Sixers' players parents heckling/criticizing organization

[guava_wrench]

I agree completely on the Stauskas/Smart point. I know nothing about Stauskas, but we shouldn't give special considerations to Celtics prospects that we don't give to guys at a similar stage of development on other teams.

[LarBrd33]

I agree completely on the Stauskas/Smart point. I know nothing about Stauskas, but we shouldn't give special considerations to Celtics prospects that we don't give to guys at a similar stage of development on other teams.

Bottom line is that he was taken 8th a year ago.  Of all the temporary sitting duck garbage on Philly, only a few guys have real basketball pedigrees and Nik Stauskas is one of them.  They have every reason to be pumping developmental minutes into him, because he's one of the only guys on that entire team who theoretically can develop into a decent player.   

Lost in the muddle of this thread is the original post all this stems from.  Kendall Marshall's father apparently alluded to Nik Stauskas getting minutes over Marshall for race reasons...

Kendall Marshall's dad wondered on his private twitter account why Stauskus was still getting minutes and implied it was for racial reasons.

That's pretty stupid on a number of levels.  Devil's advocate, though... I should acknowledge that Marshall was a late lotto pick all the way back in 2012 and actually had a decent season on a terrible Laker team in which he averaged 8 points, 8.8 assists on 41%/40%/53% shooting... So I guess you could argue they should be trying to develop him too, but he's 24 years old and coming off a major injury.   Stauskas, is in his second season and there's some logic to some of his struggles.   If he doesn't show some signs this year, his career is going to be in a tough position... but I totally get why Philly would be letting him play through his mistakes right now.  That's exactly what a team in Philly's position should be doing with a prospect like Stauskas.

[BballTim]

Nik is just playing in his second year, being the 8th pick in last years draft. As of right now he has his ups and downs, as is to be expected of any young player, but the potential is still there to be an effective scorer in this league. Just look at the type of production he had during the clippers game: http://espn.go.com/nba/boxscore?id=400828392
Its clearly evident that Nik has a great future in the NBA, and Kendall at best is a second or third option the arguably worst team in NBA history.

I don't think it's clearly evident that a guy whose calling card is shooting but has career percentages of .359/.311/.796 has any kind of future in the NBA.

Did you intentionally add the "calling card is shooting" bit to shelter you from the rebuttal that Marcus Smart is shooting 34%/22%/70%?

This is kind of pathetic. Stauskas averages 1.2 turnovers and 1.7 assists. His defense has repeatedly been blasted by Brown

http://articles.philly.com/2015-12-16/sports/69065473_1_brett-brown-nik-stauskas-nerlens-noel
http://articles.philly.com/2015-11-18/sports/68356892_1_brett-brown-nik-stauskas-raft

He is possibly the worst rotation player in the NBA this season. He is supposed to decent at one thing and he hasn't been able to do that. You use that as a segway to bring in Marcus Smart's shooting percentages? Again, absolutely pathetic.

He is 302nd out of 324 qualified players for PER rating at 7.68

And he's coming off a game with 18 points, 4 rebounds and 3 assists with 6-8 shooting from three.

So it will be interesting to see if he finds a rhythm.

You have to know more about basketball based on how much you post here than you have exhibited in your last couple of posts...

What do you know about basketball? 

Not a question that should ever be asked by someone who wrote an enthusiastic post about the amazing potential of Anthony Bennett.

Mike

I liked Bennett's potential more than what was available at #16.   I'm still not sure Rozier has more potential than Anthony Bennett.  At best, it's a toss-up. 

I'd still probably trade Rozier for Stauskas.   Maybe that comment ends up looking stupid... i dunno...  Stauskas is coming off a game with 18 points, 4 rebounds, 3 assists with 6-8 shooting from three.   Rozier is coming off a game with 0 points, 0 rebounds, 1 assist with 0-1 shooting.   At gunpoint, I'm takin Sauce Castillo.  Sue me.

  He's probably referring to something like:

  http://forums.celticsblog.com/index.php?topic=72982.msg1718477#msg1718477

  "Shame about Wiggins and Bennett... both of them have really bright futures, imo.  I could see them both ending up stars.  Yes, even Bennett. "

Wow. I don't think someone could be more wrong about so many things if they tried.

You referring to my out-of-context comment in which I said the Cavs should have just kept Wiggins and Bennett instead of trading them for Love?   Funny that you choose to highlight this example when not even two years later there seems to be a widespread consensus agreement that the Cavs messed up and should have just kept Wiggins and Bennett.    Once again, I was ahead of the curve.  Thanks for pointing it out.

The Full quote was in reference to Cleveland giving up the young guys:

Shame about Wiggins and Bennett... both of them have really bright futures, imo.  I could see them both ending up stars.  Yes, even Bennett. It would have been a lot more fun watching them grow under LeBron's leadership.

Kyrie/LeBron/Love should dominant the east for the foreseeable future, though.  It would be interesting if Love got injured and Wiggins/Bennett reached their full potential in Minny.  It will be one of those ultimate "what-ifs"

  Just out of curiosity, are you really familiar with the phrase "out of context"? If so, how does the rest of that post change the meaning of what I quoted? Do you think the bolded "It would have been a lot more fun watching them grow under LeBron's leadership." somehow keeps "I could see them both ending up stars.  Yes, even Bennett." from meaning you could see Bennett ending up a star? If so, why?

One will never know what kind of future Bennett would have had with LeBron's mentorship.  Real shame.

  The fun never ends. If you read your quote (which you even bolded for emphasis), it says "It would have been a lot more fun watching them grow under LeBron's leadership". You're now operating under the impression that it reads "It will be a lot of fun watching them grow under LeBron's leadership".

 

False.  Post was made in the context of Cavs trading away Wiggins and Bennett.  Within context, I was saying that it was a shame, because it WOULD HAVE been a lot of fun watching them grow under LeBron's leadership.  Unfortunately, they never got the opportunity to grow under LeBron's leadership.  We'll never know how Bennett could have developed catching lobs from LeBron.  Who knows what could have happened.

  Ok, that's nice, but you don't seem to be able to keep up with the discussion. I never said anything about the Cavs trading away Wiggins and Bennett. I was pointing out that you said "Shame about Wiggins and Bennett... both of them have really bright futures, imo.  I could see them both ending up stars.  Yes, even Bennett", since you've recently been summarizing your praise of Bennett as "I suggested we might take a chance on him with the 16th pick". Clearly you were much higher on him than that.

  You then referred to my quote from your post (Shame about Wiggins and Bennett... both of them have really bright futures, imo.  I could see them both ending up stars.  Yes, even Bennett) as "out-of-context", apparently because you don't know what that phrase means.

  As an example, if I said "Ray's a good shooter but he's leaving the Celts to chase rings" and someone said "Tim said Ray's a good shooter" that's fine, but if I said "Rondo shoots free throws well in practice but not in games" and someone said "Tim said Rondo's a good free throw shooter", that would be taken out of context. It's out of context because the words removed from the quote change the meaning of what's used from the quote (Rondo is a good free throw shooter). That situation doesn't apply to your "Bennett has a really bright future and could be a star" comment, which *wasn't* taken out of context. Get it?

[LarBrd33]

Nik is just playing in his second year, being the 8th pick in last years draft. As of right now he has his ups and downs, as is to be expected of any young player, but the potential is still there to be an effective scorer in this league. Just look at the type of production he had during the clippers game: http://espn.go.com/nba/boxscore?id=400828392
Its clearly evident that Nik has a great future in the NBA, and Kendall at best is a second or third option the arguably worst team in NBA history.

I don't think it's clearly evident that a guy whose calling card is shooting but has career percentages of .359/.311/.796 has any kind of future in the NBA.

Did you intentionally add the "calling card is shooting" bit to shelter you from the rebuttal that Marcus Smart is shooting 34%/22%/70%?

This is kind of pathetic. Stauskas averages 1.2 turnovers and 1.7 assists. His defense has repeatedly been blasted by Brown

http://articles.philly.com/2015-12-16/sports/69065473_1_brett-brown-nik-stauskas-nerlens-noel
http://articles.philly.com/2015-11-18/sports/68356892_1_brett-brown-nik-stauskas-raft

He is possibly the worst rotation player in the NBA this season. He is supposed to decent at one thing and he hasn't been able to do that. You use that as a segway to bring in Marcus Smart's shooting percentages? Again, absolutely pathetic.

He is 302nd out of 324 qualified players for PER rating at 7.68

And he's coming off a game with 18 points, 4 rebounds and 3 assists with 6-8 shooting from three.

So it will be interesting to see if he finds a rhythm.

You have to know more about basketball based on how much you post here than you have exhibited in your last couple of posts...

What do you know about basketball? 

Not a question that should ever be asked by someone who wrote an enthusiastic post about the amazing potential of Anthony Bennett.

Mike

I liked Bennett's potential more than what was available at #16.   I'm still not sure Rozier has more potential than Anthony Bennett.  At best, it's a toss-up. 

I'd still probably trade Rozier for Stauskas.   Maybe that comment ends up looking stupid... i dunno...  Stauskas is coming off a game with 18 points, 4 rebounds, 3 assists with 6-8 shooting from three.   Rozier is coming off a game with 0 points, 0 rebounds, 1 assist with 0-1 shooting.   At gunpoint, I'm takin Sauce Castillo.  Sue me.

  He's probably referring to something like:

  http://forums.celticsblog.com/index.php?topic=72982.msg1718477#msg1718477

  "Shame about Wiggins and Bennett... both of them have really bright futures, imo.  I could see them both ending up stars.  Yes, even Bennett. "

Wow. I don't think someone could be more wrong about so many things if they tried.

You referring to my out-of-context comment in which I said the Cavs should have just kept Wiggins and Bennett instead of trading them for Love?   Funny that you choose to highlight this example when not even two years later there seems to be a widespread consensus agreement that the Cavs messed up and should have just kept Wiggins and Bennett.    Once again, I was ahead of the curve.  Thanks for pointing it out.

The Full quote was in reference to Cleveland giving up the young guys:

Shame about Wiggins and Bennett... both of them have really bright futures, imo.  I could see them both ending up stars.  Yes, even Bennett. It would have been a lot more fun watching them grow under LeBron's leadership.

Kyrie/LeBron/Love should dominant the east for the foreseeable future, though.  It would be interesting if Love got injured and Wiggins/Bennett reached their full potential in Minny.  It will be one of those ultimate "what-ifs"

  Just out of curiosity, are you really familiar with the phrase "out of context"? If so, how does the rest of that post change the meaning of what I quoted? Do you think the bolded "It would have been a lot more fun watching them grow under LeBron's leadership." somehow keeps "I could see them both ending up stars.  Yes, even Bennett." from meaning you could see Bennett ending up a star? If so, why?

One will never know what kind of future Bennett would have had with LeBron's mentorship.  Real shame.

  The fun never ends. If you read your quote (which you even bolded for emphasis), it says "It would have been a lot more fun watching them grow under LeBron's leadership". You're now operating under the impression that it reads "It will be a lot of fun watching them grow under LeBron's leadership".

 

False.  Post was made in the context of Cavs trading away Wiggins and Bennett.  Within context, I was saying that it was a shame, because it WOULD HAVE been a lot of fun watching them grow under LeBron's leadership.  Unfortunately, they never got the opportunity to grow under LeBron's leadership.  We'll never know how Bennett could have developed catching lobs from LeBron.  Who knows what could have happened.

  Ok, that's nice, but you don't seem to be able to keep up with the discussion. I never said anything about the Cavs trading away Wiggins and Bennett. I was pointing out that you said "Shame about Wiggins and Bennett... both of them have really bright futures, imo.  I could see them both ending up stars.  Yes, even Bennett", since you've recently been summarizing your praise of Bennett as "I suggested we might take a chance on him with the 16th pick". Clearly you were much higher on him than that.

Depends on when you're talking about.   On draft night, the Cavs were apparently high enough on him that they took him #1 in the entire freakin draft.

At the time of the comment you're taking out of context, Bennett and Wiggins were on the verge of being traded for Kevin Love and I could still see a scenario where Bennett ended up a star.  It probably wasn't going to happen without Bron's guidance.   [dang] shame.   There was a path there for Bennett to be really good.  At the time I could imagine it happening.   At this point, he's probably not going to do anything in this league, but there's enough potential there that I could still see him having a career.

Also, side note... it's nice to see you back on the forum now that Rondo is back to putting up empty stats on a losing team again.  I missed you, Tim.  Good to have you back in the fold. 

[greenrunsdeep41]

Nik is just playing in his second year, being the 8th pick in last years draft. As of right now he has his ups and downs, as is to be expected of any young player, but the potential is still there to be an effective scorer in this league. Just look at the type of production he had during the clippers game: http://espn.go.com/nba/boxscore?id=400828392
Its clearly evident that Nik has a great future in the NBA, and Kendall at best is a second or third option the arguably worst team in NBA history.

I don't think it's clearly evident that a guy whose calling card is shooting but has career percentages of .359/.311/.796 has any kind of future in the NBA.

Did you intentionally add the "calling card is shooting" bit to shelter you from the rebuttal that Marcus Smart is shooting 34%/22%/70%?

This is kind of pathetic. Stauskas averages 1.2 turnovers and 1.7 assists. His defense has repeatedly been blasted by Brown

http://articles.philly.com/2015-12-16/sports/69065473_1_brett-brown-nik-stauskas-nerlens-noel
http://articles.philly.com/2015-11-18/sports/68356892_1_brett-brown-nik-stauskas-raft

He is possibly the worst rotation player in the NBA this season. He is supposed to decent at one thing and he hasn't been able to do that. You use that as a segway to bring in Marcus Smart's shooting percentages? Again, absolutely pathetic.

He is 302nd out of 324 qualified players for PER rating at 7.68

And he's coming off a game with 18 points, 4 rebounds and 3 assists with 6-8 shooting from three.

So it will be interesting to see if he finds a rhythm.

You have to know more about basketball based on how much you post here than you have exhibited in your last couple of posts...

What do you know about basketball? 

Not a question that should ever be asked by someone who wrote an enthusiastic post about the amazing potential of Anthony Bennett.

Mike

I liked Bennett's potential more than what was available at #16.   I'm still not sure Rozier has more potential than Anthony Bennett.  At best, it's a toss-up. 

I'd still probably trade Rozier for Stauskas.   Maybe that comment ends up looking stupid... i dunno...  Stauskas is coming off a game with 18 points, 4 rebounds, 3 assists with 6-8 shooting from three.   Rozier is coming off a game with 0 points, 0 rebounds, 1 assist with 0-1 shooting.   At gunpoint, I'm takin Sauce Castillo.  Sue me.

  He's probably referring to something like:

  http://forums.celticsblog.com/index.php?topic=72982.msg1718477#msg1718477

  "Shame about Wiggins and Bennett... both of them have really bright futures, imo.  I could see them both ending up stars.  Yes, even Bennett. "

Wow. I don't think someone could be more wrong about so many things if they tried.

You referring to my out-of-context comment in which I said the Cavs should have just kept Wiggins and Bennett instead of trading them for Love?   Funny that you choose to highlight this example when not even two years later there seems to be a widespread consensus agreement that the Cavs messed up and should have just kept Wiggins and Bennett.    Once again, I was ahead of the curve.  Thanks for pointing it out.

The Full quote was in reference to Cleveland giving up the young guys:

Shame about Wiggins and Bennett... both of them have really bright futures, imo.  I could see them both ending up stars.  Yes, even Bennett. It would have been a lot more fun watching them grow under LeBron's leadership.

Kyrie/LeBron/Love should dominant the east for the foreseeable future, though.  It would be interesting if Love got injured and Wiggins/Bennett reached their full potential in Minny.  It will be one of those ultimate "what-ifs"

  Just out of curiosity, are you really familiar with the phrase "out of context"? If so, how does the rest of that post change the meaning of what I quoted? Do you think the bolded "It would have been a lot more fun watching them grow under LeBron's leadership." somehow keeps "I could see them both ending up stars.  Yes, even Bennett." from meaning you could see Bennett ending up a star? If so, why?

One will never know what kind of future Bennett would have had with LeBron's mentorship.  Real shame.

  The fun never ends. If you read your quote (which you even bolded for emphasis), it says "It would have been a lot more fun watching them grow under LeBron's leadership". You're now operating under the impression that it reads "It will be a lot of fun watching them grow under LeBron's leadership".

 

False.  Post was made in the context of Cavs trading away Wiggins and Bennett.  Within context, I was saying that it was a shame, because it WOULD HAVE been a lot of fun watching them grow under LeBron's leadership.  Unfortunately, they never got the opportunity to grow under LeBron's leadership.  We'll never know how Bennett could have developed catching lobs from LeBron.  Who knows what could have happened.

  Ok, that's nice, but you don't seem to be able to keep up with the discussion. I never said anything about the Cavs trading away Wiggins and Bennett. I was pointing out that you said "Shame about Wiggins and Bennett... both of them have really bright futures, imo.  I could see them both ending up stars.  Yes, even Bennett", since you've recently been summarizing your praise of Bennett as "I suggested we might take a chance on him with the 16th pick". Clearly you were much higher on him than that.

Depends on when you're talking about.   On draft night, the Cavs were apparently high enough on him that they took him #1 in the entire freakin draft.

At the time of the comment you're taking out of context, Bennett and Wiggins were on the verge of being traded for Kevin Love and I could still see a scenario where Bennett ended up a star.  It probably wasn't going to happen without Bron's guidance.   [dang] shame.   There was a path there for Bennett to be really good.  At the time I could imagine it happening.   At this point, he's probably not going to do anything in this league, but there's enough potential there that I could still see him having a career.

Also, side note... it's nice to see you back on the forum now that Rondo is back to putting up empty stats on a losing team again.  I missed you, Tim.  Good to have you back in the fold.

Lar youre actually incorrect here if we are drawing at straws, as you are. You just described paraphrasing. For something to be taken out of context you need to be directly quoting. Especially in the manner that you are describing it. Not in all cases but the way you just described it was incorrect.

[LarBrd33]

Nik is just playing in his second year, being the 8th pick in last years draft. As of right now he has his ups and downs, as is to be expected of any young player, but the potential is still there to be an effective scorer in this league. Just look at the type of production he had during the clippers game: http://espn.go.com/nba/boxscore?id=400828392
Its clearly evident that Nik has a great future in the NBA, and Kendall at best is a second or third option the arguably worst team in NBA history.

I don't think it's clearly evident that a guy whose calling card is shooting but has career percentages of .359/.311/.796 has any kind of future in the NBA.

Did you intentionally add the "calling card is shooting" bit to shelter you from the rebuttal that Marcus Smart is shooting 34%/22%/70%?

This is kind of pathetic. Stauskas averages 1.2 turnovers and 1.7 assists. His defense has repeatedly been blasted by Brown

http://articles.philly.com/2015-12-16/sports/69065473_1_brett-brown-nik-stauskas-nerlens-noel
http://articles.philly.com/2015-11-18/sports/68356892_1_brett-brown-nik-stauskas-raft

He is possibly the worst rotation player in the NBA this season. He is supposed to decent at one thing and he hasn't been able to do that. You use that as a segway to bring in Marcus Smart's shooting percentages? Again, absolutely pathetic.

He is 302nd out of 324 qualified players for PER rating at 7.68

And he's coming off a game with 18 points, 4 rebounds and 3 assists with 6-8 shooting from three.

So it will be interesting to see if he finds a rhythm.

You have to know more about basketball based on how much you post here than you have exhibited in your last couple of posts...

What do you know about basketball? 

Not a question that should ever be asked by someone who wrote an enthusiastic post about the amazing potential of Anthony Bennett.

Mike

I liked Bennett's potential more than what was available at #16.   I'm still not sure Rozier has more potential than Anthony Bennett.  At best, it's a toss-up. 

I'd still probably trade Rozier for Stauskas.   Maybe that comment ends up looking stupid... i dunno...  Stauskas is coming off a game with 18 points, 4 rebounds, 3 assists with 6-8 shooting from three.   Rozier is coming off a game with 0 points, 0 rebounds, 1 assist with 0-1 shooting.   At gunpoint, I'm takin Sauce Castillo.  Sue me.

  He's probably referring to something like:

  http://forums.celticsblog.com/index.php?topic=72982.msg1718477#msg1718477

  "Shame about Wiggins and Bennett... both of them have really bright futures, imo.  I could see them both ending up stars.  Yes, even Bennett. "

Wow. I don't think someone could be more wrong about so many things if they tried.

You referring to my out-of-context comment in which I said the Cavs should have just kept Wiggins and Bennett instead of trading them for Love?   Funny that you choose to highlight this example when not even two years later there seems to be a widespread consensus agreement that the Cavs messed up and should have just kept Wiggins and Bennett.    Once again, I was ahead of the curve.  Thanks for pointing it out.

The Full quote was in reference to Cleveland giving up the young guys:

Shame about Wiggins and Bennett... both of them have really bright futures, imo.  I could see them both ending up stars.  Yes, even Bennett. It would have been a lot more fun watching them grow under LeBron's leadership.

Kyrie/LeBron/Love should dominant the east for the foreseeable future, though.  It would be interesting if Love got injured and Wiggins/Bennett reached their full potential in Minny.  It will be one of those ultimate "what-ifs"

  Just out of curiosity, are you really familiar with the phrase "out of context"? If so, how does the rest of that post change the meaning of what I quoted? Do you think the bolded "It would have been a lot more fun watching them grow under LeBron's leadership." somehow keeps "I could see them both ending up stars.  Yes, even Bennett." from meaning you could see Bennett ending up a star? If so, why?

One will never know what kind of future Bennett would have had with LeBron's mentorship.  Real shame.

  The fun never ends. If you read your quote (which you even bolded for emphasis), it says "It would have been a lot more fun watching them grow under LeBron's leadership". You're now operating under the impression that it reads "It will be a lot of fun watching them grow under LeBron's leadership".

 

False.  Post was made in the context of Cavs trading away Wiggins and Bennett.  Within context, I was saying that it was a shame, because it WOULD HAVE been a lot of fun watching them grow under LeBron's leadership.  Unfortunately, they never got the opportunity to grow under LeBron's leadership.  We'll never know how Bennett could have developed catching lobs from LeBron.  Who knows what could have happened.

  Ok, that's nice, but you don't seem to be able to keep up with the discussion. I never said anything about the Cavs trading away Wiggins and Bennett. I was pointing out that you said "Shame about Wiggins and Bennett... both of them have really bright futures, imo.  I could see them both ending up stars.  Yes, even Bennett", since you've recently been summarizing your praise of Bennett as "I suggested we might take a chance on him with the 16th pick". Clearly you were much higher on him than that.

Depends on when you're talking about.   On draft night, the Cavs were apparently high enough on him that they took him #1 in the entire freakin draft.

At the time of the comment you're taking out of context, Bennett and Wiggins were on the verge of being traded for Kevin Love and I could still see a scenario where Bennett ended up a star.  It probably wasn't going to happen without Bron's guidance.   [dang] shame.   There was a path there for Bennett to be really good.  At the time I could imagine it happening.   At this point, he's probably not going to do anything in this league, but there's enough potential there that I could still see him having a career.

Also, side note... it's nice to see you back on the forum now that Rondo is back to putting up empty stats on a losing team again.  I missed you, Tim.  Good to have you back in the fold.

Lar youre actually incorrect here if we are drawing at straws, as you are. You just described paraphrasing. For something to be taken out of context you need to be directly quoting. Especially in the manner that you are describing it. Not in all cases but the way you just described it was incorrect.

Eh

context is a noun that means the set of facts or circumstances that surround a situation.

My comment about Bennett was in fact taken out of context.  The context in which it was stated was that Bennett and Wiggins were about to be traded and I was saying it was a shame, because it would have been nice to see them develop under LeBron tutelage.  At the time of making that comment, I could still imagine a scenario in which Bennett could develop into a star... though it was unlikely to happen without Bron's guidance. 

Not surprising ...Boston really isn't in the hunt anymore anyway.....that ship sailed ...It's to,late for DA to assemble a quality team around him at this point....
...
Poor Wiggins ..... Had a chance to play with Irvin and LeBron .......and now being sent to Siberia under a Rookie Contact to serve his NBA  sentence

Shame about Wiggins and Bennett... both of them have really bright futures, imo.  I could see them both ending up stars.  Yes, even Bennett.  It would have been a lot more fun watching them grow under LeBron's leadership.

Kyrie/LeBron/Love should dominant the east for the foreseeable future, though.  It would be interesting if Love got injured and Wiggins/Bennett reached their full potential in Minny.  It will be one of those ultimate "what-ifs"

It's being taken out of context without the surrounding context to suggest "har har LarBrd33 thought Bennett was going to be a star".  Nah.  Just because I can see something happening doesn't mean I expect it to happen.  I could see Boston win 50 games this year.  I could see them end up in the lotto.   Both seem pretty plausible scenarios at this current point in time. 

Of course, someone now might take that out of context and say "LarBrd33 expected the Celtics to end up in the lotto... har har har"

[BballTim]

Nik is just playing in his second year, being the 8th pick in last years draft. As of right now he has his ups and downs, as is to be expected of any young player, but the potential is still there to be an effective scorer in this league. Just look at the type of production he had during the clippers game: http://espn.go.com/nba/boxscore?id=400828392
Its clearly evident that Nik has a great future in the NBA, and Kendall at best is a second or third option the arguably worst team in NBA history.

I don't think it's clearly evident that a guy whose calling card is shooting but has career percentages of .359/.311/.796 has any kind of future in the NBA.

Did you intentionally add the "calling card is shooting" bit to shelter you from the rebuttal that Marcus Smart is shooting 34%/22%/70%?

This is kind of pathetic. Stauskas averages 1.2 turnovers and 1.7 assists. His defense has repeatedly been blasted by Brown

http://articles.philly.com/2015-12-16/sports/69065473_1_brett-brown-nik-stauskas-nerlens-noel
http://articles.philly.com/2015-11-18/sports/68356892_1_brett-brown-nik-stauskas-raft

He is possibly the worst rotation player in the NBA this season. He is supposed to decent at one thing and he hasn't been able to do that. You use that as a segway to bring in Marcus Smart's shooting percentages? Again, absolutely pathetic.

He is 302nd out of 324 qualified players for PER rating at 7.68

And he's coming off a game with 18 points, 4 rebounds and 3 assists with 6-8 shooting from three.

So it will be interesting to see if he finds a rhythm.

You have to know more about basketball based on how much you post here than you have exhibited in your last couple of posts...

What do you know about basketball? 

Not a question that should ever be asked by someone who wrote an enthusiastic post about the amazing potential of Anthony Bennett.

Mike

I liked Bennett's potential more than what was available at #16.   I'm still not sure Rozier has more potential than Anthony Bennett.  At best, it's a toss-up. 

I'd still probably trade Rozier for Stauskas.   Maybe that comment ends up looking stupid... i dunno...  Stauskas is coming off a game with 18 points, 4 rebounds, 3 assists with 6-8 shooting from three.   Rozier is coming off a game with 0 points, 0 rebounds, 1 assist with 0-1 shooting.   At gunpoint, I'm takin Sauce Castillo.  Sue me.

  He's probably referring to something like:

  http://forums.celticsblog.com/index.php?topic=72982.msg1718477#msg1718477

  "Shame about Wiggins and Bennett... both of them have really bright futures, imo.  I could see them both ending up stars.  Yes, even Bennett. "

Wow. I don't think someone could be more wrong about so many things if they tried.

You referring to my out-of-context comment in which I said the Cavs should have just kept Wiggins and Bennett instead of trading them for Love?   Funny that you choose to highlight this example when not even two years later there seems to be a widespread consensus agreement that the Cavs messed up and should have just kept Wiggins and Bennett.    Once again, I was ahead of the curve.  Thanks for pointing it out.

The Full quote was in reference to Cleveland giving up the young guys:

Shame about Wiggins and Bennett... both of them have really bright futures, imo.  I could see them both ending up stars.  Yes, even Bennett. It would have been a lot more fun watching them grow under LeBron's leadership.

Kyrie/LeBron/Love should dominant the east for the foreseeable future, though.  It would be interesting if Love got injured and Wiggins/Bennett reached their full potential in Minny.  It will be one of those ultimate "what-ifs"

  Just out of curiosity, are you really familiar with the phrase "out of context"? If so, how does the rest of that post change the meaning of what I quoted? Do you think the bolded "It would have been a lot more fun watching them grow under LeBron's leadership." somehow keeps "I could see them both ending up stars.  Yes, even Bennett." from meaning you could see Bennett ending up a star? If so, why?

One will never know what kind of future Bennett would have had with LeBron's mentorship.  Real shame.

  The fun never ends. If you read your quote (which you even bolded for emphasis), it says "It would have been a lot more fun watching them grow under LeBron's leadership". You're now operating under the impression that it reads "It will be a lot of fun watching them grow under LeBron's leadership".

 

False.  Post was made in the context of Cavs trading away Wiggins and Bennett.  Within context, I was saying that it was a shame, because it WOULD HAVE been a lot of fun watching them grow under LeBron's leadership.  Unfortunately, they never got the opportunity to grow under LeBron's leadership.  We'll never know how Bennett could have developed catching lobs from LeBron.  Who knows what could have happened.

  Ok, that's nice, but you don't seem to be able to keep up with the discussion. I never said anything about the Cavs trading away Wiggins and Bennett. I was pointing out that you said "Shame about Wiggins and Bennett... both of them have really bright futures, imo.  I could see them both ending up stars.  Yes, even Bennett", since you've recently been summarizing your praise of Bennett as "I suggested we might take a chance on him with the 16th pick". Clearly you were much higher on him than that.

Depends on when you're talking about.   On draft night, the Cavs were apparently high enough on him that they took him #1 in the entire freakin draft.

  Again, if you could keep up with the discussion, we're talking about a comment you made about Bennett. The "when" is obviously when you made the comment.

At the time of the comment you're taking out of context

  It's still not taken out of context. This is from your playbook, making the same specious claim over and over and then deciding your claim is a fact because you said it a lot. You haven't explained why you think it's out of context, just that there were other sentences in your original post that don't affect the veracity of the quote I used.

Bennett and Wiggins were on the verge of being traded for Kevin Love and I could still see a scenario where Bennett ended up a star.  It probably wasn't going to happen without Bron's guidance.   [dang] shame.   There was a path there for Bennett to be really good.  At the time I could imagine it happening.   At this point, he's probably not going to do anything in this league, but there's enough potential there that I could still see him having a career.

  Just out of curiosity, how much evidence is there that LeBron guides players to stardom? I mean, it's clear that players frequently play better with LeBron on the court because he attracts so much attention from the defense, but mentored into stardom? Who has he guided to take the jump from Bennett's level to that of a star?

[LarBrd33]

No thanks, Tim.  Peddle your straw man elsewhere.

[BballTim]

Nik is just playing in his second year, being the 8th pick in last years draft. As of right now he has his ups and downs, as is to be expected of any young player, but the potential is still there to be an effective scorer in this league. Just look at the type of production he had during the clippers game: http://espn.go.com/nba/boxscore?id=400828392
Its clearly evident that Nik has a great future in the NBA, and Kendall at best is a second or third option the arguably worst team in NBA history.

I don't think it's clearly evident that a guy whose calling card is shooting but has career percentages of .359/.311/.796 has any kind of future in the NBA.

Did you intentionally add the "calling card is shooting" bit to shelter you from the rebuttal that Marcus Smart is shooting 34%/22%/70%?

This is kind of pathetic. Stauskas averages 1.2 turnovers and 1.7 assists. His defense has repeatedly been blasted by Brown

http://articles.philly.com/2015-12-16/sports/69065473_1_brett-brown-nik-stauskas-nerlens-noel
http://articles.philly.com/2015-11-18/sports/68356892_1_brett-brown-nik-stauskas-raft

He is possibly the worst rotation player in the NBA this season. He is supposed to decent at one thing and he hasn't been able to do that. You use that as a segway to bring in Marcus Smart's shooting percentages? Again, absolutely pathetic.

He is 302nd out of 324 qualified players for PER rating at 7.68

And he's coming off a game with 18 points, 4 rebounds and 3 assists with 6-8 shooting from three.

So it will be interesting to see if he finds a rhythm.

You have to know more about basketball based on how much you post here than you have exhibited in your last couple of posts...

What do you know about basketball? 

Not a question that should ever be asked by someone who wrote an enthusiastic post about the amazing potential of Anthony Bennett.

Mike

I liked Bennett's potential more than what was available at #16.   I'm still not sure Rozier has more potential than Anthony Bennett.  At best, it's a toss-up. 

I'd still probably trade Rozier for Stauskas.   Maybe that comment ends up looking stupid... i dunno...  Stauskas is coming off a game with 18 points, 4 rebounds, 3 assists with 6-8 shooting from three.   Rozier is coming off a game with 0 points, 0 rebounds, 1 assist with 0-1 shooting.   At gunpoint, I'm takin Sauce Castillo.  Sue me.

  He's probably referring to something like:

  http://forums.celticsblog.com/index.php?topic=72982.msg1718477#msg1718477

  "Shame about Wiggins and Bennett... both of them have really bright futures, imo.  I could see them both ending up stars.  Yes, even Bennett. "

Wow. I don't think someone could be more wrong about so many things if they tried.

You referring to my out-of-context comment in which I said the Cavs should have just kept Wiggins and Bennett instead of trading them for Love?   Funny that you choose to highlight this example when not even two years later there seems to be a widespread consensus agreement that the Cavs messed up and should have just kept Wiggins and Bennett.    Once again, I was ahead of the curve.  Thanks for pointing it out.

The Full quote was in reference to Cleveland giving up the young guys:

Shame about Wiggins and Bennett... both of them have really bright futures, imo.  I could see them both ending up stars.  Yes, even Bennett. It would have been a lot more fun watching them grow under LeBron's leadership.

Kyrie/LeBron/Love should dominant the east for the foreseeable future, though.  It would be interesting if Love got injured and Wiggins/Bennett reached their full potential in Minny.  It will be one of those ultimate "what-ifs"

  Just out of curiosity, are you really familiar with the phrase "out of context"? If so, how does the rest of that post change the meaning of what I quoted? Do you think the bolded "It would have been a lot more fun watching them grow under LeBron's leadership." somehow keeps "I could see them both ending up stars.  Yes, even Bennett." from meaning you could see Bennett ending up a star? If so, why?

One will never know what kind of future Bennett would have had with LeBron's mentorship.  Real shame.

  The fun never ends. If you read your quote (which you even bolded for emphasis), it says "It would have been a lot more fun watching them grow under LeBron's leadership". You're now operating under the impression that it reads "It will be a lot of fun watching them grow under LeBron's leadership".

 

False.  Post was made in the context of Cavs trading away Wiggins and Bennett.  Within context, I was saying that it was a shame, because it WOULD HAVE been a lot of fun watching them grow under LeBron's leadership.  Unfortunately, they never got the opportunity to grow under LeBron's leadership.  We'll never know how Bennett could have developed catching lobs from LeBron.  Who knows what could have happened.

  Ok, that's nice, but you don't seem to be able to keep up with the discussion. I never said anything about the Cavs trading away Wiggins and Bennett. I was pointing out that you said "Shame about Wiggins and Bennett... both of them have really bright futures, imo.  I could see them both ending up stars.  Yes, even Bennett", since you've recently been summarizing your praise of Bennett as "I suggested we might take a chance on him with the 16th pick". Clearly you were much higher on him than that.

Depends on when you're talking about.   On draft night, the Cavs were apparently high enough on him that they took him #1 in the entire freakin draft.

At the time of the comment you're taking out of context, Bennett and Wiggins were on the verge of being traded for Kevin Love and I could still see a scenario where Bennett ended up a star.  It probably wasn't going to happen without Bron's guidance.   [dang] shame.   There was a path there for Bennett to be really good.  At the time I could imagine it happening.   At this point, he's probably not going to do anything in this league, but there's enough potential there that I could still see him having a career.

Also, side note... it's nice to see you back on the forum now that Rondo is back to putting up empty stats on a losing team again.  I missed you, Tim.  Good to have you back in the fold.

Lar youre actually incorrect here if we are drawing at straws, as you are. You just described paraphrasing. For something to be taken out of context you need to be directly quoting. Especially in the manner that you are describing it. Not in all cases but the way you just described it was incorrect.

Eh

context is a noun that means the set of facts or circumstances that surround a situation.

My comment about Bennett was in fact taken out of context.  The context in which it was stated was that Bennett and Wiggins were about to be traded and I was saying it was a shame, because it would have been nice to see them develop under LeBron tutelage.  At the time of making that comment, I could still imagine a scenario in which Bennett could develop into a star... though it was unlikely to happen without Bron's guidance. 

  Here's your quote:

"Shame about Wiggins and Bennett... both of them have really bright futures, imo.  I could see them both ending up stars.  Yes, even Bennett.  It would have been a lot more fun watching them grow under LeBron's leadership."
 
   The "bright futures" and "could see them both ending up stars" are talking about Bennett and Wiggins playing without LeBron, in fact you say so explicitly in the next sentence (*would have been* fun watching them grow under LeBron and not *will be* fun). You thought that even without LeBron Bennett had a "really bright future" and could become a star, although you didn't say how likely it was he'd be a star. Key point though, since you're talking about their futures without LeBron and not with LeBron, nothing's being taken out of context. It's still a case of your not knowing what the phrase means.

Not surprising ...Boston really isn't in the hunt anymore anyway.....that ship sailed ...It's to,late for DA to assemble a quality team around him at this point....
...
Poor Wiggins ..... Had a chance to play with Irvin and LeBron .......and now being sent to Siberia under a Rookie Contact to serve his NBA  sentence

Shame about Wiggins and Bennett... both of them have really bright futures, imo.  I could see them both ending up stars.  Yes, even Bennett.  It would have been a lot more fun watching them grow under LeBron's leadership.

Kyrie/LeBron/Love should dominant the east for the foreseeable future, though.  It would be interesting if Love got injured and Wiggins/Bennett reached their full potential in Minny.  It will be one of those ultimate "what-ifs"

It's being taken out of context without the surrounding context to suggest "har har LarBrd33 thought Bennett was going to be a star".

  No, that's obviously not what anyone said. Your claiming that Bennett had a really bright future and could be a star was funny enough.

[BballTim]

No thanks, Tim.  Peddle your straw man elsewhere.

  Is the straw man my asking you if LeBron had ever done for another player what you were expecting him to do for Bennett? If so, that might be another phrase you should study up on before you use.

[chambers]

Tim lives!  TP!

[LarBrd33]

No thanks, Tim.  Peddle your straw man elsewhere.

  Is the straw man my asking you if LeBron had ever done for another player what you were expecting him to do for Bennett? If so, that might be another phrase you should study up on before you use.

Classic straw man

[greenrunsdeep41]

No thanks, Tim.  Peddle your straw man elsewhere.

  Is the straw man my asking you if LeBron had ever done for another player what you were expecting him to do for Bennett? If so, that might be another phrase you should study up on before you use.

Classic straw man

troll

[LarBrd33]

No thanks, Tim.  Peddle your straw man elsewhere.

  Is the straw man my asking you if LeBron had ever done for another player what you were expecting him to do for Bennett? If so, that might be another phrase you should study up on before you use.

Classic straw man

troll

There's just no point in debating about Lebron's tutoring ability in a thread about Nik stauskas getting minutes over Kendall Marshall for racial reasons.   I've been down that rabbit hole with Tim before. Hard pass.

[wiley]

Nik is just playing in his second year, being the 8th pick in last years draft. As of right now he has his ups and downs, as is to be expected of any young player, but the potential is still there to be an effective scorer in this league. Just look at the type of production he had during the clippers game: http://espn.go.com/nba/boxscore?id=400828392
Its clearly evident that Nik has a great future in the NBA, and Kendall at best is a second or third option the arguably worst team in NBA history.

I don't think it's clearly evident that a guy whose calling card is shooting but has career percentages of .359/.311/.796 has any kind of future in the NBA.

Did you intentionally add the "calling card is shooting" bit to shelter you from the rebuttal that Marcus Smart is shooting 34%/22%/70%?

This is kind of pathetic. Stauskas averages 1.2 turnovers and 1.7 assists. His defense has repeatedly been blasted by Brown

http://articles.philly.com/2015-12-16/sports/69065473_1_brett-brown-nik-stauskas-nerlens-noel
http://articles.philly.com/2015-11-18/sports/68356892_1_brett-brown-nik-stauskas-raft

He is possibly the worst rotation player in the NBA this season. He is supposed to decent at one thing and he hasn't been able to do that. You use that as a segway to bring in Marcus Smart's shooting percentages? Again, absolutely pathetic.

He is 302nd out of 324 qualified players for PER rating at 7.68

And he's coming off a game with 18 points, 4 rebounds and 3 assists with 6-8 shooting from three.

So it will be interesting to see if he finds a rhythm.

You have to know more about basketball based on how much you post here than you have exhibited in your last couple of posts...

What do you know about basketball? 

Not a question that should ever be asked by someone who wrote an enthusiastic post about the amazing potential of Anthony Bennett.

Mike

I liked Bennett's potential more than what was available at #16.   I'm still not sure Rozier has more potential than Anthony Bennett.  At best, it's a toss-up. 

I'd still probably trade Rozier for Stauskas.   Maybe that comment ends up looking stupid... i dunno...  Stauskas is coming off a game with 18 points, 4 rebounds, 3 assists with 6-8 shooting from three.   Rozier is coming off a game with 0 points, 0 rebounds, 1 assist with 0-1 shooting.   At gunpoint, I'm takin Sauce Castillo.  Sue me.

  He's probably referring to something like:

  http://forums.celticsblog.com/index.php?topic=72982.msg1718477#msg1718477

  "Shame about Wiggins and Bennett... both of them have really bright futures, imo.  I could see them both ending up stars.  Yes, even Bennett. "

Wow. I don't think someone could be more wrong about so many things if they tried. Player evaluations and team record predictions are clearly not his forte. To his credit, he continues offering misguided, yet highly confident opinions, despite his track record.

Perhaps LrdBrd would have been close to correct IF the guard with the best defensive RPM and 10th best overall real plus minus for guards had not gotten injured.  His name is Rondae Hollis-Jefferson.  And to think he was taken at #23 and we could have had him instead of Terry Rozier at #16!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Smitty77

There's a transparent little clique of rabblerousers who LooOoOoooove taking what I say out of context.   Most just have an ax to grind, because I made their stances on guys like Rondo look silly over the past 10 years in countless of other debates and they are looking for something to cling to that makes me look equally as silly.  Trust me, I'll make myself look silly plenty of times without the out-of-context rabblerousing. No need to grasp at straws.  I stand by everything I say on these forums.  I'm not always right, but I'm right far more often than I'm wrong. I shall not be making any apologies for thinkin it was potentially worthwhile to dump the #16 pick for a buy-low candidate like Bennett or Stauskas... certainly not while Rozier is spending all of his time in the children's league, because he's not ready to sniff an NBA court.

OP asked why Philly still plays Stauskas.   I answered.   Kid still has potential.  Gotta give him a shot to see if he can live up to it.  He probably won't, but you still gotta see if he does.  I liked Stauksas potential more than the potential of what was available at #16... I like Stauskas potential more than Rozier's potential.  Is what it is.

One comment and a few questions for you LB.

Comment: There was zero reason to bring up Smart in this thread.  Stop fighting against your imaginary enemy (people who like what Smart brings to a basketball court).

Questions:  What is about Stauskas that encourages you to say: Kid Still has potential, and then not be able to utter the same about Terry Rozier?  I agree with you that Stauskas still has potential.  Why don't you agree with me that Rozier does?  My opinion on the matter is that Rozier has much more longterm potential than Stauskas because he can bring it on defense.  For example, I'll bet he could shut Stauskas down pretty well and I'll bet Stauskas couldn't shut Rozier down.  Of course there's more to it...the guys have to play in a system and to me the jury's out on who does that better...

And lastly, you were very high on Ben MacLemore during a time when you were calling AB "our trash". It's pretty clear that AB is and never was trash.  He was young and inexperienced and had a lot of injuries.  But AB aside, who would you take today, MacLemore or Stauskas?

First a comment on your comment.   Bringing up Smart's dismal offensive performance is less about dumping on him as a player (I'm a fan... he's still our most valuable trade asset) and more about pointing out the hypocrisy of Celtic fans claiming guys like Nik Stauskas will never be better than they currently are.   The point whooshes over most heads, because it's a combative bunch of fans who get their feathers ruffled anytime anyone says anything realistic about whoever happens to be wearing a Celtic jersey this year.  OP said he didn't understand why Stauskas was still playing minutes.   It's because Stauskas still conceivably will improve... just like Smart conceivably will improve. 

Did I call Avery Bradley trash?  I've never been big on AB, but I don't recall calling him trash.   He's been impressive this year, though... put up some really impressive numbers and has developed into a really solid two-way guy.  There was a stretch this year where he played like a borderline all-star.

I'd take McLemore over Stauskas.  McLemore is shooting really well this year.  I liked McLemore way more than Stauskas last year as well even in the face of the majority of this board claiming Stauskas was going to be vastly superior.  I didn't buy it.   I had Stauskas 10th on my draft board.  I was never a big fan.   But the kid obviously had some potential.  He still obviously has some potential.  I like his potential more than Rozier's potential.

OK thanks for answering.  I feel like Ben McL.  is just not cutting it over in Sac and if they had a better SG starting they'd fare a lot better.  Rondo, Bradley, Casspi (great year), Gay, Cousins.  would be a handful for any team, especially if WCS can put together some decent production/defense.

Can we agree that if Ben Mac were on the Celtcs you'd have lost hope?   

No.   Because I always have a soft spot for guys who shoot high percentages.  It's why I have consistently shown faith in Kelly Olynyk and repeatedly said I would love to see him average 30+ minutes per night, because I believe he's capable of averaging 17 and 7.   With McLemore, I feel like a lot of it is role.  He still has potential.  WIth Olynyk, it's a gluttony of mediocre bigs preventing him from putting up bigger stats.

If Boston had a 22 year old shooting 46%/40%/77% ... I'd be pretty annoyed he wasn't getting a bigger opportunity.

Can we agree that if James Young was on a different team, the majority of this forum would have no idea who he was?

Not sure the point of this question.  Is every perceived young Celtic player failure a LarBrd33 victory?  Victory over what, I ask?  This is Celtics blog, home of Celtics optimism.  Philly blog is home of Philly optimism, Dallas Dalls optimism, etc...

Back to Young.  I'm down on his potential right now, but hopeful that I'm being hasty in feeling that way, considering it can take 5 years for some guards to really get how to play effectively in a system.
I doubt the Celtics will wait 5 years on him though.  That's a long time.

I'm very ignorant on the potential of James Young.  I have no sense of what the final product might look like, though I do suspect he'll make it in the league, at least off the bench and at more than 15 minutes, at some point in the next 3 years.  But I'm guessing. 

Know where my ignorance-based James Young low expectations are derived from?  Nope, it's not from the fact that he hasn't earned minutes yet at the age of 20.  It's from reading Celtics blog.  I wish someone would count the times he's been called a bum for his horrible defense, his horrible iq, his horrible work ethic, his horrible first step, etc.. It's not all green goggles around here. 

This is why you are accosted by so many "rabble-rousers".  You are playing optimism police from a very pessimistically slanted perspective, and you are claiming to be the only voice of reason in a sea deranged optimism.  There is no such sea.  I wish you'd discuss why you think Rozier has no potential, so that I can understand the "hate".  It's okay to just viscerally hate a draft pick, I guess, but If you added some basketball analysis you'd come across less like a blind cop swatting at imaginary flies.

In one hilarious post recently, in which you were genuinely trying to sound positive about the Celtics, you tossed in a comment about David Lee being "probably our best player".  Even when you support, you undermine.  It's all good it was very funny.  I get that a pessimistic approach prevents a certain amount of disappointment. 

But you should stop playing king of reality.  Your goggles may not be green, but you absolutely are wearing a big ol fat ass pair of goggles.