorite to get to the finals or win the title without some real surprise leap from one of the young random wings or Cenac or something but I see them as in the mix.

One thing about last year that I think is often overlooked, but I'm not sure how to quantify it:  last year's team had a chip on its shoulder.  It came in with expectations that it would be a bottom-tier playoff team, if that.  JB embraced the role of "us against the world", and the team followed him.

Last year's team overachieved because of that focus.  I think that that's hard to replicate.  Even if guys play at an acceptably hard level for the regular season, without that "prove them wrong" factor I think the wins and losses might suffer. 

I know a lot of people are applying simple logic, arguing Tatum + George + Robinson > Brown + Simons / Vucevic, and are concluding that we'll do better than 56 wins.  But, I think we've seen in the past that logic doesn't always play out.  (One example:  the 2022 played like the best team in basketball for four months and made the Finals.  We essentially traded Nesmith for Brogdon, and ended up losing to a #8 seed in the playoffs.)

[Celtics4ever]

White did not do well as the number two option last year, I agree Tatum might help more than Brown did but I think he is a great third option at his best.

[Neurotic Guy]

Last regular season, our top scorers were:

Brown         28.7 pts
Pritchard     17.0 pts
White          16.5 pts
Simons        14.2 pts

Of course, now subtract Brown and Simons and add in Tatum and Paul George.  You can look at this a number of ways.  I don't think the subtraction of Simons is all that important.  I think Hauser, Scheierman, Hugo, and so on can make up for his scoring.

Tatum replacing Brown will be good for White, I think.  He may not score much more if any, but hopefully better efficiency.  And if Paul George can stay on the court, I think he helps a lot.  I actually agree in general with what Stevens said.  He is an efficient player who does a lot of the things that contribute to winning, even at this age.  Obviously he has to stay on the court though.

But mostly it is about Tatum.  I view him as much better at making others better than Brown.  This will help White and everyone else to be more efficient; more productive.  If George is healthy and playing well for the playoff run, I think this team can make some noise.  Hard to see them as the favorite to get to the finals or win the title without some real surprise leap from one of the young random wings or Cenac or something but I see them as in the mix.

One thing about last year that I think is often overlooked, but I'm not sure how to quantify it:  last year's team had a chip on its shoulder.  It came in with expectations that it would be a bottom-tier playoff team, if that.  JB embraced the role of "us against the world", and the team followed him.

Last year's team overachieved because of that focus.  I think that that's hard to replicate.  Even if guys play at an acceptably hard level for the regular season, without that "prove them wrong" factor I think the wins and losses might suffer. 

I know a lot of people are applying simple logic, arguing Tatum + George + Robinson > Brown + Simons / Vucevic, and are concluding that we'll do better than 56 wins.  But, I think we've seen in the past that logic doesn't always play out.  (One example:  the 2022 played like the best team in basketball for four months and made the Finals.  We essentially traded Nesmith for Brogdon, and ended up losing to a #8 seed in the playoffs.)

Makes sense.  I think there's a solid chance that 2026-27 becomes what we thought 2025-26 was going to be. A 40-45 win team.  The team got used to winning/ being competitive every game.  It became a mentality that they had a chance to win every night.  I think talent-wise this team can do that.  But it's team culture that will ultimately determine whether this is a mediocre team or a top tier team in the East.

[Goldstar88]

As for his expectations for the Celtics next season, Queta expects them to be competitive again. People have already started saying again that the other teams are the good ones and that we don?t have enough quality. But I think, with the group we have, the people we have in the locker room? And our coach?
A Bola