Celtics That Need To Go

[droopdog7]

If you mean this team has a bunch of role players and unproven players then yes, we are deep.  But in the true definition, this team if far from deep.

[SHAQATTACK]

Ah .....yes !

A thread devoted to

Evan Turner

[Big333223]

I don't think there is a single guy who "needs to go" other than someone needs to go to open up roster spots and if we want to bring in some better talent, someone will need to go to bring that talent back (most likely a few someones will need to go).

That said, I think the best candidates to go are Bradley, Jerebko, Amir, David Lee, Turner.

Amir and Lee just got here so they're going to stick around for a few months but Lee is over the hill and we already know what we've got in Amire. By the time the C's are competing for a championship, he'll be over the hill as well.

Jerebko is similar. Although I think its fair to say he's never been used right in the NBA (until Brad Stevens) I also think we know what he is. He's 28 and unlikely to make a bigger impact on a good team than what we saw him give to last years C's. If a contender is willing to part with a younger player with a higher ceiling for a package that includes Jonas, I'm not going to flinch.

Bradley and Turner, the same. Both have been awesome for the Celtics and I especially love Bradley's attitude for as long as he's been here but at this stage it seems unlikely either one will ever play big minutes for a contender. If Rozier can replicate Bradley's defense with more versatile offense, Avery is expendable. Turner isn't good enough to deserve the get the ball as much as he needs to be effective. He was terrific last season but if we want to get higher than the 7th seed, it's not going to happen with him in that role.

Basically, I'm intrigued by the potential of everyone else on the roster for some reason or other.

[chambers]

I think Sullinger's outside shooting is mostly at the behest of the coaching staff, though I think self-interest has played a role, as well, since Sully surely knows he'll make more money if he successfully pulls off a Kevin Love impression.

Of course, publically they will say for him to take the shot and they encouraged it.   Because if they do not it hurts his trade value.  "we want him to develop his shot"  vs. "we have a knucklehead who does not play to his strengths".

Or maybe they specifically went to him considering the first half of the season he shot 35%+ from three and looked like he was improving?

You can't teach Sully's rebounding skills and the athletes thing is over rated- especially at the power forward position.
Kevin Love, Zeebo, Boris Diaw, Tim Duncan the list goes on.
It sounds like a nice point that supports your hatred of fat Jared but it has no relevance in NBA reality.
Basketball these days is about ball movement and spacing.
Athletes can help, but basketball IQ and timing are even more important.
See San Antonio Spurs, Atlanta Hawks- even the Warriors. Steph Curry, Thomson, Bogut and Draymond Green aren't really athletes and neither was David Lee when he was starting. Iggy and Barnes are their main athletes but I think it's a moot point.

Please just try to remember Sully's age. He turned 23 in March.

[Celtics4ever]

Or maybe they specifically went to him considering the first half of the season he shot 35%+ from three and looked like he was improving?

Funny thing about memories,  is that they are often wrong. 

Here is a month by month break down.  Here is where I got the stats:

http://www.cbssports.com/nba/players/player/gamelogs/2014/1992829/jared-sullinger

October   1-3   .33%
November  15-49  .31%
December   17-50  .34%
January  10-46   .22%

By my reckoning halfway through the season was January 26.  I have him at 43-148.   Now math-wise that is no ways near 35%  it is 29%.  He shot 34% in the month of December though and perhaps that is what you recall.   

It sounds like a nice point that supports your hatred of fat Jared but it has no relevance in NBA reality.

These are stats,  and your way off on your assertion that he shot that well in the first half of the season.  His January up to the  26th killed that.  Big difference between 29% and 35%.

Please just try to remember Sully's age. He turned 23 in March.

Yes, he is 23, but he has put a lot of extra stress on that body thus far with the weight.   I am glad he has it off.

Basketball these days is about ball movement and spacing.
Athletes can help, but basketball IQ and timing are even more important

Athletes can flat out move better.   I think to be fair Sully has good basketball IQ but timing, I would not say other than rebounding timing.   

See San Antonio Spurs, Atlanta Hawks- even the Warriors. Steph Curry, Thomson, Bogut and Draymond Green aren't really athletes and neither was David Lee when he was starting. Iggy and Barnes are their main athletes but I think it's a moot point.

Sully makes every one of these guys look like Carl Lewis.  His combine test scores were horrid.

Sullinger
Lane agility of 12.77 seconds 
3/4 court sprint 3.81 seconds
Max Vertical   31"

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1243048-nba-draft-2012-weird-draft-combine-results-you-may-not-know-about

Draymond Green
Lane agility of 11.01  seconds 
3/4 court sprint 3.28 seconds
Max Vertical   33"

http://www.nbadraft.net/2012-nba-combine-athleticism-results

Set Curry
Lane agility of 11.07  seconds 
3/4 court sprint 3.4 seconds
Max Vertical   35.5"

http://www.nbadraft.net/2009-nba-draft-combine-athleticism-test-results

Klay Thompson
Lane agility of 10.99  seconds 
3/4 court sprint 3.4 seconds
Max Vertical   31.5"

Tenth of seconds matter in sports.  Whole second really matter.  These supposed non athletes smoke him.    There are athletes, good athletes and bottom of the barrel.

Fascinating all time combine database.

http://www.draftexpress.com/nba-pre-draft-measurements/?page=&year=All&source=All&sort2=DESC&draft=0&pos=0&sort=15#

Sullinger is the close to bottom 10% in both of these test.   Athletics is not everything I realize but it is a massive limitation for him.

[Surferdad]

I think Sullinger's outside shooting is mostly at the behest of the coaching staff, though I think self-interest has played a role, as well, since Sully surely knows he'll make more money if he successfully pulls off a Kevin Love impression.

Of course, publically they will say for him to take the shot and they encouraged it.   Because if they do not it hurts his trade value.  "we want him to develop his shot"  vs. "we have a knucklehead who does not play to his strengths".

Or maybe they specifically went to him considering the first half of the season he shot 35%+ from three and looked like he was improving?

You can't teach Sully's rebounding skills and the athletes thing is over rated- especially at the power forward position.
Kevin Love, Zeebo, Boris Diaw, Tim Duncan the list goes on.
It sounds like a nice point that supports your hatred of fat Jared but it has no relevance in NBA reality.
Basketball these days is about ball movement and spacing.
Athletes can help, but basketball IQ and timing are even more important.
See San Antonio Spurs, Atlanta Hawks- even the Warriors. Steph Curry, Thomson, Bogut and Draymond Green aren't really athletes and neither was David Lee when he was starting. Iggy and Barnes are their main athletes but I think it's a moot point.

Please just try to remember Sully's age. He turned 23 in March.

Agreed.  I continue to be baffled by fans who want to trade Sully. At his age, he is already good for 14/8 and he will improve this season being in better shape and a contract year. He was arguably our best player for an extended period of time. He mixes it up underneath and has long arms. Yes, he shoots too many three's but that is the way the league has gone. If you don't have a 3-point shot in the NBA today, you have to be elite at something else.

[hwangjini_1]

If you mean this team has a bunch of role players and unproven players then yes, we are deep.  But in the true definition, this team if far from deep.

just to be clear, what is the "true definition" please?

[chambers]

Or maybe they specifically went to him considering the first half of the season he shot 35%+ from three and looked like he was improving?

Funny thing about memories,  is that they are often wrong. 

Here is a month by month break down.  Here is where I got the stats:

http://www.cbssports.com/nba/players/player/gamelogs/2014/1992829/jared-sullinger

October   1-3   .33%
November  15-49  .31%
December   17-50  .34%
January  10-46   .22%

By my reckoning halfway through the season was January 26.  I have him at 43-148.   Now math-wise that is no ways near 35%  it is 29%.  He shot 34% in the month of December though and perhaps that is what you recall.   

It sounds like a nice point that supports your hatred of fat Jared but it has no relevance in NBA reality.

These are stats,  and your way off on your assertion that he shot that well in the first half of the season.  His January up to the  26th killed that.  Big difference between 29% and 35%.

Please just try to remember Sully's age. He turned 23 in March.

Yes, he is 23, but he has put a lot of extra stress on that body thus far with the weight.   I am glad he has it off.

Basketball these days is about ball movement and spacing.
Athletes can help, but basketball IQ and timing are even more important

Athletes can flat out move better.   I think to be fair Sully has good basketball IQ but timing, I would not say other than rebounding timing.   

See San Antonio Spurs, Atlanta Hawks- even the Warriors. Steph Curry, Thomson, Bogut and Draymond Green aren't really athletes and neither was David Lee when he was starting. Iggy and Barnes are their main athletes but I think it's a moot point.

Sully makes every one of these guys look like Carl Lewis.  His combine test scores were horrid.

Sullinger
Lane agility of 12.77 seconds 
3/4 court sprint 3.81 seconds
Max Vertical   31"

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1243048-nba-draft-2012-weird-draft-combine-results-you-may-not-know-about

Draymond Green
Lane agility of 11.01  seconds 
3/4 court sprint 3.28 seconds
Max Vertical   33"

http://www.nbadraft.net/2012-nba-combine-athleticism-results

Set Curry
Lane agility of 11.07  seconds 
3/4 court sprint 3.4 seconds
Max Vertical   35.5"

http://www.nbadraft.net/2009-nba-draft-combine-athleticism-test-results

Klay Thompson
Lane agility of 10.99  seconds 
3/4 court sprint 3.4 seconds
Max Vertical   31.5"

Tenth of seconds matter in sports.  Whole second really matter.  These supposed non athletes smoke him.    There are athletes, good athletes and bottom of the barrel.

Fascinating all time combine database.

http://www.draftexpress.com/nba-pre-draft-measurements/?page=&year=All&source=All&sort2=DESC&draft=0&pos=0&sort=15#

Sullinger is the close to bottom 10% in both of these test.   Athletics is not everything I realize but it is a massive limitation for him.

He shot 35% for the first 29 games of the season and he played in 58 games last season. So however you want to look at it, he was shooting 35% from 3 for half the games he played.

He was one of the best mid range shooters in the NBA at 45% for shots taken 16 ft and out.

His per 36 numbers are 17 pts 11 rebounds and with more stamina and a solid defenind Amir Johnson next to him it's not unfathomable to see him get to 17 points 10 rebounds in 30 mins a game.

I don't care if those guys beat his combine scores, they aren't in the upper echelon of NBA 'athletes' and you're saying it's an athletes league.

He's 23 years old and needs to lose some weight.
He's an awesome rebounder, an excellent passer out of the post and 10th in the NBA last year at mid range jumpshots.
He's shown three point potential and that's why Brad Stevens runs plays to get him the 3 point shot.

Jesus man you act like he's Charlie Villaneuva every chance you get. 

[droopdog7]

If you mean this team has a bunch of role players and unproven players then yes, we are deep.  But in the true definition, this team if far from deep.

just to be clear, what is the "true definition" please?

Depth does not mean having a bunch of players that might be in an nba rotation.  This is somewhat simplified, but think of it this way.  Line up the players on your team versus those of others in terms of quality.  Having good depth means that player in position x for your team is consistently better/more valuable than player in same position on other teams.  My fourth player is better than your fourth player.  My seventh player is better than your seventh player.  And so on.

[D.o.s.]

If you mean this team has a bunch of role players and unproven players then yes, we are deep.  But in the true definition, this team if far from deep.

just to be clear, what is the "true definition" please?

Depth does not mean having a bunch of players that might be in an nba rotation.  This is somewhat simplified, but think of it this way.  Line up the players on your team versus those of others in terms of quality.  Having good depth means that player in position x for your team is consistently better/more valuable than player in same position on other teams.  My fourth player is better than your fourth player.  My seventh player is better than your seventh player.  And so on.

This is a pretty good definition, I must say.

[BaronV]

If you mean this team has a bunch of role players and unproven players then yes, we are deep.  But in the true definition, this team if far from deep.

just to be clear, what is the "true definition" please?

Depth does not mean having a bunch of players that might be in an nba rotation.  This is somewhat simplified, but think of it this way.  Line up the players on your team versus those of others in terms of quality.  Having good depth means that player in position x for your team is consistently better/more valuable than player in same position on other teams.  My fourth player is better than your fourth player.  My seventh player is better than your seventh player.  And so on.

This is a pretty good definition, I must say.

Another way to think about depth is what happens when that lineup above changes.  For example, you are the Cavs, and have Lebron as your #1 option.  He gets hurt.  Is the guy you replace him with going to give you similar production?  Is the guy who steps in for that guy as the 1st option off the bench decent?  No?  Then you're not deep.  You're one injury away from having an end of the bench guy as a starter or your 6th man.  This is the issue with loading up on stars in a salary capped league.  Miami lost their advantage as Bosh and Wade couldn't play every day, and the vet minimum guys on the bench couldn't replace them.  If the stars stay healthy, you probably do well.  If they don't, you're screwed. 

On the flip side, the Cs are in pretty good shape in this regard.  They have several rotation-caliber guys at every position but center.  None are stars, but you could argue that many of them could be the starter.  Not only does this help in terms of coping with injuries over the course of the season, but it also means that, as the Cs did last year, that the bench is likely to be much better than the bench of most opponents.  Over the course of a game, that probably results in extended minutes for the opponent's starters, leaving them tired by the 4th, or big runs by the bench when the starters are rested.

To me (and I know its a different sport), this is why the Pats have had such a long successful run under BB.  Aside from Brady, who took less money to give the team cap flexibility, they really don't focus on having big stars like other teams.  They have determined how much they want to pay for each position on the field, and get the best players they can at each for that salary.  Each player is an interchangeable part of a larger system.  If someone leaves, they are quickly forgotten.  If someone gets hurt, the next guy steps up, and there isn't that big a gap between the starter and the replacement. 

-V

[droopdog7]

If you mean this team has a bunch of role players and unproven players then yes, we are deep.  But in the true definition, this team if far from deep.

just to be clear, what is the "true definition" please?

Depth does not mean having a bunch of players that might be in an nba rotation.  This is somewhat simplified, but think of it this way.  Line up the players on your team versus those of others in terms of quality.  Having good depth means that player in position x for your team is consistently better/more valuable than player in same position on other teams.  My fourth player is better than your fourth player.  My seventh player is better than your seventh player.  And so on.

This is a pretty good definition, I must say.

Another way to think about depth is what happens when that lineup above changes.  For example, you are the Cavs, and have Lebron as your #1 option.  He gets hurt.  Is the guy you replace him with going to give you similar production?  Is the guy who steps in for that guy as the 1st option off the bench decent?  No?  Then you're not deep.  You're one injury away from having an end of the bench guy as a starter or your 6th man.  This is the issue with loading up on stars in a salary capped league.  Miami lost their advantage as Bosh and Wade couldn't play every day, and the vet minimum guys on the bench couldn't replace them.  If the stars stay healthy, you probably do well.  If they don't, you're screwed. 

On the flip side, the Cs are in pretty good shape in this regard.  They have several rotation-caliber guys at every position but center.  None are stars, but you could argue that many of them could be the starter.  Not only does this help in terms of coping with injuries over the course of the season, but it also means that, as the Cs did last year, that the bench is likely to be much better than the bench of most opponents.  Over the course of a game, that probably results in extended minutes for the opponent's starters, leaving them tired by the 4th, or big runs by the bench when the starters are rested.

To me (and I know its a different sport), this is why the Pats have had such a long successful run under BB.  Aside from Brady, who took less money to give the team cap flexibility, they really don't focus on having big stars like other teams.  They have determined how much they want to pay for each position on the field, and get the best players they can at each for that salary.  Each player is an interchangeable part of a larger system.  If someone leaves, they are quickly forgotten.  If someone gets hurt, the next guy steps up, and there isn't that big a gap between the starter and the replacement. 

-V

Whether or not the Cavs are deep has little to do with their ability to replace Lebron if he gets hurt.  Not team can replace a true star in any case.

Think of it this way.  By this definition of depth, the Cavs would be a deeper team if they didn't have Lebron in the first place.  I mean, if JR Smith gets hurt they can replace him with Iman Shumpert. Being able to replace one average player with another does not constitute good depth.

There is a hidden component of depth that people miss.  We are talking about quality depth, and obviously we mean to say that depth helps you win.  You can't evaluate depth based the talent within the team (i.e., being able to replace one player with another).  You evaluate depth in comparison to other teams in the league. 

[DarkAzcura]

Or maybe they specifically went to him considering the first half of the season he shot 35%+ from three and looked like he was improving?

Funny thing about memories,  is that they are often wrong. 

Here is a month by month break down.  Here is where I got the stats:

http://www.cbssports.com/nba/players/player/gamelogs/2014/1992829/jared-sullinger

October   1-3   .33%
November  15-49  .31%
December   17-50  .34%
January  10-46   .22%

By my reckoning halfway through the season was January 26.  I have him at 43-148.   Now math-wise that is no ways near 35%  it is 29%.  He shot 34% in the month of December though and perhaps that is what you recall.   

It sounds like a nice point that supports your hatred of fat Jared but it has no relevance in NBA reality.

These are stats,  and your way off on your assertion that he shot that well in the first half of the season.  His January up to the  26th killed that.  Big difference between 29% and 35%.

Please just try to remember Sully's age. He turned 23 in March.

Yes, he is 23, but he has put a lot of extra stress on that body thus far with the weight.   I am glad he has it off.

Basketball these days is about ball movement and spacing.
Athletes can help, but basketball IQ and timing are even more important

Athletes can flat out move better.   I think to be fair Sully has good basketball IQ but timing, I would not say other than rebounding timing.   

See San Antonio Spurs, Atlanta Hawks- even the Warriors. Steph Curry, Thomson, Bogut and Draymond Green aren't really athletes and neither was David Lee when he was starting. Iggy and Barnes are their main athletes but I think it's a moot point.

Sully makes every one of these guys look like Carl Lewis.  His combine test scores were horrid.

Sullinger
Lane agility of 12.77 seconds 
3/4 court sprint 3.81 seconds
Max Vertical   31"

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1243048-nba-draft-2012-weird-draft-combine-results-you-may-not-know-about

Draymond Green
Lane agility of 11.01  seconds 
3/4 court sprint 3.28 seconds
Max Vertical   33"

http://www.nbadraft.net/2012-nba-combine-athleticism-results

Set Curry
Lane agility of 11.07  seconds 
3/4 court sprint 3.4 seconds
Max Vertical   35.5"

http://www.nbadraft.net/2009-nba-draft-combine-athleticism-test-results

Klay Thompson
Lane agility of 10.99  seconds 
3/4 court sprint 3.4 seconds
Max Vertical   31.5"

Tenth of seconds matter in sports.  Whole second really matter.  These supposed non athletes smoke him.    There are athletes, good athletes and bottom of the barrel.

Fascinating all time combine database.

http://www.draftexpress.com/nba-pre-draft-measurements/?page=&year=All&source=All&sort2=DESC&draft=0&pos=0&sort=15#

Sullinger is the close to bottom 10% in both of these test.   Athletics is not everything I realize but it is a massive limitation for him.

Your December numbers are wrong. He shot 40.5% from 3 in December (17/42 not 17/50). He did shoot 35% from 3 through the end of December (which is what he really meant).

Anyway, I agree with you on the athlete part. Not sure what the poster was getting at, but Draymond Green, Curry, Thompson, etc are not amazing athletes, but they are very, very good athletes regardless. I don't like cross position comparisons because guards should be faster than front court players so I'll leave Curry and Thompson out of it (who are underrated athletes anyway). Green is not a good example of a nonathletic PF. He has super long arms, is really strong, and has great conditioning. He's a good athlete.  Heck even with those numbers you see that Green is as fast as Curry and Thompson which is great considering he plays PF for them.

[More Banners]

If you mean this team has a bunch of role players and unproven players then yes, we are deep.  But in the true definition, this team if far from deep.

just to be clear, what is the "true definition" please?

Depth does not mean having a bunch of players that might be in an nba rotation.  This is somewhat simplified, but think of it this way.  Line up the players on your team versus those of others in terms of quality.  Having good depth means that player in position x for your team is consistently better/more valuable than player in same position on other teams.  My fourth player is better than your fourth player.  My seventh player is better than your seventh player.  And so on.

This is a pretty good definition, I must say.

Another way to think about depth is what happens when that lineup above changes.  For example, you are the Cavs, and have Lebron as your #1 option.  He gets hurt.  Is the guy you replace him with going to give you similar production?  Is the guy who steps in for that guy as the 1st option off the bench decent?  No?  Then you're not deep.  You're one injury away from having an end of the bench guy as a starter or your 6th man.  This is the issue with loading up on stars in a salary capped league.  Miami lost their advantage as Bosh and Wade couldn't play every day, and the vet minimum guys on the bench couldn't replace them.  If the stars stay healthy, you probably do well.  If they don't, you're screwed. 

On the flip side, the Cs are in pretty good shape in this regard.  They have several rotation-caliber guys at every position but center.  None are stars, but you could argue that many of them could be the starter.  Not only does this help in terms of coping with injuries over the course of the season, but it also means that, as the Cs did last year, that the bench is likely to be much better than the bench of most opponents.  Over the course of a game, that probably results in extended minutes for the opponent's starters, leaving them tired by the 4th, or big runs by the bench when the starters are rested.

To me (and I know its a different sport), this is why the Pats have had such a long successful run under BB.  Aside from Brady, who took less money to give the team cap flexibility, they really don't focus on having big stars like other teams.  They have determined how much they want to pay for each position on the field, and get the best players they can at each for that salary.  Each player is an interchangeable part of a larger system.  If someone leaves, they are quickly forgotten.  If someone gets hurt, the next guy steps up, and there isn't that big a gap between the starter and the replacement. 

-V

Whether or not the Cavs are deep has little to do with their ability to replace Lebron if he gets hurt.  Not team can replace a true star in any case.

Think of it this way.  By this definition of depth, the Cavs would be a deeper team if they didn't have Lebron in the first place.  I mean, if JR Smith gets hurt they can replace him with Iman Shumpert. Being able to replace one average player with another does not constitute good depth.

There is a hidden component of depth that people miss.  We are talking about quality depth, and obviously we mean to say that depth helps you win.  You can't evaluate depth based the talent within the team (i.e., being able to replace one player with another).  You evaluate depth in comparison to other teams in the league.

Maybe depth is having a lot of players who could step in and play big minutes at any time, and your team doesn't get killed.  In other words, how many players in the rotation.

In that sense, we're killing it. All of our guys can play, pretty much. At least a dozen, anyway.

We're just light on big guns at the top of the rotation. If one of our starters (whoever they are) go down, it's not likely to screw us on the court. We have guys who can play, they're just not good enough in one respect or another.

In that sense, maybe the players that "need to go" are whichever ones bring back a player who would be a top-5 player on the squad,  or immediately becomes the clear best at that position. This because what we really need are starters who are better than other team's starters.

[SHAQATTACK]

ET

Pack your suitcase