Humphries >Shav

[Pucaccia]

I know a lot of fans like Shav and I do too, but the reality is Humphries is a better version of Shav. As posted recently, I think Humphries will have a bigger role than we all first anticipated. The Nets played too much isolation, making Humphries a non factor. He will help  a lot and then he will become a very valuable chip. I would like to see him stay.

[BudweiserCeltic]

Don't see why you're making this into a Shav vs Humphries thing.

[D.o.s.]

I don't think anyone would argue that Humphries is better than Shav.

One of them was playing in China last year. One of them was a DNP-CD in the NBA.

[jambr380]

I don't think anyone would argue that Humphries is better than Shav.

One of them was playing in China last year. One of them was a DNP-CD in the NBA.

Don't both of those descriptions fit Shav better than Kris? Humphries wasn't amazing last year, but he played in 65 games and started 21. His career averages are very very decent - much better than Shav could hope to be (although he did have his opportunity when he was younger).

I just don't think DNP-CD is the best way to describe Humphries as a player...and I am not even close to a fan of his.

[Pucaccia]

Don't see why you're making this into a Shav vs Humphries thing.

because a lot of people were upset Shav got cut. I was making a point that they didn't need him for both financial reasons and basketball reason.

[BudweiserCeltic]

Don't see why you're making this into a Shav vs Humphries thing.

because a lot of people were upset Shav got cut. I was making a point that they didn't need him for both financial reasons and basketball reason.

Wanting Shav back has little to nothing to do with Humphries.

It's more like Shav > Bass and Melo as a center. Retaining Shav would've meant that Ainge managed to get rid of some contracts like that of Bass or Crawford or Melo to make it financially feasible, as well as it would've opened up a roster spot that would have actually allowed us to keep Shav.

The only real reason Shav isn't here is because we pretty much have already 15 players under guaranteed contracts, adding a 16th one that would've forced us to waive a player, doesn't make any sense, unless a deal was in place... which we clearly did not have.

[2short]

Don't see why you're making this into a Shav vs Humphries thing.

because a lot of people were upset Shav got cut. I was making a point that they didn't need him for both financial reasons and basketball reason.

Wanting Shav back has little to nothing to do with Humphries.

It's more like Shav > Bass and Melo as a center. Retaining Shav would've meant that Ainge managed to get rid of some contracts like that of Bass or Crawford or Melo to make it financially feasible, as well as it would've opened up a roster spot that would have actually allowed us to keep Shav.

The only real reason Shav isn't here is because we pretty much have already 15 players under guaranteed contracts, adding a 16th one that would've forced us to waive a player, doesn't make any sense, unless a deal was in place... which we clearly did not have.

what bud says (tp!)
i liked shav due to his contract as a 3rd string pf who can give minutes at center
humphries is far better than shav or bass for that matter, him as a 3rd guy on break with rondo will be a good thing

[kozlodoev]

Don't see why you're making this into a Shav vs Humphries thing.

because a lot of people were upset Shav got cut. I was making a point that they didn't need him for both financial reasons and basketball reason.

Yeah, but what does this have to do with Humphries? I can't name any big man on the Celtics roster right now that is clearly inferior to Randolph except for Fab Melo, and he's still somewhat of a project.