Jeff Green or Luol Deng

[kozlodoev]

I like Deng and as good a defender as Green is I think Deng is better BUT
green has better range for spreading the floor
green is cheaper
green can play 3 positions

Also, Green is not made of pressed sugar

[CelticG1]

I like Deng and as good a defender as Green is I think Deng is better BUT
green has better range for spreading the floor
green is cheaper
green can play 3 positions

Also, Green is not made of pressed sugar

Was just going to comment on this in a less clever way

[saltlover]

Jeff Green.




Deng is the better player.  Unfortunate, he is going to be paid like a guy that can change the fortune of his team.

Is Deng going to be paid like that?  A max contract this off-season, for someone with fewer than 10 years of experience, is going to be around $18 million per year.  Next year that number will jump to $19 million, and the year after it should jump substantially again.  Is $11-$12 million really that extravagant given the alternatives?  It'll be less than 20% of this year's salary cap, and less than 15% of the luxury tax.  For a number 3 player, that seems not unreasonable, at least to me.  If Jeff Green has a good season next year, he'll decline his option, and probably get $10-$11 million per year himself.  Sure, the Celtics could take the cap savings, but they're still going to need to replace him, and this is the year with the small forwards on the market, not next year.

That's fine and all, but who on the Celtics are option 1 and 2?

Should it matter?  If you can upgrade what you'd like to be your option 3 on your contending team, I don't see why you'd pass on that because you might be missing option 1 or 2 (I'd put Rondo at Option 2, in the specific case of the Celtics).  Assuming you have a goal of taking steps to become more competitive next year, which it seems the Celtics do, you improve your team when opportunities present themselves if the price is right.  If the price is the player you're replacing and $2 million more per year, is that the wrong price, just because you don't have that star player yet to go with him?  Clearly the Celtics goal is to get that star in the near future, so why should order matter if intent is there.

[wdleehi]

Jeff Green.




Deng is the better player.  Unfortunate, he is going to be paid like a guy that can change the fortune of his team.

Is Deng going to be paid like that?  A max contract this off-season, for someone with fewer than 10 years of experience, is going to be around $18 million per year.  Next year that number will jump to $19 million, and the year after it should jump substantially again.  Is $11-$12 million really that extravagant given the alternatives?  It'll be less than 20% of this year's salary cap, and less than 15% of the luxury tax.  For a number 3 player, that seems not unreasonable, at least to me.  If Jeff Green has a good season next year, he'll decline his option, and probably get $10-$11 million per year himself.  Sure, the Celtics could take the cap savings, but they're still going to need to replace him, and this is the year with the small forwards on the market, not next year.

That's fine and all, but who on the Celtics are option 1 and 2?

Should it matter?  If you can upgrade what you'd like to be your option 3 on your contending team, I don't see why you'd pass on that because you might be missing option 1 or 2 (I'd put Rondo at Option 2, in the specific case of the Celtics).  Assuming you have a goal of taking steps to become more competitive next year, which it seems the Celtics do, you improve your team when opportunities present themselves if the price is right.  If the price is the player you're replacing and $2 million more per year, is that the wrong price, just because you don't have that star player yet to go with him?  Clearly the Celtics goal is to get that star in the near future, so why should order matter if intent is there.

Yes, it does.  The way the NBA is, you shouldn't spend big money on players until you have your stars in place. 

Deng is not a star.  He made real difference to the team record in the regular season (Bulls or Cavs).  He could (and likely would) have made a difference in a series. 

[kozlodoev]

I like Deng and as good a defender as Green is I think Deng is better BUT
green has better range for spreading the floor
green is cheaper
green can play 3 positions

Also, Green is not made of pressed sugar

Was just going to comment on this in a less clever way

Sorry, can't help myself sometimes. But the point remains that Deng has missed a lot of games in recent years. I'd keep Green, it's probably not worth the risk.

[saltlover]

Jeff Green.




Deng is the better player.  Unfortunate, he is going to be paid like a guy that can change the fortune of his team.

Is Deng going to be paid like that?  A max contract this off-season, for someone with fewer than 10 years of experience, is going to be around $18 million per year.  Next year that number will jump to $19 million, and the year after it should jump substantially again.  Is $11-$12 million really that extravagant given the alternatives?  It'll be less than 20% of this year's salary cap, and less than 15% of the luxury tax.  For a number 3 player, that seems not unreasonable, at least to me.  If Jeff Green has a good season next year, he'll decline his option, and probably get $10-$11 million per year himself.  Sure, the Celtics could take the cap savings, but they're still going to need to replace him, and this is the year with the small forwards on the market, not next year.

That's fine and all, but who on the Celtics are option 1 and 2?

Should it matter?  If you can upgrade what you'd like to be your option 3 on your contending team, I don't see why you'd pass on that because you might be missing option 1 or 2 (I'd put Rondo at Option 2, in the specific case of the Celtics).  Assuming you have a goal of taking steps to become more competitive next year, which it seems the Celtics do, you improve your team when opportunities present themselves if the price is right.  If the price is the player you're replacing and $2 million more per year, is that the wrong price, just because you don't have that star player yet to go with him?  Clearly the Celtics goal is to get that star in the near future, so why should order matter if intent is there.

Yes, it does.  The way the NBA is, you shouldn't spend big money on players until you have your stars in place. 

Deng is not a star.  He made real difference to the team record in the regular season (Bulls or Cavs).  He could (and likely would) have made a difference in a series.

I guess we disagree on that.  If the Celtics are planning to get a star either this offseason, during next season, or next summer, then they shouldn't be afraid to put other pieces in place.  The way the NBA is structured, stars don't want to go to a team that isn't already built, needing just the star to put them over the top.  Sure, the Heat got lucky with Bosh and LeBron and Wade.  That's not happening again.  Star free agents hit the market 8-10 years into the league.  If they're leaving their current situation, it's for a win-now environment, not a come-here-and-we'll-build-around you environment.  If Luol Deng creates more of that win-now environment than Jeff Green, you take that upgrade.  Of course, if the Celtics are seriously considering trading Rondo and taking another step backwards, then definitely not.  I don't think they're seriously considering that plan, however.

I do think it's open to debate whether Luol Deng is better enough than Jeff Green to really be any upgrade.  At the end of the day, I think he is, since he does most of the non-scoring aspects of the game better than Green, and being a consistent scorer is neither of their strong suits.  I understand the concern about health, but I don't think any Celtic will lead the league in minutes played as long as Stevens is at the helm.

[jambr380]

All things being equal, I guess Deng is currently a slightly better player, but given the circumstances: contract amount, contract length, durability, and age (I agree with the comment that he seems 'old' for his age), it doesn't seem like a worthwhile trade off.

This maybe one of those 'grass is always greener' type situations. I still think of Green as peaking and is as athletic as he has ever been, I guess I don't feel the same way about Deng (although I might be wrong). Also, Deng is known for his defense, but I think Green is quite good in this department and can play multiple positions.

Deng was once thought of as a future [super]star, but he never really reached his potential. I think the thought of Deng is better than the actual player we would be getting.

[crimson_stallion]

I'm actually going to go out on a limb and say that I think Green is a more valuable defender than Deng.

Deng might be a more consistent defender, but Green seems to be somewhat Rondo-like in that he seems to show up defensively for the big moments - big games and big matchups.  He might not look like he's doing much in most games (simply because of his laid back demeanor) but he's shut down big time superstars (Carmello, Lebron, Durant) with impressive frequency, and you want that skill on your roster if you're aiming to make a playoff push.

The other big thing with Green is that he came up big in last year's playoffs (averaging 20+ PPG over the series) and has hit more than his share of clutch and game winning shots.

Green may not be a #1 go-to guy on offense, but he has a couple of special skills that could see him playing a major role on a playoff team.  Having a #3 scoring option who can shut down Lebron, score 30, and then hit the game winning shot - all in the same game - is a valuable asset.

I also like the fact that he's been super durable health-wise,and that he's got a very laid back demeanor.  While it's good to have guys on your team who will get fired up emotionally, I think you also need one or two guys who can stay calm under pressure and think with a clear head. 

[Boston Garden Leprechaun]

lateral move. green is cheaper so keep him if we must.

[D.o.s.]

I'm actually going to go out on a limb and say that I think Green is a more valuable defender than Deng.

You'd be wrong. Deng was better offensively and defensively than Green was last year while he was on Chicago, although his defense took a hit in Cleveland (Go figure).

Deng:
http://stats.nba.com/playerStats.html?PlayerID=2736&MeasureType=Advanced&PerMode=PerGame

Green:
http://stats.nba.com/playerStats.html?PlayerID=201145&MeasureType=Advanced&PerMode=PerGame

[Celtics18]

I'm actually going to go out on a limb and say that I think Green is a more valuable defender than Deng.

You'd be wrong. Deng was better offensively and defensively than Green was last year while he was on Chicago, although his defense took a hit in Cleveland (Go figure).

Deng:
http://stats.nba.com/playerStats.html?PlayerID=2736&MeasureType=Advanced&PerMode=PerGame

Green:
http://stats.nba.com/playerStats.html?PlayerID=201145&MeasureType=Advanced&PerMode=PerGame

You aren't really using offensive and defensive ratings as definitive proof of who is a better player, are you?

I hope you are aware that those ratings don't account for the myriad of factors that affect them. 

[D.o.s.]

Nope, just providing links to places where you can go to investigate claims like this.

Here's some more:

http://stats.nba.com/playerTrackingDefense.html?PlayerOrTeam=Player&pageNo=1&rowsPerPage=25&filters=TeamAbbr*E*BOS&SeasonType=Regular%20Season&sortField=MIN&sortOrder=DES

http://stats.nba.com/playerTrackingDefense.html?PlayerOrTeam=Player&pageNo=1&rowsPerPage=25&filters=TeamAbbr*E*CHI&SeasonType=Regular%20Season&sortField=MIN&sortOrder=DES

http://bkref.com/tiny/newNf

http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/g/greenje02.html

http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/d/denglu01.html

Saying Green is a more valuable defender than Deng is wrong. That's all there is to it. I'd rather have Green, given the price difference and the fact that Deng's super worn down after playing heavy minutes forever between the UK team and Chicago, but he's a better player than Jeff Green.

[D.o.s.]

Of course, I could've just used something ephemeral like All-Star Appearances or MVP Shares if I wanted to defend him, right? 

[Celtics18]

Of course, I could've just used something ephemeral like All-Star Appearances or MVP Shares if I wanted to defend him, right? 

There isn't much more ephemeral than defensive rating numbers.  Defense isn't played by one player.  Poor defensive players on good defensive teams (Carlos Boozer) are more likely to have good defensive rating numbers.  Good defensive players on bad defensive teams (Tyson Chandler) are more likely to have bad defensive rating numbers. 

I'm not against using stats as support for an argument, but you should never use a singular stat as the entire argument. 

[D.o.s.]

I wasn't aware anyone was?