Sullinger attitude

[jpotter33]

I'm a big fan of Sully's, but his weight is a serious problem in my opinion. Like LarBrd33 said, it's just astounding that he somehow GAINED weight during the season to get up over 300 pounds. As many calories as these guys burn everyday playing and practicing, that's virtually impossible unless you're seriously just not giving a rat's arse about what you eat.

His redundancy with KO doesn't help his situation either. I think Ainge needs to say that Sully doesn't play unless he's under 255 next year.

[Evantime34]

Sullinger is our best player, but Celtic fans love to complain.

I think he was our best player before the all star break. Then he went down and the C's started playing better.

This is not correct.

The Celtics played about .500 ball after the Rondo and Green trades and before Sully went down with his injury - and that was pre-IT. Mind you the data set is limited, but in those games Sully averaged 16 points and over 8 boards per game.

Wait so what wasn't correct? The C's were 12-21 when they traded Green (and Rondo previously). Then 8-10 with Sully before the break at which point he was our best player.  Then they were 14-10 with Sully out and have been 1-1 since he came back.

So the C's played better with Sully as our best player then with Rondo and Green. Then the C's played better than that after he went down. What was incorrect about what I said.

[Donoghus]

The attitude is one of the lesser of my concerns.  To me, I just think he's close to his ceiling as a player already and I don't think it's wise heavily (no pun intended) investing in him long-term.  Physically & in a basketball sense.  Heck, I was willing to part with him last summer.

[BudweiserCeltic]

Sullinger is our best player, but Celtic fans love to complain.

I think he was our best player before the all star break. Then he went down and the C's started playing better.

This is not correct.

The Celtics played about .500 ball after the Rondo and Green trades and before Sully went down with his injury - and that was pre-IT. Mind you the data set is limited, but in those games Sully averaged 16 points and over 8 boards per game.

Wait so what wasn't correct? The C's were 12-21 when they traded Green (and Rondo previously). Then 8-10 with Sully before the break at which point he was our best player.  Then they were 14-10 with Sully out and have been 1-1 since he came back.

So the C's played better with Sully as our best player then with Rondo and Green. Then the C's played better than that after he went down. What was incorrect about what I said.

What's incorrect is the insinuation that the Celtics STARTED playing better after Sully went down, which is really a play on words. The team had already STARTED playing better while Sully was around, that they kept getting better is simply a matter of an already on-going improvement.

After Green was traded, we went 8-8. Seven of those loses against playoffs teams, 5 against teams considered powerhouses in the league: Chicago, Golden State, Hawks, Houston, Clippers.

We had a stretch where we lost 3 in a row against Chicago, Atlanta, Clippers, and then went 7-5 the rest of he way until Sully went down.

And right after Sully went down, we had an influx of talent, so the roster itself is quite different than the one that Sully left.

So the idea or the insinuation that the team improved because Sulligner went down is simply a very shortsighted way of looking at things.

[Msimonetta2]

Well did not mean for this thread to become an all out bashing of sully.  I found what mike Gorman had to say interesting, at the end of the day I want what is best for the celtics.  It is in our best interest for sully to turn it around whether it be to stay long term or value in a trade.  If little changes it will make for a tough decision next offseason. 

[Donoghus]

Well did not mean for this thread to become an all out bashing of sully.  I found what mike Gorman had to say interesting, at the end of the day I want what is best for the celtics.  It is in our best interest for sully to turn it around whether it be to stay long term or value in a trade.  If little changes it will make for a tough decision next offseason.

Don't worry about it.  Someone had to inherit the throne of CB whipping boy/lightening rod once Rondo got traded.   Next guy up will probably be Smart once Sully is out of town.

[Evantime34]

Sullinger is our best player, but Celtic fans love to complain.

I think he was our best player before the all star break. Then he went down and the C's started playing better.

This is not correct.

The Celtics played about .500 ball after the Rondo and Green trades and before Sully went down with his injury - and that was pre-IT. Mind you the data set is limited, but in those games Sully averaged 16 points and over 8 boards per game.

Wait so what wasn't correct? The C's were 12-21 when they traded Green (and Rondo previously). Then 8-10 with Sully before the break at which point he was our best player.  Then they were 14-10 with Sully out and have been 1-1 since he came back.

So the C's played better with Sully as our best player then with Rondo and Green. Then the C's played better than that after he went down. What was incorrect about what I said.

What's incorrect is the insinuation that the Celtics STARTED playing better after Sully went down, which is really a play on words. The team had already STARTED playing better while Sully was around, that they kept getting better is simply a matter of an already on-going improvement.

After Green was traded, we went 8-8. Seven of those loses against playoffs teams, 5 against teams considered powerhouses in the league: Chicago, Golden State, Hawks, Houston, Clippers.

We had a stretch where we lost 3 in a row against Chicago, Atlanta, Clippers, and then went 7-5 the rest of he way until Sully went down.

And right after Sully went down, we had an influx of talent, so the roster itself is quite different than the one that Sully left.

So the idea or the insinuation that the team improved because Sulligner went down is simply a very shortsighted way of looking at things.

I didn't say the team improved because Sullinger went down. The C's started to play better after Sullinger meant down just means that they played better than the previously had beginning when Sully went down. Start denotes the beginning of a new frame of time, you are viewing that frame of time as the entire season where I was referring to the beginning of the period after the all star break.

It seems that my use of the word Started confused people, so just remove that word from what I said.

[BudweiserCeltic]

Sullinger is our best player, but Celtic fans love to complain.

I think he was our best player before the all star break. Then he went down and the C's started playing better.

This is not correct.

The Celtics played about .500 ball after the Rondo and Green trades and before Sully went down with his injury - and that was pre-IT. Mind you the data set is limited, but in those games Sully averaged 16 points and over 8 boards per game.

Wait so what wasn't correct? The C's were 12-21 when they traded Green (and Rondo previously). Then 8-10 with Sully before the break at which point he was our best player.  Then they were 14-10 with Sully out and have been 1-1 since he came back.

So the C's played better with Sully as our best player then with Rondo and Green. Then the C's played better than that after he went down. What was incorrect about what I said.

What's incorrect is the insinuation that the Celtics STARTED playing better after Sully went down, which is really a play on words. The team had already STARTED playing better while Sully was around, that they kept getting better is simply a matter of an already on-going improvement.

After Green was traded, we went 8-8. Seven of those loses against playoffs teams, 5 against teams considered powerhouses in the league: Chicago, Golden State, Hawks, Houston, Clippers.

We had a stretch where we lost 3 in a row against Chicago, Atlanta, Clippers, and then went 7-5 the rest of he way until Sully went down.

And right after Sully went down, we had an influx of talent, so the roster itself is quite different than the one that Sully left.

So the idea or the insinuation that the team improved because Sulligner went down is simply a very shortsighted way of looking at things.

I didn't say the team improved because Sullinger went down. The C's started to play better after Sullinger meant down just means that they played better than the previously had beginning when Sully went down. Start denotes the beginning of a new frame of time, you are viewing that frame of time as the entire season where I was referring to the beginning of the period after the all star break.

It seems that my use of the word Started confused people, so just remove that word from what I said.

If you didn't mean to insinuate that the team played better because Sullinger went down, then why say anything at all on that regard? The seeming intention was to illustrate that a team without Sullinger "started", as you say, playing better. If that wasn't your intention, then I honestly don't know what the point of it all was.

[86MaxwellSmart]

I honestly expect him to be gone on Draft night....Packaged with picks--?

It's just too weird that they brought him back at this time--unless they were trying to showcase his health---and trade him.

[Chris22]

A guy get 14 points, 8 rebounds, and 2 assists and 75% from the line in 27 minutes, and Celtic fans complain. Lest we forget....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s4qYx4emja8

[fairweatherfan]

Well did not mean for this thread to become an all out bashing of sully.  I found what mike Gorman had to say interesting, at the end of the day I want what is best for the celtics.  It is in our best interest for sully to turn it around whether it be to stay long term or value in a trade.  If little changes it will make for a tough decision next offseason.

Don't worry about it.  Someone had to inherit the throne of CB whipping boy/lightening rod once Rondo got traded.   Next guy up will probably be Smart once Sully is out of town.

Much like the starting spot, Sully and Oly will take turns until one of em's gone, then the other can take it on full time.

[jpotter33]

I honestly expect him to be gone on Draft night....Packaged with picks--?

It's just too weird that they brought him back at this time--unless they were trying to showcase his health---and trade him.

To move up for WCS! 

[Evantime34]

Sullinger is our best player, but Celtic fans love to complain.

I think he was our best player before the all star break. Then he went down and the C's started playing better.

This is not correct.

The Celtics played about .500 ball after the Rondo and Green trades and before Sully went down with his injury - and that was pre-IT. Mind you the data set is limited, but in those games Sully averaged 16 points and over 8 boards per game.

Wait so what wasn't correct? The C's were 12-21 when they traded Green (and Rondo previously). Then 8-10 with Sully before the break at which point he was our best player.  Then they were 14-10 with Sully out and have been 1-1 since he came back.

So the C's played better with Sully as our best player then with Rondo and Green. Then the C's played better than that after he went down. What was incorrect about what I said.

What's incorrect is the insinuation that the Celtics STARTED playing better after Sully went down, which is really a play on words. The team had already STARTED playing better while Sully was around, that they kept getting better is simply a matter of an already on-going improvement.

After Green was traded, we went 8-8. Seven of those loses against playoffs teams, 5 against teams considered powerhouses in the league: Chicago, Golden State, Hawks, Houston, Clippers.

We had a stretch where we lost 3 in a row against Chicago, Atlanta, Clippers, and then went 7-5 the rest of he way until Sully went down.

And right after Sully went down, we had an influx of talent, so the roster itself is quite different than the one that Sully left.

So the idea or the insinuation that the team improved because Sulligner went down is simply a very shortsighted way of looking at things.

I didn't say the team improved because Sullinger went down. The C's started to play better after Sullinger meant down just means that they played better than the previously had beginning when Sully went down. Start denotes the beginning of a new frame of time, you are viewing that frame of time as the entire season where I was referring to the beginning of the period after the all star break.

It seems that my use of the word Started confused people, so just remove that word from what I said.

If you didn't mean to insinuate that the team played better because Sullinger went down, then why say anything at all on that regard? The seeming intention was to illustrate that a team without Sullinger "started", as you say, playing better. If that wasn't your intention, then I honestly don't know what the point of it all was.

Someone else said that he was the best player on our team and I commented that he was the best player on the team before he went down, not now.

That the C's played better post all star break is evidence that there are currently players better than him on the team now.

[Rosco917]

I look at some players in the D-league working there tail off just to get another shot at playing in the NBA. They work extra hours every day to improve some part of their game.

Then I look at Sully and his lack of conditioning and shake my head. Sully either gets into professional basketball condition, so he can contribute on BOTH side of the ball, or we should part ways. Yes, trade him before the rest of the NBA finds out about his lack of dedication.

[BudweiserCeltic]

Sullinger is our best player, but Celtic fans love to complain.

I think he was our best player before the all star break. Then he went down and the C's started playing better.

This is not correct.

The Celtics played about .500 ball after the Rondo and Green trades and before Sully went down with his injury - and that was pre-IT. Mind you the data set is limited, but in those games Sully averaged 16 points and over 8 boards per game.

Wait so what wasn't correct? The C's were 12-21 when they traded Green (and Rondo previously). Then 8-10 with Sully before the break at which point he was our best player.  Then they were 14-10 with Sully out and have been 1-1 since he came back.

So the C's played better with Sully as our best player then with Rondo and Green. Then the C's played better than that after he went down. What was incorrect about what I said.

What's incorrect is the insinuation that the Celtics STARTED playing better after Sully went down, which is really a play on words. The team had already STARTED playing better while Sully was around, that they kept getting better is simply a matter of an already on-going improvement.

After Green was traded, we went 8-8. Seven of those loses against playoffs teams, 5 against teams considered powerhouses in the league: Chicago, Golden State, Hawks, Houston, Clippers.

We had a stretch where we lost 3 in a row against Chicago, Atlanta, Clippers, and then went 7-5 the rest of he way until Sully went down.

And right after Sully went down, we had an influx of talent, so the roster itself is quite different than the one that Sully left.

So the idea or the insinuation that the team improved because Sulligner went down is simply a very shortsighted way of looking at things.

I didn't say the team improved because Sullinger went down. The C's started to play better after Sullinger meant down just means that they played better than the previously had beginning when Sully went down. Start denotes the beginning of a new frame of time, you are viewing that frame of time as the entire season where I was referring to the beginning of the period after the all star break.

It seems that my use of the word Started confused people, so just remove that word from what I said.

If you didn't mean to insinuate that the team played better because Sullinger went down, then why say anything at all on that regard? The seeming intention was to illustrate that a team without Sullinger "started", as you say, playing better. If that wasn't your intention, then I honestly don't know what the point of it all was.

Someone else said that he was the best player on our team and I commented that he was the best player on the team before he went down, not now.

That the C's played better post all star break is evidence that there are currently players better than him on the team now.

Oh OK, I can agree to some of that, particularly since Thomas was added and a few others. But since we had already been playing better as it was, then can't discount the variable of an already on-going progression.