The center situation is just ridiculous

[33_Larry Legend_33]

I am NOT a fan of giving up solid picks in a good draft for sideshow.

Wait this year out and chase/develop a big that can finish around the rim. Cast your memories back to what rondo achieved with a super old shaq that could finish strong around the basket. Imagine what could happen with a younger, more athletic big.

He's not a sideshow...  17 pts and 17 rebs against the Mavs tonight.  10 rebs were offensive...that's ALL hustle.  he's already had a 20/20 game this year.

I think the mockery of him should stop.  he's an all-star, in my opinion, and I'd LOVE to have him on this team.

[GreenFaith1819]

Meyers Leonard.

IMO, there is not a more complete Center out there in the draft coming up.

From the clips I've seen, he does a LOT of things well.

[GreenFaith1819]

Plus, with Meyers - there's some substance to him...interesting story, here:

http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/story/_/id/7501291/illinois-fighting-illini-meyers-leonard-shoulders-plenty-college-basketball

[jdz101]

I am NOT a fan of giving up solid picks in a good draft for sideshow.

Wait this year out and chase/develop a big that can finish around the rim. Cast your memories back to what rondo achieved with a super old shaq that could finish strong around the basket. Imagine what could happen with a younger, more athletic big.

He's not a sideshow...  17 pts and 17 rebs against the Mavs tonight.  10 rebs were offensive...that's ALL hustle.  he's already had a 20/20 game this year.

I think the mockery of him should stop.  he's an all-star, in my opinion, and I'd LOVE to have him on this team.

He IS SIDESHOW   not a sideshow. I wasnt mocking him.



In all seriousness though do you think this guy would put us over the top for a championship this year and be worth trading the picks for?? I dont. You're just setting yourself up for those picks to be really solid players and half your fanbase saying "i told you so".

P.S Feel free to let me know who the mavs had at center tonight...Varejao seems to have massive games when he's playing mediocre bigs.

[FallGuy]

At some point in the next six weeks, the C's have to commit one way or another. The team, as built, is a second round out against either Miami or Chicago. But with a strong center and some more point guard depth, things could get interesting.

If they're not willing to burn a lower-level asset or two to upgrade the C position, then they might as well sell off a couple of the big four and start rebuilding.

[KGs Knee]

At some point in the next six weeks, the C's have to commit one way or another. The team, as built, is a second round out against either Miami or Chicago. But with a strong center and some more point guard depth, things could get interesting.

If they're not willing to burn a lower-level asset or two to upgrade the C position, then they might as well sell off a couple of the big four and start rebuilding.

I don't think this is necessarily true.

"Selling off" the big four just to sell them off accomplishes nothing.  Now, if this the direction Danny chooses, I could understand it if it brought in a good return.  The problem is, I have not seen one single scenario in which trading any of the Big 3 would net us anything better than just riding it out, regardless of whether we seek to improve (through trade) the team if it is kept together.

[FallGuy]

At some point in the next six weeks, the C's have to commit one way or another. The team, as built, is a second round out against either Miami or Chicago. But with a strong center and some more point guard depth, things could get interesting.

If they're not willing to burn a lower-level asset or two to upgrade the C position, then they might as well sell off a couple of the big four and start rebuilding.

I don't think this is necessarily true.

"Selling off" the big four just to sell them off accomplishes nothing.  Now, if this the direction Danny chooses, I could understand it if it brought in a good return.  The problem is, I have not seen one single scenario in which trading any of the Big 3 would net us anything better than just riding it out, regardless of whether we seek to improve (through trade) the team if it is kept together.

Well... we're not privy to any deals that may be on the table for KG and Ray Allen. Or Pierce.

All we've seen is media hypotheticals.

Right?

So, how would we know if any potential deals improve Boston's lot in the future?

[KGs Knee]

At some point in the next six weeks, the C's have to commit one way or another. The team, as built, is a second round out against either Miami or Chicago. But with a strong center and some more point guard depth, things could get interesting.

If they're not willing to burn a lower-level asset or two to upgrade the C position, then they might as well sell off a couple of the big four and start rebuilding.

I don't think this is necessarily true.

"Selling off" the big four just to sell them off accomplishes nothing.  Now, if this the direction Danny chooses, I could understand it if it brought in a good return.  The problem is, I have not seen one single scenario in which trading any of the Big 3 would net us anything better than just riding it out, regardless of whether we seek to improve (through trade) the team if it is kept together.

Well... we're not privy to any deals that may be on the table for KG and Ray Allen. Or Pierce.

All we've seen is media hypotheticals.

Right?

So, how would we know if any potential deals improve Boston's lot in the future?

Maybe I misinterpreted what you meant. To me, saying "might as well just sell them off" means for whatever we can get regardless of value.

You're right though, all we have seen is media hypotheticals.  So yes, if Danny was able to pull off some trade nobody else has yet thought of that improved the team's fortunes for the future, ok.  But don't you think that the media, and bloggers especially, who love to think up wild trade scenarios, have looked at just about every reasonable angle there has been to look at?

Like I've said, I really find it highly unlikely there is any trade that exists that would involve trading one of the Big 3 that would worth it.

[Tgro]

The center situation is concerning to me at the very least.

I still think we can play well and win games without JO, so I'm not going to be all Doom and Gloom as nick says. I believe in the Celtic's resiliency. We can find ways to get the job done. But, I do think our strongest moments this season have taken place when we had good outings and moments at the center position. And conversely, I feel like we've looked our weakest when the center position has been compromised.

As someone else said, we have to commit to what we are going to do at the center situation. We're either going to have to address it or we'll be making a choice that will have repercussions for the rest of the season even if we don't address it. As the band Rush would say "if you do not make a choice, you still have made a choice". When JO plays well, which is hit and miss, we're a pretty good team. But if he's going to be glass Joe every other game, we're in trouble.   

I'm one to believe that if the center situation is fixed, we're a serious contender. And while I think we'll find our way to win our share of games should it not be fixed, I find myself a lot more pessimistic without a viable option at the center position. We honestly haven't needed too much from JO and we've played well when we got it from him.

Just think how well we'd do if we got some consistent good play at center. I don't care where we get it but I think it's vital to our teams chances if we're going to make any noise in the playoffs this season. 

[jdz101]

The center situation is concerning to me at the very least.

I still think we can play well and win games without JO, so I'm not going to be all Doom and Gloom as nick says. I believe in the Celtic's resiliency. We can find ways to get the job done. But, I do think our strongest moments this season have taken place when we had good outings and moments at the center position. And conversely, I feel like we've looked our weakest when the center position has been compromised.

As someone else said, we have to commit to what we are going to do at the center situation. We're either going to have to address it or we'll be making a choice that will have repercussions for the rest of the season even if we don't address it. As the band Rush would say "if you do not make a choice, you still have made a choice". When JO plays well, which is hit and miss, we're a pretty good team. But if he's going to be glass Joe every other game, we're in trouble.   

I'm one to believe that if the center situation is fixed, we're a serious contender. And while I think we'll find our way to win our share of games should it not be fixed, I find myself a lot more pessimistic without a viable option at the center position. We honestly haven't needed too much from JO and we've played well when we got it from him.

Just think how well we'd do if we got some consistent good play at center. I don't care where we get it but I think it's vital to our teams chances if we're going to make any noise in the playoffs this season. 

The question is how we get a solid centre though. We're talking down JO because he plays inconsistently and is made of glass. All the other teams will have the same opinion of him as we do. This means he's worth very little on the trade market and we have no cap space and centre is the most expensive position to get quality players.

If you trade rondo for a centre you are relying on two super inexperienced point guards and paul pierce playing point forward for 38 minutes a night, which will inevitably wear him out.

[LooseCannon]

Center is the obvious concern, but I believe that the Celtics are a legitimate contender if Jermaine O'Neal is healthy and that it is a non-ridiculous possibility that he is healthy for the playoffs.  I doubt that the Celtics can offer anything that would bring in a better center than a healthy JO.

I do wonder if Keyon Dooling, cash, and a second-round pick can net a small salary guy who could be described as an adequate backup for a contender but not good enough to start anywhere in the NBA.

Actually, if a team just wants expiring contracts, I would rather offer the combined $5 million and change of Dooling and Wilcox (when eligible after March 1) plus a draft pick or two for someone in the $4-6 million range.  That team would then have a shot at flipping Dooling and/or Wilcox to a team that needs depth and can find the pieces to match a salary in the $2-3 million range, but not $5-6 million.

[greenpride32]

If they're not willing to burn a lower-level asset or two to upgrade the C position, then they might as well sell off a couple of the big four and start rebuilding.

I think the problem is our picks don't carry that much trade value; not that team management is unwilling to trade picks.  The trade for Verajao was just an idea a sports writer came up with; I'm sure there is no way CLE goes for it as they can certainly get much more for AJ.

[Celtics4ever]

I think we will be better without JO.  Go with Wilcox and Stiesmsma.   At least they will move and try to get the ball, JO's body doesn't obey his mind anymore.

[Chief]

If Doc moves Bass into the starting lineup, that give the C's no fire power off the bench. I truly believe that is already the problem with the team. Not enough bench scoring. I'd love to see Ray come off the bench with Bass.

So I guess what I'm saying is, Doc needs to start Steamer or Wilcox, to keep a scoring option on the bench. In a dream world, JJJ would start.

[GreenEnvy]

Start Wilcox.

Use Stiemsma for minor stretches.

Finish Games with KG and Bass.


Did Przybilla officially sign with anyone yet? I doubt he would even make a difference (see: Murphy, Troy), but he would be an added body.


Anything from JO is a bonus from here on out.