I would still give him the max. Just look at Hayward. Some times you take a gamble because talent is hard to come by. If Barnes takes a Hayward type leap you are in good shape. If he goes to Harden level you are very lucky. Also I think of things as who do you get if you lose on multiple guys like KD, Hordford and Whiteside types? Do you just resign Turner and Sully at 10 to 13 million each or gamble on the talent like Barnes. Barnes has yet to hit his talent peak Turner and Sully are clearly capped. I'd pay Barnes without question he can play sg, sf, and pf in small ball lineups. He is solid on both ends of the floor and he replaces Turner and offers more upside than Turner. We also have to think of talent available and market. Barnes is a max guy in this coming market.
You're not looking at the downside, which is immense. You imagine Barnes making a leap to Hayward territory, perhaps two leaps to Hardenville. And if that gamble doesn't pay off, and he just stays in Barnesland? Then you've just paid the max to an average or at best pretty good player for four years, and you've lost two key contributors in their mid-20's, including your best rebounder and second best ballhandler, none of which Barnes replaces, and you've amputated a sizable portion of your amazing on and off court team chemistry. All for a massively overpaid Jeff Green or Marvin Williams type player. If you re-sign Turner and Sullinger, the downside is basically nothing. You already know both players are pretty good players and very good fits. You already know they can help you win games, because they already are. You only lose out on the improbability of realizing Barnes's phantom high ceiling which is nothing but a leftover of his high lotto pick hype. Meanwhile it's not like Turner and especially Sullinger don't have some room themselves to improve. Sullinger is barely older than Barnes. If you can imagine Barnes making a whole leap or two, then you can imagine Sully taking at least a half leap forward by improving his shooting a little, which combined with his existing defensive impact would make him a good player, not just pretty good. Last night was a perfect demonstration of why your idea would be a huge mistake. We'd be removing the two players who probably played the best for us, and adding somebody who was slightly more than a nonentity for the other team despite them needing him to step up. Although, to be fair, he did try to step up and be the hero at the very end there, failing miserably.
I see a huge Bruins type down side with resigning Turner and Sully. You cant over pay role players that have over two season + shown that is all they are. At the very least Barnes still gives you more than Turner which is the point. And you can call it phantom high ceiling but wasn't Turner also considered pretty much on his last run when he got here. Now Turner will likely be getting paid. Imagine what a under utilized talent like Barnes can do here. It could be equal to IT all over again. I'd much rather gamble on a guy that may get this team higher than guys that just maintain a non-contender.
Barnes can give you a bit more scoring than Turner. That's about it. And as we know, the scoring that Turner can give you happens to occur disproportionately in the 4th quarter. The idea of upgrading with a scorer like Barnes is to have a closer...but Turner has been a better closer than Barnes. And don't look now but Turner's scoring efficiency overall since the All Star break has been downright good. Shooting fewer threes, but hitting
half of them now. Turner might be in the middle of a belated semi-leap, too. And again, Turner is the backup floor general, which is something Barnes
can't give you. Turner had lost his high lotto hype by the time he got here, yes. By consistently being average. Which is also what Barnes has been, but his averageness has been shielded from scrutiny by being a minor cog on a great team, and so people still assume he's just not getting an opportunity to truly shine, is underutilized, a la Harden, except that Harden was producing like a boss in a limited role. Barnes is producing like role player in a limited role. You can choose to assume he'd be kicking ass on a weaker team. But the odds are just as good that he'd still just be average but with a much higher usage, and maybe his efficiency would suffer if he weren't an afterthought on offense. Maybe
he only ever takes half a leap from where he is now, too, and maybe that only happens four years or so from now, at which point people could say he's finally halfway playing up to his draft pedigree. In which case he'd be...what Turner is right now.
I hear what you're saying about the Bruins. What you're proposing is the equivalent of maxing out a young 15-20 goal scorer in the hopes he'll turn into a 30-40 goal scorer, all the while letting go of a just-as-young 2nd pairing defenseman and a solid young-ish 3rd line center who,
combined, would take up just as much cap. It's madness. If you pay Sullinger and Turner together just as much as you'd pay Barnes alone, then they would not be overpaid.
Finally, the whole nation is buzzing about how these Celtics would give the Warriors the toughest series in the Finals. Great defense is an equalizer, can neutralize talent advantages, and the C's have one of the best defenses in the league. They're not non-contenders.
Topic: Does anyone still think Harrison Barnes is worth a max from the C's? (Read 7423 times)