Proof we are Tanking

[EJPLAYA]

I've always said the fastest way out of the mediocre levels of the NBA and return to realistic contenders was to tank, so I have no problem with this method. All of you who think we aren't tanking please explain this then:

Where is Humphries?! Why hasn't he seen the court since game 1?! 8 pts, 9 rebounds, and 2 blocks in 21 minutes shooting 75% from the floor. He came out in game one with a lot of energy and hustle. He played hard. He clearly played too well and the C's felt he was good enough of a player to ruin their plans.

It is very clear they are trying to see who they have with these young guys so that they know who will be a part of the future, and who will be a part of a future trade. This allows them to make better decisions, while still keeping their draft position low. I'm all on board.

[PhoSita]

He's a poor defender and doesn't space the floor or pass as well as the other guys, would be my guess.

[Snakehead]

Developing our young bigs is more important.

[manl_lui]

tbh, the Humphries theory isn't that strong. You may have a stronger argument if you said why Jeff Green was benched in the 4th against the Bucks (was it the Bucks, [dang] it short term memory!)

I think Humphries is just battling for a rotation spot with Sully, Bass, Vitor and Olynk

I think realistically, I think him and Bass can really change spots.

[Chris]

It is very clear they are trying to see who they have with these young guys so that they know who will be a part of the future, and who will be a part of a future trade. This allows them to make better decisions, while still keeping their draft position low. I'm all on board.

Yes, I think this is exactly what they are doing.  But that is different than tanking.  I think Humphries is the odd man out, because Bass is playing well, and they are commiting to trying to develop the other three young bigs.

This fits into the rebuilding category though, which is different than tanking. 

 

[D.o.s.]

Unfortunately I don't remember who said it in an earlier thread, but Humphries's trade value doesn't change very much with playing time.

That, combined with the spacing and defensive issues, seems like the most likely explanation for a lack of Humph in the regular season so far.

[Boris Badenov]

That game Humphries played in was game 1, which Sully missed.

A simple explanation is that Humprhies has never been in the core rotation, and was just filling in while Sully was absent.

As for why Humphries would be the #5 big guy in the first place, I think others have stated it well here and elsewhere. Bass gets the nod over Hump for reasons of leadership, play and possibly trade value. The others get the nod because we want to develop young talent.

[aingeforthree]

Unfortunately I don't remember who said it in an earlier thread, but Humphries's trade value doesn't change very much with playing time.

That, combined with the spacing and defensive issues, seems like the most likely explanation for a lack of Humph in the regular season so far.

I think Ainge and Stevens are aware of what Humphries can do.  They don't know what Faverani and Olynyk can do.  So considering everything in the equation, its a smart move to give Humphries minutes to Faverani and/or Olynyk.

We need to develop these kids going forward.

[Boston Garden Leprechaun]

Developing our young bigs is more important.

amen

[Snakehead]

Unfortunately I don't remember who said it in an earlier thread, but Humphries's trade value doesn't change very much with playing time.

I said it, among others.  Not to toot my own horn it's just reality.  If anyone trades for Hump it is entirely based on his contract and not on his play.

[LarBrd33]

The reason why hump isn't playing is because there is no point to play him. He's an expiring contracts. His trade-value is static. It is what it is regardless if we play him or not.

Meanwhile... Brandon bass, Gerald Wallace and Courtney lee are all bad contracts.  None of them have a future on this team.  We'd be glad to dump all of them... So it's no surprise we are playing them significant minutes.  My biggest takeaway from the game where Jeff green stayed in the bench the entire 4th was that Jeff green must figure into Danny's long term plans.  Wallace got 37 crap minutes in that game.  You can tell who is being showcased.

[SHAQATTACK]

The reason why hump isn't playing is because there is no point to play him. He's an expiring contracts. His trade-value is static. It is what it is regardless if we play him or not.

Meanwhile... Brandon bass, Gerald Wallace and Courtney lee are all bad contracts.  None of them have a future on this team.  We'd be glad to dump all of them... So it's no surprise we are playing them significant minutes.  My biggest takeaway from the game where Jeff green stayed in the bench the entire 4th was that Jeff green must figure into Danny's long term plans.  Wallace got 37 crap minutes in that game.  You can tell who is being showcased.

Wonder if DA would trade ....Rondo for a high draft pic , like in the top 10?

[Fafnir]

It is very clear they are trying to see who they have with these young guys so that they know who will be a part of the future, and who will be a part of a future trade. This allows them to make better decisions, while still keeping their draft position low. I'm all on board.

Yes, I think this is exactly what they are doing.  But that is different than tanking.  I think Humphries is the odd man out, because Bass is playing well, and they are commiting to trying to develop the other three young bigs.

This fits into the rebuilding category though, which is different than tanking. 

 

Olynyk and Sullinger are recent draft picks who are being given minutes to develop. That leaves just two slots left in the rotation, and Faverani's size and play has earned him C minutes. (plus he needs development too). So its between Bass/Humphries for the last spot and Bass is playing better than Humphries.

Humphries would certainly help our rebounding, but I don't think he'd add more overall than Bass. Others disagree, see wage of wins disciples for sure, but that's where it is right now.

[ssspence]

missing in the analysis here... playing Kris might actually hurt his trade value. If he plays -- and plays poorly, or even injures himself -- the likelihood a team might want him as a front line rebounder / security blanket for the playoffs (in addition to his attractive expiring contract) would go away.

meanwhile, the Cs have every justification for not playing him... other GMs know he has no future in green, so Ainge can easily explain away why he's been riding pine.

i doubt they'll trade him, but i don't see them taking any chances with him either.

[VitorSullyandKOFan]

The reason why hump isn't playing is because there is no point to play him. He's an expiring contracts. His trade-value is static. It is what it is regardless if we play him or not.

Meanwhile... Brandon bass, Gerald Wallace and Courtney lee are all bad contracts.  None of them have a future on this team.  We'd be glad to dump all of them... So it's no surprise we are playing them significant minutes.  My biggest takeaway from the game where Jeff green stayed in the bench the entire 4th was that Jeff green must figure into Danny's long term plans.  Wallace got 37 crap minutes in that game.  You can tell who is being showcased.

Wonder if DA would trade ....Rondo for a high draft pic , like in the top 10?

I doubt we get a top 10 pick for Rondo.