We Should Trade Isaiah Thomas...

[PAOBoston]

His value had never been higher. Time to cash in.

What would you want back?

Sarcasm man sarcsam

[fantankerous]

Best individual performance since Bird scored 60 on the Hawks.  Just incredible.  I understand that some people will criticize his game.  Butt  wait until tomorrow.  IT deserves tonight as an all-time Celtics performance.  🍀 x52

[SHAQATTACK]

Swap him for LeBron and a first

[mctyson]

IT scored career high 52 tonite. Took half the total shots, scored almost half the points. Only Horford was also in double figures. They beat a bad team, Miami, at home by just 3 points. Outrebounded again. IT had zero assists.

The media is all over "star" IT on the tweets. A great individual performance by IT. But I'm not sure what it means for the Celtics.

Thank you.  This is the only point I'm trying to make around here.  IT is a wonderful players.  Fun to watch.  But the Celtics are more than just him.  And if moving him or adjusting the lineup means the team becomes better, then good grief do it.  Someone else will come along to wow us.

Thank you for stating the obvious, but explain to me why the critics of this Celtics team will constantly chirp about the need for a "star" that the Celtics don't have, and follow that up by saying IT is not a "star" (whatever that word means).

Is basketball about the team or is it about having the best player on the court?  In the NBA is it about having one of the 5 to 10 best individual talents - as judged by fans/stats - or is it about how you make your team better as judged by wins/losses?  If it is about having one of the top 10 guys then we are straight out of luck because those guys are not available to us, given that the other teams know everything we do about their value.

The reason IT sets off a great debate is because there are people who, for example, would trade him straight up for John Wall, because Wall is perceived as a "star" and IT isn't.  I mean, how could IT be a start if he was drafted 60th by the Kings and PHX traded him for Marcus Thornton and the 30th pick in the draft?

Then there are people like me who look at the records of the teams that these "stars" play on, or look at their team/lineup stats, and ask if this player is making them better, making them into a contender.  IT has clearly done that here (though to be fair so has Jae Crowder and this year, Al Horford.)

So yeah, the Celtics are more than just IT.  Every team is more than just one player.  But the great teams need great players.  We have one.

[Surferdad]

IT scored career high 52 tonite. Took half the total shots, scored almost half the points. Only Horford was also in double figures. They beat a bad team, Miami, at home by just 3 points. Outrebounded again. IT had zero assists.

The media is all over "star" IT on the tweets. A great individual performance by IT. But I'm not sure what it means for the Celtics.

Thank you.  This is the only point I'm trying to make around here.  IT is a wonderful players.  Fun to watch.  But the Celtics are more than just him.  And if moving him or adjusting the lineup means the team becomes better, then good grief do it.  Someone else will come along to wow us.

Thank you for stating the obvious, but explain to me why the critics of this Celtics team will constantly chirp about the need for a "star" that the Celtics don't have, and follow that up by saying IT is not a "star" (whatever that word means).

Is basketball about the team or is it about having the best player on the court?  In the NBA is it about having one of the 5 to 10 best individual talents - as judged by fans/stats - or is it about how you make your team better as judged by wins/losses?  If it is about having one of the top 10 guys then we are straight out of luck because those guys are not available to us, given that the other teams know everything we do about their value.

The reason IT sets off a great debate is because there are people who, for example, would trade him straight up for John Wall, because Wall is perceived as a "star" and IT isn't.  I mean, how could IT be a start if he was drafted 60th by the Kings and PHX traded him for Marcus Thornton and the 30th pick in the draft?

Then there are people like me who look at the records of the teams that these "stars" play on, or look at their team/lineup stats, and ask if this player is making them better, making them into a contender.  IT has clearly done that here (though to be fair so has Jae Crowder and this year, Al Horford.)

So yeah, the Celtics are more than just IT.  Every team is more than just one player.  But the great teams need great players.  We have one.

Agree with all of this, but the bolded deal is NOT the "wow" deal that cltc5 was referring to.

I certainly am not in favor of trading Thomas right now, but Wall/Gortat for IT plus filler (e.g., AJ)...I would have to think about that one.

[spikelovetheCelts]

IT scored career high 52 tonite. Took half the total shots, scored almost half the points. Only Horford was also in double figures. They beat a bad team, Miami, at home by just 3 points. Outrebounded again. IT had zero assists.

The media is all over "star" IT on the tweets. A great individual performance by IT. But I'm not sure what it means for the Celtics.

Thank you.  This is the only point I'm trying to make around here.  IT is a wonderful players.  Fun to watch.  But the Celtics are more than just him.  And if moving him or adjusting the lineup means the team becomes better, then good grief do it.  Someone else will come along to wow us.

Thank you for stating the obvious, but explain to me why the critics of this Celtics team will constantly chirp about the need for a "star" that the Celtics don't have, and follow that up by saying IT is not a "star" (whatever that word means).

Is basketball about the team or is it about having the best player on the court?  In the NBA is it about having one of the 5 to 10 best individual talents - as judged by fans/stats - or is it about how you make your team better as judged by wins/losses?  If it is about having one of the top 10 guys then we are straight out of luck because those guys are not available to us, given that the other teams know everything we do about their value.

The reason IT sets off a great debate is because there are people who, for example, would trade him straight up for John Wall, because Wall is perceived as a "star" and IT isn't.  I mean, how could IT be a start if he was drafted 60th by the Kings and PHX traded him for Marcus Thornton and the 30th pick in the draft?

Then there are people like me who look at the records of the teams that these "stars" play on, or look at their team/lineup stats, and ask if this player is making them better, making them into a contender.  IT has clearly done that here (though to be fair so has Jae Crowder and this year, Al Horford.)

So yeah, the Celtics are more than just IT.  Every team is more than just one player.  But the great teams need great players.  We have one.

Agree with all of this, but the bolded deal is NOT the "wow" deal that cltc5 was referring to.

I certainly am not in favor of trading Thomas right now, but Wall/Gortat for IT plus filler (e.g., AJ)...I would have to think about that one.

If you get Cousins too some how too . IT stays for everyone but George or Cousins. He is a star. Bradley did not play AB is the heart of these Celtics.

[chiken Green]

Say what you want about IT..  People can call him a non-star all they want.. The bottom line is He Performs like a Star... When Stars come into the building IT is normally bucket for bucket with them.. 
Last night If we didn't have a star to carry us It would have ended up as yet another game we lost to inferior competition.
 
Stars are normally 4th Quarter Closers and IT (our non star) I believe is 2nd in the league at that..

The commentators Said the other night (Cavs game) that we were not a Great time because we dont have a person that requires the double team.. This is true but this is not IT's fault..  Harden, Westbrook, Curry, Cp3 , Irving are not doubled - so why are they considered stars?

And last - (Yes I know this is not a true trade IT thread)  why Do we feel that IT is our issue? We are a top 10 scoring team in the league.. in the last 10 games I believe we are averaging like a 114 points a game. The best offense in history (tongue in cheek) is averaging 117...   Our offense since IT has never been an issue... Our issues has been in the playoffs when they Decide to collapse (the non star) and there is no one else to pick up the slack...

And for this thing about his defense.... Curry won a title playing the most laughable brand of Defense ever.. Harden is a joke on Defense - Heck how good was AI on Defense back in the day?

I am not saying that he is Curry or Harden or AI.. I am just saying that he is player that needs more offense around him.. He is a star.. Westbrook is having a stud year... But we all know they have no better chance at making the playoffs than we have... Stars (or non stars) need help... Ask Pierce, Kobe, Anthony Davis or that man who took his talents to south beach a few years back.

Sorry or the Ramble

[elcotte]

IT scored career high 52 tonite. Took half the total shots, scored almost half the points. Only Horford was also in double figures. They beat a bad team, Miami, at home by just 3 points. Outrebounded again. IT had zero assists.

The media is all over "star" IT on the tweets. A great individual performance by IT. But I'm not sure what it means for the Celtics.

Thank you.  This is the only point I'm trying to make around here.  IT is a wonderful players.  Fun to watch.  But the Celtics are more than just him.  And if moving him or adjusting the lineup means the team becomes better, then good grief do it.  Someone else will come along to wow us.

I doubt that this is the only point you are trying to make.

[IDreamCeltics]

Best individual performance since Bird scored 60 on the Hawks.  Just incredible.  I understand that some people will criticize his game.  Butt  wait until tomorrow.  IT deserves tonight as an all-time Celtics performance.  🍀 x52

52 points on 26 shots. 9-13 from 3, and 13-13 from the FT line.  If his name was Steph Curry people would still be toweling themselves off...

instead he's IT so people suggest trading him

[Bobshot]

Heck, of course IT is a star, and is capable of great individual performances. But he hasn't shown that he can make the players around him better. Last night was an example of that. You can see that just from the box score.

The great Celtics teams that won all those championships routinely had a half dozen guys in double figures every game. They rarely had a scoring champion. I'm talking about the teams of the Russell era. Later teams relied more heavily on individual scoring from 2-3 guys. Havlicek , Cowens and White in one period, Bird, McHale and Parish in another.  Neither team had the depth of the Russell teams to sustain many championships.  The KG-PP championship team had real depth, but they lost their depth when Wyc refused to go over the cap to win another title. The '86 team also had real depth, but it evaporated as well.

The Spurs have been consistent winners because Pop had Duncan as his Russell, and he copied Red's style of the fast break transition game and passing for the best shot.

Russell and Duncan both made the teams around them better. Can Horford do the same?  I don't know if he's that level a player.

The current Celtics play best as a team, distributing the ball and the scoring. They are still short of a guy up front who can get the ball. Way short, compared to the winning teams of the past. You have to get the ball to get or prevent 2nd shots, and to get the fast break going. I don't see that yet.  I don't think you can cover up your holes bombing away from the 3P line, or letting your best player take all the shots. Poor IT can't score 52 every night.

[Banner18now!]

Here's the problem, in a couple of years the Celts are going to have to give max money to IT. That will be max money to Horford and IT with not much left for hopefully another impact player. IT is a great scorer but he is not the type of player that can carry a team in the playoffs. I would be worried about giving him max money. Now if he goes into the playoffs this year and puts the team on his back and they win a few rounds then I'm all for giving him max money. Carrying the team in the playoffs is a little different then carrying the team in December against a bad Miami team. If he has limitations again in the playoffs because of how teams play him then I would be all for trading him before giving him max money.

[MBunge]

Here's the problem, in a couple of years the Celts are going to have to give max money to IT. That will be max money to Horford and IT with not much left for hopefully another impact player. IT is a great scorer but he is not the type of player that can carry a team in the playoffs. I would be worried about giving him max money. Now if he goes into the playoffs this year and puts the team on his back and they win a few rounds then I'm all for giving him max money. Carrying the team in the playoffs is a little different then carrying the team in December against a bad Miami team. If he has limitations again in the playoffs because of how teams play him then I would be all for trading him before giving him max money.

This is probably the #1 challenge for any NBA GM.  Sometimes the the best or most important player on your team isn't truly a max guy but you almost have to give them a max deal, see the Grizzlies and Conley.  If you give max money to a non-max guy, it almost always handicaps your attempt to build a title contender.  But if you trade that player or let him walk, your team takes a big step backward in the short term.

Mike

[Ogaju]

Here's the problem, in a couple of years the Celts are going to have to give max money to IT. That will be max money to Horford and IT with not much left for hopefully another impact player. IT is a great scorer but he is not the type of player that can carry a team in the playoffs. I would be worried about giving him max money. Now if he goes into the playoffs this year and puts the team on his back and they win a few rounds then I'm all for giving him max money. Carrying the team in the playoffs is a little different then carrying the team in December against a bad Miami team. If he has limitations again in the playoffs because of how teams play him then I would be all for trading him before giving him max money.

I hope you extend the same standard to Horford.

[CoachBo]

Yeah, I think I'll pass on trading the only true scorer we have.

LOL.

[IDreamCeltics]

Here's the problem, in a couple of years the Celts are going to have to give max money to IT. That will be max money to Horford and IT with not much left for hopefully another impact player. IT is a great scorer but he is not the type of player that can carry a team in the playoffs. I would be worried about giving him max money. Now if he goes into the playoffs this year and puts the team on his back and they win a few rounds then I'm all for giving him max money. Carrying the team in the playoffs is a little different then carrying the team in December against a bad Miami team. If he has limitations again in the playoffs because of how teams play him then I would be all for trading him before giving him max money.

This is probably the #1 challenge for any NBA GM.  Sometimes the the best or most important player on your team isn't truly a max guy but you almost have to give them a max deal, see the Grizzlies and Conley.  If you give max money to a non-max guy, it almost always handicaps your attempt to build a title contender.  But if you trade that player or let him walk, your team takes a big step backward in the short term.

Mike

https://youtu.be/PrrwkewwQ2w

Come on... Conley's the problem now?