Yes or No? Marcus Smart Our Next Superstar?

[Monkhouse]

I think in the celtics system a superstar is someone who efficiently can fill up a box score and score points and be clutch player and  I think Smart will do that. Win championships.  I see Smart as being one of the best guards in the NBA.

That will be arguable, but I think Smart is going to be the best guard in the NBA. I would not trade him for anyone.

Very optimistic, but I don't see Smart being one of the best guard. I think he can fill up the stat sheet, and with the NBA leaning towards adding a stat for intangibles/hustle plays I see Smart being a top 5 leading candidate.

Put him next to DMC who are both fiery players with the desire and will to win, and I think he'll be a perennial Allstar.

[D.o.s.]

No. But possibly All-Star. Pierce was never a Superstar but he was an All-star player who could raise him game certain nights. That is what I hope Marcus can do. At the very least I think he can make it to be between Lewis and Pierce in terms of game impact.

What.

I don't understand how anyone can ever say Pierce was and never ever been considered a superstar.

Paul Pierce career averages are 20.7 PPG, 3.7 APG, and 5.8 RPG.

That isn't superstar numbers to you? If he didn't have such a bad team, Pierce would've definitely have had a lot more success.

Also the crazy thing is Pierce has NEVER ever been an Allstar starter, which is very disrespectful to Pierce.

One player conspicuously absent from that list is Paul Pierce, who never finished higher than seventh in MVP voting. Pierce has always been underappreciated, even in his prime when he averaged 25 points, seven rebounds and four assists while missing only eight games during a six-year stretch. He made 10 All-Star appearances without ever being voted in as a starter and was never a first-team All-NBA player.

From the beginning, Pierce was never a pretty player. His game was based on skill as much as style, his athleticism masked by a brawny body that was more brute force than cut stone. Despite his gaudy stats, Pierce never cracked the top 10 in MVP voting during those prime seasons from 2000-2006. His Celtics teams were often decent, but never great. They made the playoffs four times in that span, reaching the conference finals once and the second round on one other occasion. Those years would barely be a footnote in their distinguished history if not for Pierce.

"I'm the classic case of a great player on a bad team," he said famously, which would have served as his NBA epitaph if not for the dramatic series of events that unfolded next. Garnett arrived shortly thereafter along with Ray Allen, and Pierce finally had the help he'd been craving for years.

It was then that we came to understand Pierce's genius as a player. Freed from the burden of carrying mediocre teammates, Pierce's game took shape in a remarkable second act. His scoring went down, but his shooting went up. His playmaking, long an underappreciated talent, became the backbone of the Celtics' half-court sets. His defense, which had been maligned, turned into yet another strength.

"When you play on bad defensive teams, you get labeled as a bad defender," Pierce said back then, delivering yet another line that went right to the heart of the matter.

People compare Pierce to Melo, which I kind of disagree. There are definitely a lot of similarities, but I would surmise that Melo has had more gifted physical traits and athleticism during his beginning years in the NBA. Pierce has relied more on skill, crafty scoring, and patient offense built around iso, stepbacks, elbow jumpers, and an arsenal of creative finishes.

Pierce has been one of the most underrated superstars of our era. I mean when people mention the greats of our era, you instantaneously think of Dirk, KG, Allen, Kobe, Wade, etc. But rarely do people besides the exception of Celtic fans, does Pierce ever get mentioned in the same sentence, nonetheless the same breath.

Finally, without Pierce on the 07-08 team, I don't think we would've won. Yes, Garnett and Allen were extremely vital, but Pierce was the main go to scorer, and a testament to how gracefully, Pierce has aged.

Pierce has singelhandely destroyed the Raptors on the Nets and on the Wizards, especially when the Wizards were struggling inherently. Pierce called game, and there's the reason why Shaq once grabbed a reporter to say,

Pulling a reporter aside, he shook his head and said, ‘Paul Pierce.’ Paul Pierce what? Leaning toward the notepad, he said, ‘Take this down. My name is Shaquille O’Neal, and Paul Pierce is the (very long expletive) truth. Quote me on that, and don’t take nothing out. I knew he could play, but I didn’t know he could play like this. Paul Pierce is the truth.’

This is something that tortures me, too. I think there's evidence in both directions -- both that Pierce was underrated something fierce for his entire tenure with the Celtics and that it's possible he wasn't actually a 'superstar', which probably says more about what a B.S. designation "superstar" versus being, as Shaq said, the MadreEffin Truth... which Pierce was, and is, and always will be.

You could probably be fairly safe in saying that Pierce was never one of the five best players in the NBA season in or season out, and he never had a signature game that elevates him into the loftiest heights of the NBA -- Kobe was never the best player on a Championship team, but you can't take that 81 point game away from him.

But it's Paul Pierce. He was certainly the face of our team when we won a championship. Too tricky.

[D.o.s.]

Smart can be a superstar is the same manner Rodman was a superstar.

Bingo.

[Csfan1984]

No. But possibly All-Star. Pierce was never a Superstar but he was an All-star player who could raise him game certain nights. That is what I hope Marcus can do. At the very least I think he can make it to be between Lewis and Pierce in terms of game impact.

What.

I don't understand how anyone can ever say Pierce was and never ever been considered a superstar.

Paul Pierce career averages are 20.7 PPG, 3.7 APG, and 5.8 RPG.

That isn't superstar numbers to you? If he didn't have such a bad team, Pierce would've definitely have had a lot more success.

Also the crazy thing is Pierce has NEVER ever been an Allstar starter, which is very disrespectful to Pierce.

One player conspicuously absent from that list is Paul Pierce, who never finished higher than seventh in MVP voting. Pierce has always been underappreciated, even in his prime when he averaged 25 points, seven rebounds and four assists while missing only eight games during a six-year stretch. He made 10 All-Star appearances without ever being voted in as a starter and was never a first-team All-NBA player.

From the beginning, Pierce was never a pretty player. His game was based on skill as much as style, his athleticism masked by a brawny body that was more brute force than cut stone. Despite his gaudy stats, Pierce never cracked the top 10 in MVP voting during those prime seasons from 2000-2006. His Celtics teams were often decent, but never great. They made the playoffs four times in that span, reaching the conference finals once and the second round on one other occasion. Those years would barely be a footnote in their distinguished history if not for Pierce.

"I'm the classic case of a great player on a bad team," he said famously, which would have served as his NBA epitaph if not for the dramatic series of events that unfolded next. Garnett arrived shortly thereafter along with Ray Allen, and Pierce finally had the help he'd been craving for years.

It was then that we came to understand Pierce's genius as a player. Freed from the burden of carrying mediocre teammates, Pierce's game took shape in a remarkable second act. His scoring went down, but his shooting went up. His playmaking, long an underappreciated talent, became the backbone of the Celtics' half-court sets. His defense, which had been maligned, turned into yet another strength.

"When you play on bad defensive teams, you get labeled as a bad defender," Pierce said back then, delivering yet another line that went right to the heart of the matter.

People compare Pierce to Melo, which I kind of disagree. There are definitely a lot of similarities, but I would surmise that Melo has had more gifted physical traits and athleticism during his beginning years in the NBA. Pierce has relied more on skill, crafty scoring, and patient offense built around iso, stepbacks, elbow jumpers, and an arsenal of creative finishes.

Pierce has been one of the most underrated superstars of our era. I mean when people mention the greats of our era, you instantaneously think of Dirk, KG, Allen, Kobe, Wade, etc. But rarely do people besides the exception of Celtic fans, does Pierce ever get mentioned in the same sentence, nonetheless the same breath.

Finally, without Pierce on the 07-08 team, I don't think we would've won. Yes, Garnett and Allen were extremely vital, but Pierce was the main go to scorer, and a testament to how gracefully, Pierce has aged.

Pierce has singelhandely destroyed the Raptors on the Nets and on the Wizards, especially when the Wizards were struggling inherently. Pierce called game, and there's the reason why Shaq once grabbed a reporter to say,

Pulling a reporter aside, he shook his head and said, ‘Paul Pierce.’ Paul Pierce what? Leaning toward the notepad, he said, ‘Take this down. My name is Shaquille O’Neal, and Paul Pierce is the (very long expletive) truth. Quote me on that, and don’t take nothing out. I knew he could play, but I didn’t know he could play like this. Paul Pierce is the truth.’

Nope, never a Superstar.

[jpotter33]

No. But possibly All-Star. Pierce was never a Superstar but he was an All-star player who could raise him game certain nights. That is what I hope Marcus can do. At the very least I think he can make it to be between Lewis and Pierce in terms of game impact.

What.

I don't understand how anyone can ever say Pierce was and never ever been considered a superstar.

Paul Pierce career averages are 20.7 PPG, 3.7 APG, and 5.8 RPG.

That isn't superstar numbers to you? If he didn't have such a bad team, Pierce would've definitely have had a lot more success.

Also the crazy thing is Pierce has NEVER ever been an Allstar starter, which is very disrespectful to Pierce.

One player conspicuously absent from that list is Paul Pierce, who never finished higher than seventh in MVP voting. Pierce has always been underappreciated, even in his prime when he averaged 25 points, seven rebounds and four assists while missing only eight games during a six-year stretch. He made 10 All-Star appearances without ever being voted in as a starter and was never a first-team All-NBA player.

From the beginning, Pierce was never a pretty player. His game was based on skill as much as style, his athleticism masked by a brawny body that was more brute force than cut stone. Despite his gaudy stats, Pierce never cracked the top 10 in MVP voting during those prime seasons from 2000-2006. His Celtics teams were often decent, but never great. They made the playoffs four times in that span, reaching the conference finals once and the second round on one other occasion. Those years would barely be a footnote in their distinguished history if not for Pierce.

"I'm the classic case of a great player on a bad team," he said famously, which would have served as his NBA epitaph if not for the dramatic series of events that unfolded next. Garnett arrived shortly thereafter along with Ray Allen, and Pierce finally had the help he'd been craving for years.

It was then that we came to understand Pierce's genius as a player. Freed from the burden of carrying mediocre teammates, Pierce's game took shape in a remarkable second act. His scoring went down, but his shooting went up. His playmaking, long an underappreciated talent, became the backbone of the Celtics' half-court sets. His defense, which had been maligned, turned into yet another strength.

"When you play on bad defensive teams, you get labeled as a bad defender," Pierce said back then, delivering yet another line that went right to the heart of the matter.

People compare Pierce to Melo, which I kind of disagree. There are definitely a lot of similarities, but I would surmise that Melo has had more gifted physical traits and athleticism during his beginning years in the NBA. Pierce has relied more on skill, crafty scoring, and patient offense built around iso, stepbacks, elbow jumpers, and an arsenal of creative finishes.

Pierce has been one of the most underrated superstars of our era. I mean when people mention the greats of our era, you instantaneously think of Dirk, KG, Allen, Kobe, Wade, etc. But rarely do people besides the exception of Celtic fans, does Pierce ever get mentioned in the same sentence, nonetheless the same breath.

Finally, without Pierce on the 07-08 team, I don't think we would've won. Yes, Garnett and Allen were extremely vital, but Pierce was the main go to scorer, and a testament to how gracefully, Pierce has aged.

Pierce has singelhandely destroyed the Raptors on the Nets and on the Wizards, especially when the Wizards were struggling inherently. Pierce called game, and there's the reason why Shaq once grabbed a reporter to say,

Pulling a reporter aside, he shook his head and said, ‘Paul Pierce.’ Paul Pierce what? Leaning toward the notepad, he said, ‘Take this down. My name is Shaquille O’Neal, and Paul Pierce is the (very long expletive) truth. Quote me on that, and don’t take nothing out. I knew he could play, but I didn’t know he could play like this. Paul Pierce is the truth.’

This is something that tortures me, too. I think there's evidence in both directions -- both that Pierce was underrated something fierce for his entire tenure with the Celtics and that it's possible he wasn't actually a 'superstar', which probably says more about what a B.S. designation "superstar" versus being, as Shaq said, the MadreEffin Truth... which Pierce was, and is, and always will be.

You could probably be fairly safe in saying that Pierce was never one of the five best players in the NBA season in or season out, and he never had a signature game that elevates him into the loftiest heights of the NBA -- Kobe was never the best player on a Championship team, but you can't take that 81 point game away from him.

But it's Paul Pierce. He was certainly the face of our team when we won a championship. Too tricky.

Pretty much what I said, too. The distinctions between star vs. superstar are blurry enough as it is, not to mention the context of each player, team, and season thrown into the mix. Pretty subjective.

[BlackCeltic]

It is quite obvious to me that Avery Bradley and Evan Turner must go. Smart will be unleashed upon the NBA once this happens.

[Monkhouse]

This is something that tortures me, too. I think there's evidence in both directions -- both that Pierce was underrated something fierce for his entire tenure with the Celtics and that it's possible he wasn't actually a 'superstar', which probably says more about what a B.S. designation "superstar" versus being, as Shaq said, the MadreEffin Truth... which Pierce was, and is, and always will be.

You could probably be fairly safe in saying that Pierce was never one of the five best players in the NBA season in or season out, and he never had a signature game that elevates him into the loftiest heights of the NBA -- Kobe was never the best player on a Championship team, but you can't take that 81 point game away from him.

But it's Paul Pierce. He was certainly the face of our team when we won a championship. Too tricky.

I think the title superstar is bogus anyways. Pierce to me was definitely a top 10 player in the league at the time we won the championship, and arguably one of the most underrated players of all time.

I mean the fact he dropped 26 PPG, and never ever started one Allstar game? Pierce just had an old mans game that was well refined, but not exciting. If Pierce had the same explosiveness as Lebron, with the same exact averages the media would portray him as a superstar.

No. But possibly All-Star. Pierce was never a Superstar but he was an All-star player who could raise him game certain nights. That is what I hope Marcus can do. At the very least I think he can make it to be between Lewis and Pierce in terms of game impact.

What.

I don't understand how anyone can ever say Pierce was and never ever been considered a superstar.

Paul Pierce career averages are 20.7 PPG, 3.7 APG, and 5.8 RPG.

That isn't superstar numbers to you? If he didn't have such a bad team, Pierce would've definitely have had a lot more success.

Also the crazy thing is Pierce has NEVER ever been an Allstar starter, which is very disrespectful to Pierce.

One player conspicuously absent from that list is Paul Pierce, who never finished higher than seventh in MVP voting. Pierce has always been underappreciated, even in his prime when he averaged 25 points, seven rebounds and four assists while missing only eight games during a six-year stretch. He made 10 All-Star appearances without ever being voted in as a starter and was never a first-team All-NBA player.

From the beginning, Pierce was never a pretty player. His game was based on skill as much as style, his athleticism masked by a brawny body that was more brute force than cut stone. Despite his gaudy stats, Pierce never cracked the top 10 in MVP voting during those prime seasons from 2000-2006. His Celtics teams were often decent, but never great. They made the playoffs four times in that span, reaching the conference finals once and the second round on one other occasion. Those years would barely be a footnote in their distinguished history if not for Pierce.

"I'm the classic case of a great player on a bad team," he said famously, which would have served as his NBA epitaph if not for the dramatic series of events that unfolded next. Garnett arrived shortly thereafter along with Ray Allen, and Pierce finally had the help he'd been craving for years.

It was then that we came to understand Pierce's genius as a player. Freed from the burden of carrying mediocre teammates, Pierce's game took shape in a remarkable second act. His scoring went down, but his shooting went up. His playmaking, long an underappreciated talent, became the backbone of the Celtics' half-court sets. His defense, which had been maligned, turned into yet another strength.

"When you play on bad defensive teams, you get labeled as a bad defender," Pierce said back then, delivering yet another line that went right to the heart of the matter.

People compare Pierce to Melo, which I kind of disagree. There are definitely a lot of similarities, but I would surmise that Melo has had more gifted physical traits and athleticism during his beginning years in the NBA. Pierce has relied more on skill, crafty scoring, and patient offense built around iso, stepbacks, elbow jumpers, and an arsenal of creative finishes.

Pierce has been one of the most underrated superstars of our era. I mean when people mention the greats of our era, you instantaneously think of Dirk, KG, Allen, Kobe, Wade, etc. But rarely do people besides the exception of Celtic fans, does Pierce ever get mentioned in the same sentence, nonetheless the same breath.

Finally, without Pierce on the 07-08 team, I don't think we would've won. Yes, Garnett and Allen were extremely vital, but Pierce was the main go to scorer, and a testament to how gracefully, Pierce has aged.

Pierce has singelhandely destroyed the Raptors on the Nets and on the Wizards, especially when the Wizards were struggling inherently. Pierce called game, and there's the reason why Shaq once grabbed a reporter to say,

Pulling a reporter aside, he shook his head and said, ‘Paul Pierce.’ Paul Pierce what? Leaning toward the notepad, he said, ‘Take this down. My name is Shaquille O’Neal, and Paul Pierce is the (very long expletive) truth. Quote me on that, and don’t take nothing out. I knew he could play, but I didn’t know he could play like this. Paul Pierce is the truth.’

This is something that tortures me, too. I think there's evidence in both directions -- both that Pierce was underrated something fierce for his entire tenure with the Celtics and that it's possible he wasn't actually a 'superstar', which probably says more about what a B.S. designation "superstar" versus being, as Shaq said, the MadreEffin Truth... which Pierce was, and is, and always will be.

You could probably be fairly safe in saying that Pierce was never one of the five best players in the NBA season in or season out, and he never had a signature game that elevates him into the loftiest heights of the NBA -- Kobe was never the best player on a Championship team, but you can't take that 81 point game away from him.

But it's Paul Pierce. He was certainly the face of our team when we won a championship. Too tricky.

Pretty much what I said, too. The distinctions between star vs. superstar are blurry enough as it is, not to mention the context of each player, team, and season thrown into the mix. Pretty subjective.

Yes it is subjective. But if we're drawing the line for what makes a player a superstar, you can arguably at least say Pierce is definitely on the fine line for what requirements and prerequisites are to be considered a 'superstar.'

[droopdog7]

Regarding the definitions of a star, here is my 2 cents.  There are only a handful of superstars in the league at any given time (perhaps five or so).  These are guys that can threaten to win an MVP.

No, another way to look at the question is whether someone will be a perennial all-star.  Someone like PP fell into that bucket.  That is someone I would call a star but not  a superstar.

[D.o.s.]

I'd agree with that.

Also, "I wouldn't trade Marcus for anyone" can't be a serious statement, can it?

[walker834]

That's a serious statement.  He's 20 years old and there is no reason to trade him.  We'll see in 15 years.

[max215]

That's a serious statement.  He's 20 years old and there is no reason to trade him.  We'll see in 15 years.

IMO you shouldn't be so definite. Say OKC wanted Smart in a package for Durant, we'd be insane not to do it.

[Ilikesports17]

That's a serious statement.  He's 20 years old and there is no reason to trade him.  We'll see in 15 years.

im assuming it was hyperbole.

Anthony Davis.

[Monkhouse]

I'd agree with that.

Also, "I wouldn't trade Marcus for anyone" can't be a serious statement, can it?

Regarding the definitions of a star, here is my 2 cents.  There are only a handful of superstars in the league at any given time (perhaps five or so).  These are guys that can threaten to win an MVP.

No, another way to look at the question is whether someone will be a perennial all-star.  Someone like PP fell into that bucket.  That is someone I would call a star but not  a superstar.

Yeah, I mean agree with every one of y'alls statements.

I just think its sad to know Pierce has been the least marketable Allstar.

I will say Pierce couldn't take over games like Durant or Lebron could, but he certainly made the case for it by doing well enough in the NBA finals.

I guess the term superstar could apply to someone like top 5 in MVP voting, or even MVP.

The thing with Pierce is that he's not exciting or flashy enough to grab the attention of any casual fans.

Couple that with popular high flying high scoring wings such as Carter, T-Mac,Kobe, AI, Lebron, Wade and others who have played during this era, and its definitely not a surprise Pierce has never ever become a popular figure.

I still argue if Pierce had Lebron's marketability, and flashy explosiveness, people would say Pierce is a superstar. Some people say Melo is a superstar.

[walker834]

I wouldn't trade Smart for Durant today and he is the one player who I possibly would.  It's not like Durant has won a championship on his own.

Smart is 20 years old and is going to be extremely good imo for the Celtics and no I would not trade him. I think he is going to be one of the best if not best guards in the NBA.

It's not a laughable statement either because DAnny Ainge isn't going to trade him either. If he does he's not as smart a GM as I thought.

[Evantime34]

I do think he will be our next superstar, but I don't think that will happen for another couple years. The reason I think he gets there is because he's a tireless worker, from reports he is always the first one in the gym.

What is special about him is how he rises the energy level of all his teammates with strong effort. He might never have elite individual statistics but his teams will perform at an elite level when he is on the court.