Celtics trade for David Lee

[rocknrollforyoursoul]

no the fear is that he doesn't move the needle enough in a positive direction, and that our team still sucks, but we're now more likely to overachieve to be a 7th seed punching bag.

You can make the argument that there's merit to signing someone like Greg Monroe if you do things this way  -- aka the Milwaukee method -- but, uh, that's Greg Monroe and we can't surround him with a Jabari Parker, you know? Instead we have David Lee and Marcus Smart, and we continue to miss out on the assets to land someone with the potential to be a real game changer.

Here's what we all know:

a) All Celtics fans want the team's ultimate direction to be upward.

b) There are two basic ways of doing that: 1) gradual improvement, with maybe a sudden boost here or there from a key trade or FA signing; and 2) bottoming out and then (hopefully) skyrocketing to the top via using or trading high draft picks.

c) Danny has clearly chosen the former.

If Danny had wanted to tank, he would've done it. Last year's team turned out to be maybe a little better than Danny secretly hoped for, but he couldn't have been surprised—because if he'd wanted to tank, he would not have hired such a good motivator as Brad Stevens. And after that, he would not have made moves such as turning a TPE into Tyler Zeller and Isaiah Thomas. He would've let TPEs expire for nothing. He would've signed a bunch of old shlubs and D-Leaguers.

But since he didn't do those things, and instead did the things he did, it's clear he's going for gradual improvement while maintaining the ability to strike while the iron's hot (whenever it gets hot). I agree that waiting is sometimes hard—I've struggled with the process sometimes—but Danny's course of action is clear, and I think it would be helpful to pro-tankers to give up tanking hopes at this particular point in this particular rebuild. Maybe Danny will tank the next time around, but that's not how things worked out this time—if last season's mismatched collection of assets couldn't miss the playoffs and get a decent draft slot, then the tanking route has no shot this time around.

Given, then, that Danny is taking the gradual-improvement route, getting David Lee is a good move. He's way better than Gerald Wallace, and the combination of Lee and Amir Johnson is a clear upgrade to our frontcourt. I like Sully and KO, but they haven't blown off our doors so far, despite having plenty of opportunity to do so. Plus, Sully's had a lot of injury and weight issues, and Kelly has consistently shown an aversion to being aggressive. I'm all for developing young guys if they're worth developing—that is, if they're going to take advantage of their opportunities. At the very least, having guys like Lee and Johnson around is good motivation for the young guys to step up their game (though they should've already been sufficiently motivated), so if Sully and/or KO are still around at training camp, and neither appears to have made huge strides since last season, why would we want to keep them around any longer?

[the_Bird]

David Lee has more value than Gerald Wallace.  No team was likely to give a positive asset for Wallace.  Some team *might* be willing to give something for Lee.

Because of that, I'm fine with the trade.  This franchise isn't going to tank, for better or for worse, so picking up value in others ways makes sense to me.

The biggest thing, I believe, is that it gives Danny a little more flexibility to trade either KO or Sully without killing the team in 2015-2016.  At some point, one of those guys was probably going to have to go.  If you can combine KO or Sully with some draft picks, or maybe one of the eight thousand guards on the roster, maybe you can pick up someone better to play the 3. 

Wallace didn't provide any on-court help.  Lee should still have enough left in the tank where they could shuffle some of the frontcourt assets for wing help, and still be OK.

And if Lee plays well (and if the C's don't really need him), maybe he's got a little value at the deadline for a contender.  Maybe you can turn him into another late first rounder, or a pair of 2s.  No chance of that being the case with Wallace.

[D.o.s.]

no the fear is that he doesn't move the needle enough in a positive direction, and that our team still sucks, but we're now more likely to overachieve to be a 7th seed punching bag.

You can make the argument that there's merit to signing someone like Greg Monroe if you do things this way  -- aka the Milwaukee method -- but, uh, that's Greg Monroe and we can't surround him with a Jabari Parker, you know? Instead we have David Lee and Marcus Smart, and we continue to miss out on the assets to land someone with the potential to be a real game changer.

Here's what we all know:

a) All Celtics fans want the team's ultimate direction to be upward.

b) There are two basic ways of doing that: 1) gradual improvement, with maybe a sudden boost here or there from a key trade or FA signing; and 2) bottoming out and then (hopefully) skyrocketing to the top via using or trading high draft picks.

c) Danny has clearly chosen the former.

If Danny had wanted to tank, he would've done it. Last year's team turned out to be maybe a little better than Danny secretly hoped for, but he couldn't have been surprised—because if he'd wanted to tank, he would not have hired such a good motivator as Brad Stevens. And after that, he would not have made moves such as turning a TPE into Tyler Zeller and Isaiah Thomas. He would've let TPEs expire for nothing. He would've signed a bunch of old shlubs and D-Leaguers.

But since he didn't do those things, and instead did the things he did, it's clear he's going for gradual improvement while maintaining the ability to strike while the iron's hot (whenever it gets hot). I agree that waiting is sometimes hard—I've struggled with the process sometimes—but Danny's course of action is clear, and I think it would be helpful to pro-tankers to give up tanking hopes at this particular point in this particular rebuild. Maybe Danny will tank the next time around, but that's not how things worked out this time—if last season's mismatched collection of assets couldn't miss the playoffs and get a decent draft slot, then the tanking route has no shot this time around.

Given, then, that Danny is taking the gradual-improvement route, getting David Lee is a good move. He's way better than Gerald Wallace, and the combination of Lee and Amir Johnson is a clear upgrade to our frontcourt. I like Sully and KO, but they haven't blown off our doors so far, despite having plenty of opportunity to do so. Plus, Sully's had a lot of injury and weight issues, and Kelly has consistently shown an aversion to being aggressive. I'm all for developing young guys if they're worth developing—that is, if they're going to take advantage of their opportunities. At the very least, having guys like Lee and Johnson around is good motivation for the young guys to step up their game (though they should've already been sufficiently motivated), so if Sully and/or KO are still around at training camp, and neither appears to have made huge strides since last season, why would we want to keep them around any longer?

I don't think Ainge hired Stevens with the idea that the Celtics were going to be competitive two years into a six-year contract. I think he was hired because he was used to molding middling players into above-adequate performance. I assume that ownership feels the same way, because you don't hire a rookie head coach from the NCAA if you're trying for short-term NBA success, you hire a Lionel Hollins or a George Karl or a PJ Carlissimo or whatever.

Likewise, I think Ainge's attitude has been that he'll make any deal as long as he thinks its a good one. He's said as much re: Thomas and the Lee deal is in the same vein.

I'm not actually particularly pro tanking, by the way, and I think my post history speaks to that. What I am very against are empty-calorie players like Evan Turner and David Lee being the faces of the C's. They're like a less entertaining, less talented version of the Walker/Pierce Celtics from a decade-plus ago, and I don't see that approach as being particularly meaningful to the future of the franchise.

I very much agree with the bolded.

[Cman]

no the fear is that he doesn't move the needle enough in a positive direction, and that our team still sucks, but we're now more likely to overachieve to be a 7th seed punching bag.

You can make the argument that there's merit to signing someone like Greg Monroe if you do things this way  -- aka the Milwaukee method -- but, uh, that's Greg Monroe and we can't surround him with a Jabari Parker, you know? Instead we have David Lee and Marcus Smart, and we continue to miss out on the assets to land someone with the potential to be a real game changer.

Here's what we all know:

a) All Celtics fans want the team's ultimate direction to be upward.

b) There are two basic ways of doing that: 1) gradual improvement, with maybe a sudden boost here or there from a key trade or FA signing; and 2) bottoming out and then (hopefully) skyrocketing to the top via using or trading high draft picks.

c) Danny has clearly chosen the former.

If Danny had wanted to tank, he would've done it. Last year's team turned out to be maybe a little better than Danny secretly hoped for, but he couldn't have been surprised—because if he'd wanted to tank, he would not have hired such a good motivator as Brad Stevens. And after that, he would not have made moves such as turning a TPE into Tyler Zeller and Isaiah Thomas. He would've let TPEs expire for nothing. He would've signed a bunch of old shlubs and D-Leaguers.

But since he didn't do those things, and instead did the things he did, it's clear he's going for gradual improvement while maintaining the ability to strike while the iron's hot (whenever it gets hot). I agree that waiting is sometimes hard—I've struggled with the process sometimes—but Danny's course of action is clear, and I think it would be helpful to pro-tankers to give up tanking hopes at this particular point in this particular rebuild. Maybe Danny will tank the next time around, but that's not how things worked out this time—if last season's mismatched collection of assets couldn't miss the playoffs and get a decent draft slot, then the tanking route has no shot this time around.

Given, then, that Danny is taking the gradual-improvement route, getting David Lee is a good move. He's way better than Gerald Wallace, and the combination of Lee and Amir Johnson is a clear upgrade to our frontcourt. I like Sully and KO, but they haven't blown off our doors so far, despite having plenty of opportunity to do so. Plus, Sully's had a lot of injury and weight issues, and Kelly has consistently shown an aversion to being aggressive. I'm all for developing young guys if they're worth developing—that is, if they're going to take advantage of their opportunities. At the very least, having guys like Lee and Johnson around is good motivation for the young guys to step up their game (though they should've already been sufficiently motivated), so if Sully and/or KO are still around at training camp, and neither appears to have made huge strides since last season, why would we want to keep them around any longer?

TP, very well argued.
I like many of your points, but particularly appreciate two of them.
Johnson and Lee will push Sully and KO to compete more for minutes. That's a good thing.
Johnson and Lee also make it easier to trade Sully and/or KO (though arguably more so in the short run because if their minutes start to drop so will their value).

[Jayman]

Wait, people think David Lee is washed up?

http://bkref.com/tiny/Mohh1

[SparzWizard]

I'm hearing that this deal also involved either Phil Pressey or Chris Babb.

SAY GOODBYE TO THE PRESSEY/BABB ERA!!! 

[D.o.s.]

Wait, people think David Lee is washed up?

http://bkref.com/tiny/Mohh1

You're using his numbers from what will be two years ago to prove that he isn't washed up?

What if I told you that there was once point guard who averaged 13-5-11 that the Celtics would give away for mostly nothing just two seasons later, after he struggled with injuries and being gradually usurped in the starting lineup?

[aingeforthree]

Wait, people think David Lee is washed up?

http://bkref.com/tiny/Mohh1

You're using his numbers from what will be two years ago to prove that he isn't washed up?

What if I told you that there was once point guard who averaged 13-5-11 that the Celtics would give away for mostly nothing just two seasons later, after he struggled with injuries and being gradually usurped in the starting lineup?

You lost all credibility on here once you posted he 'sucked'

[D.o.s.]

For you, maybe, but based on your recent sniping at me this could just be some kind of weird oppositional disorder manifesting itself in new and different ways.


However I have explained, with evidence both anecdotal and researched, the ways that I think David Lee sucks. The same can not be said for some other posters. That said, some people have argued very persuasively on behalf of the Lee trade. It's really not hard to do if you know what you're talking about and are even the slightest bit open to a discussion, rather than being a p---ant or a gnat.

[aingeforthree]

For you, maybe, but based on your recent sniping at me this could just be some kind of weird oppositional disorder manifesting itself in new and different ways.

Call it what you will, but you shot yourself in the foot with that one.  Tough to throw it out when somebody throws some true numbers out there.

[D.o.s.]

For you, maybe, but based on your recent sniping at me this could just be some kind of weird oppositional disorder manifesting itself in new and different ways.

Call it what you will, but you shot yourself in the foot with that one.  Tough to throw it out when somebody throws some true numbers out there.

In case you have any interest, you can see a great many words and numbers about the ways that David Lee is not so good in this thread:
http://forums.celticsblog.com/index.php?topic=79651.0


Now, you can disagree with the premise, but you're just bloviating and wasting time right now.

[aingeforthree]

For you, maybe, but based on your recent sniping at me this could just be some kind of weird oppositional disorder manifesting itself in new and different ways.

Call it what you will, but you shot yourself in the foot with that one.  Tough to throw it out when somebody throws some true numbers out there.

In case you have any interest, you can see a great many words and numbers about the ways that David Lee is not so good in this thread:
http://forums.celticsblog.com/index.php?topic=79651.0


Now, you can disagree with the premise, but you're just bloviating and wasting time right now.

You're the one who said he sucked, not me.  Again, you lose all credibility when you post things like that.

[D.o.s.]

So even with evidence my claims have no credibility.

Good to know. You seem like a very bright and insightful person with a lot to offer to the world. 

[aingeforthree]

So even with evidence my claims have no credibility.

Good to know. You seem like a very bright and insightful person with a lot to offer to the world. 

Sorry, I'm just struggling to believe you, or guys like Curry & Klay Thompson who are saying we got a 'great' player.  Obviously, they don't think he sucks, his numbers don't show he sucked, so what next ?

Do I believe you, or guys that actually play the game ?

[D.o.s.]

So even with evidence my claims have no credibility.

Good to know. You seem like a very bright and insightful person with a lot to offer to the world. 

Sorry, I'm just struggling to believe you, or guys like Curry & Klay Thompson who are saying we got a 'great' player.  Obviously, they don't think he sucks, his numbers don't show he sucked, so what next ?

Do I believe you, or guys that actually play the game ?

Do you trust Charles Barkley's opinion on advanced statistics?

I actually don't care that you disagree with me -- I care that you seem to be disagreeing with me just to do it: compounded by the fact that you're wasting my time and contributing nothing to the discussion with your disagreement.