Have these last 7 games changed your opinion on IT?

[RIPRED]

Before I go on, I think it's important to note that I've been a huge fan of Isaiah since his early days in Boston. I love his game, and I've always wanted the Celtics to keep him around for a long time.

With that said, I did have some concerns about giving him a max deal. I've been one of his biggest defenders, but the truth is, he disappeared in the playoffs the past two years. Like I said, I wanted to keep him around but a max deal seemed like too much.

After watching the first seven games of these playoffs, I am now all in on giving him a max deal. He's the real deal. He's had every reason to disappear this year, and he's done the exact  opposite. I've lost close ones and it's extremely difficult; I have no idea how Isaiah is doing what he's doing right now. He's proven that he's as mentally tough as they come and getting his tooth knocked out yesterday showed how physically tough he is as well. He's a scrappy underdog/tough sob - perfect for Boston.

I love the Little Guy. Give him a max extension asap.

[j804]

Yes, love the little guy. He's got star power too lets not forget he's a big reason Al signed here and who knows what other tricks he has up his sleeve in the offseason. You max him unless you want to become a mediocre lottery team again.

[Alleyoopster]

If he's plays this way come contract time, it's likely I'd be open to a max contract. Because of his age my preference would be for a 3 year deal with a team option for a fourth.   

[Rosco917]

IT was traded to the perfect team to take advantage of his game, the Boston Celtics. Both DA and CBS like players that are quick, undersized, and able to defend multiple positions. (no positions, bigs, swing's, and smalls)

With IT in the game the C's defensively need to continually switch, and rotate to cover up his defensive liabilities. It's almost a zone plus one. You need quick and talented defensive players that can cover multiple positions, like Crowder, Bradley, and Smart. Smart and Crowder are key to this concept.

In a perfect world IT would be a 6th man, but as for this Celtic team, at this time...IT is the star we have in hand. I'd like to give Isaiah a chance to play the game with another star scorer on the floor with him, a player that is adept at finding his own shot, but is also the defender the Celtics need in the lineup to continue to support IT. 

That means, sign him, to max, or very close for 3 years, but he has to be made to understand his short comings cost dollars to cover up, if he cares about playing on a team that has a chance to go to the finals.

I think Isaiah will go for it, I think he's enough of a Celtic to be realistic.
   

[Phantom255x]

I feel like you shouldn't really use the playoffs 2 years ago as a "meter" for IT here.

First off, the Celtics were lucky to even be in the playoffs, and a large reason they got there was because of Isaiah. Isaiah himself wasn't a legit all-star yet either, and they went up against the might Cavs at the time.

Last year though, IT wasn't horrible IMO, but the C's lost Bradley and Crowder+Olynyk played HURT, and IT averaged around 24 PPG. Not an easy series for the C's and IT at all.

BUT NOW, yes, IT is no doubt worth a max-contract. If he still isn't, then idk what to say. Despite what's happened with him the past few weeks, he's averaging around 24/6/4 in 35 minutes/game.

His main weaknesses are defense and 3 point shooting, but he did go 5/11 from behind the arc yesterday, and I feel his offense covers up real well for his lack of defense. It also helps being around defensive-minded guys like Smart, Bradley, etc.

Basically, seeing what others are getting in this current market, it's foolish to think a 29/6 player this season and 2-time all-star would not get a 4-year max from somewhere. I hope the Celtics give it to him, then find a way to land another big fish via trade, or maybe Jaylen or 2017 BKN Pick turn into that go-to star.

[Neurotic Guy]

Respect for him as a person is now off the charts, but I still do not see him as the #1 guy on a championship team.   He is absolutely a max salary player in today's NBA, but that doesn't mean C's should be the team to pay it.  If I knew the C's were going to have a top 10 guy to play with IT, I'd be on board with giving him a max contract.  It's partly his defensive liabilities i am concerned with, but more so I think he needs an elite scorer with him to avoid being contained by elite defenses.  His size matters.

[slamtheking]

This is a 2 part question:
1) Are there still people who believe he's better suited to be a 6th man?
and
2) Does this change your opinion if he should be 'the guy' going forward?

The 2 largest criticisms on this board have been that he can't lead a team in the playoffs, and he's too short, he'd be instant offense off the bench.

I would be totally comfortable going forward with IT as the leader of this team. It'd be nice if he didn't take the max to leave us some cap flexibility, but he's earned it.  I think it'd be franchise mal-practice if the Celtics just let IT walk for nothing.

Just curious as to what people think now.

my opinion hasn't changed.  There's positives and negatives.

-->he's a phenomenal scorer and a mediocre passer.  he's a liability on defense, not because he doesn't make the effort or play hard but because the other PGs in the league can either shoot or pass right over him no matter how much he tries.  he's plays hard and is comfortable in the role of primary scorer (which is not what I personally want in my starting PG).  he's got a lot of fight in him which is what you want from a team leader.

Ideally, we'd have a more-complete PG starting and bringing him off the bench as a scoring weapon.  There's no shame in being the 6th man in Boston where the concept of a great player coming off the bench was really developed.  Great players aren't necessarily the ones that start but ARE the ones that finish.  If IT were coming in as 6th man, in all likelihood he's going to be on the court at the end of games.

I didn't think he was worth max money when his contract would be over.  That said, my personal opinion on who deserves max money doesn't line up with what's actually occurring in the league.  IT will get a max deal (unless some unforeseen injury occurs before then) and I'm sure it'll be the Celtics that pay it.  I just hope that it doesn't hamstring the franchise going forward in their ability to add any top talent in trades or free agency.

[kozlodoev]

This is a 2 part question:
1) Are there still people who believe he's better suited to be a 6th man?
and
2) Does this change your opinion if he should be 'the guy' going forward?

The 2 largest criticisms on this board have been that he can't lead a team in the playoffs, and he's too short, he'd be instant offense off the bench.

I would be totally comfortable going forward with IT as the leader of this team. It'd be nice if he didn't take the max to leave us some cap flexibility, but he's earned it.  I think it'd be franchise mal-practice if the Celtics just let IT walk for nothing.

Just curious as to what people think now.

my opinion hasn't changed.  There's positives and negatives.

-->he's a phenomenal scorer and a mediocre passer.  he's a liability on defense, not because he doesn't make the effort or play hard but because the other PGs in the league can either shoot or pass right over him no matter how much he tries.  he's plays hard and is comfortable in the role of primary scorer (which is not what I personally want in my starting PG).  he's got a lot of fight in him which is what you want from a team leader.

Ideally, we'd have a more-complete PG starting and bringing him off the bench as a scoring weapon. There's no shame in being the 6th man in Boston where the concept of a great player coming off the bench was really developed.  Great players aren't necessarily the ones that start but ARE the ones that finish.  If IT were coming in as 6th man, in all likelihood he's going to be on the court at the end of games.

I didn't think he was worth max money when his contract would be over.  That said, my personal opinion on who deserves max money doesn't line up with what's actually occurring in the league.  IT will get a max deal (unless some unforeseen injury occurs before then) and I'm sure it'll be the Celtics that pay it.  I just hope that it doesn't hamstring the franchise going forward in their ability to add any top talent in trades or free agency.

Bringing the third-leading scorer in the NBA off the bench as a "scoring weapon". Only in Boston.

[Darío SpanishFan]

  We wouldn't come close to making the playoffs without Isaiah. He's a top 8 player in the NBA maybe higher. Anyone who thinks Isaiah shouldn't be a starter on this team, should pick a sport that they know something about, because it's obvious they don't know basketball.

1. He may be a top-8 player OFFENSIVELY, but the game (that you seem to know so much) is two-sided, and he is not a top-25 player overall.
2. You, and many others, tend to underrate players such as Bradley, Crowder and Horford. They deserve much more respect, they are top-10 players in their positions (yes, defense also counts a lot). This team is not Isaiah and rubbish, as sentences like the bold one may suggest. But it's obvious you know a lot about this sport...

For the general debate, in how many teams would a player like Isaiah score 25+ points per game while the team being successful? We have a brilliant coaching staff and a master front office, not only a star player has taken us to this level. Let's not forget it.

[showtime]

  We wouldn't come close to making the playoffs without Isaiah. He's a top 8 player in the NBA maybe higher. Anyone who thinks Isaiah shouldn't be a starter on this team, should pick a sport that they know something about, because it's obvious they don't know basketball.

1. He may be a top-8 player OFFENSIVELY, but the game (that you seem to know so much) is two-sided, and he is not a top-25 player overall.
2. You, and many others, tend to underrate players such as Bradley, Crowder and Horford. They deserve much more respect, they are top-10 players in their positions (yes, defense also counts a lot). This team is not Isaiah and rubbish, as sentences like the bold one may suggest. But it's obvious you know a lot about this sport...

For the general debate, in how many teams would a player like Isaiah score 25+ points per game while the team being successful? We have a brilliant coaching staff and a master front office, not only a star player has taken us to this level. Let's not forget it.

  Thanks for proving my point. "not a top 25 player"  HAhahaha

[slamtheking]

This is a 2 part question:
1) Are there still people who believe he's better suited to be a 6th man?
and
2) Does this change your opinion if he should be 'the guy' going forward?

The 2 largest criticisms on this board have been that he can't lead a team in the playoffs, and he's too short, he'd be instant offense off the bench.

I would be totally comfortable going forward with IT as the leader of this team. It'd be nice if he didn't take the max to leave us some cap flexibility, but he's earned it.  I think it'd be franchise mal-practice if the Celtics just let IT walk for nothing.

Just curious as to what people think now.

my opinion hasn't changed.  There's positives and negatives.

-->he's a phenomenal scorer and a mediocre passer.  he's a liability on defense, not because he doesn't make the effort or play hard but because the other PGs in the league can either shoot or pass right over him no matter how much he tries.  he's plays hard and is comfortable in the role of primary scorer (which is not what I personally want in my starting PG).  he's got a lot of fight in him which is what you want from a team leader.

Ideally, we'd have a more-complete PG starting and bringing him off the bench as a scoring weapon. There's no shame in being the 6th man in Boston where the concept of a great player coming off the bench was really developed.  Great players aren't necessarily the ones that start but ARE the ones that finish.  If IT were coming in as 6th man, in all likelihood he's going to be on the court at the end of games.

I didn't think he was worth max money when his contract would be over.  That said, my personal opinion on who deserves max money doesn't line up with what's actually occurring in the league.  IT will get a max deal (unless some unforeseen injury occurs before then) and I'm sure it'll be the Celtics that pay it.  I just hope that it doesn't hamstring the franchise going forward in their ability to add any top talent in trades or free agency.

Bringing the third-leading scorer in the NBA off the bench as a "scoring weapon". Only in Boston.

being the third-leading scorer in the NBA isn't necessarily what most people want in their starting PG. 

there's a difference between bringing him off the bench to primarily score vs not wanting him on the team at all.

[kozlodoev]

For the general debate, in how many teams would a player like Isaiah score 25+ points per game while the team being successful? We have a brilliant coaching staff and a master front office, not only a star player has taken us to this level. Let's not forget it.

I'm not even sure what this is supposed to mean, other than being a largely hollow exercise in rhetoric. But I'll play.

The "brilliant coaching staff" looked largely lost before the team acquired Isaiah Thomas, and only half-lost until they figured out that he's too talented to ride the pine. Unsurprisingly, this coincided with the team taking off.

... for the sake of argument, you should also look up Allen Iverson's supporting cast in 1999-2000.

[kozlodoev]

Bringing the third-leading scorer in the NBA off the bench as a "scoring weapon". Only in Boston.

being the third-leading scorer in the NBA isn't necessarily what most people want in their starting PG. 

there's a difference between bringing him off the bench to primarily score vs not wanting him on the team at all.

Yes, "people" want a true PG. Someone like Rajon Rondo. Man, it would work just swell if we could have Rajon Rondo instead of Isaiah Thomas, right?

[hpantazo]

Bringing the third-leading scorer in the NBA off the bench as a "scoring weapon". Only in Boston.

being the third-leading scorer in the NBA isn't necessarily what most people want in their starting PG. 

there's a difference between bringing him off the bench to primarily score vs not wanting him on the team at all.

Yes, "people" want a true PG. Someone like Rajon Rondo. Man, it would work just swell if we could have Rajon Rondo instead of Isaiah Thomas, right?

Yeah. People also don't realize that Horford really functions as our point on offense anyway. We signed him for his passing skills, to run the offense through him and let IT do his thing. That, and Horfords outside shot are why he fit so well in our system, yet people still think Dwight Howard, who has no passing or shooting ability, would have been a better signing.

[Darío SpanishFan]

For the general debate, in how many teams would a player like Isaiah score 25+ points per game while the team being successful? We have a brilliant coaching staff and a master front office, not only a star player has taken us to this level. Let's not forget it.

I'm not even sure what this is supposed to mean, other than being a largely hollow exercise in rhetoric. But I'll play.

The "brilliant coaching staff" looked largely lost before the team acquired Isaiah Thomas, and only half-lost until they figured out that he's too talented to ride the pine. Unsurprisingly, this coincided with the team taking off.

... for the sake of argument, you should also look up Allen Iverson's supporting cast in 1999-2000.

Man, what did we have when Stevens came here? A mess, like 30 players in that season and a half. We were playing Joel Anthony, MarShon Brooks, Chris Johnson, Phil Pressey, etc.

Your comment is absolutely unfair to our coaching staff.