Have these last 7 games changed your opinion on IT?

[jpotter33]

My opinion is the same as it has been for most of the season - I'm fine with maxing out IT, but only if we put the proper supporting cast around him to actually make us competitive. That means we need: 1) a legitimate 2nd scoring option behind him so that we're not so reliant on him, 2) another starting caliber big, and 3) more overall size in the starting lineup to overcome some of IT's weaknesses.

That's why I've been so vocal about signing Griffin, who by himself checks off all these boxes. And if so, that'd mean we'd almost inevitably trade AB, which would allow Jaylen to come to the starting 2 guard and give us more overall size in the starting unit. I really like the immediate and long-term future of a lineup of IT, Brown, Jae, Griffin, and Al with Smart, Fultz (?), Yab, and Zizic off the bench for now, along with some other vets to round it out.

I just really don't want to see this same basic team ran back the next couple of years, only with much larger contracts for IT, AB, and Smart. I'd rather build toward the future with our young core rather than that.

[Roy H.]

I still don't get the "IT isn't a max player" argument.

Is he in the same category as Beal, Lillard, Conley, Horford, Parsons, H. Barnes, etc.?

Those guys are "max" guys. I don't think any of them elevates this team more than IT. Our options are pay IT, or let him walk and then hope to sign a "max" player who probably isn't as good as IT in a few years.

IT is a max guy. Period. I don't think anyone can be against it. The question is... a max guy in a contender?

Sure, why couldn't he be? We realistically could have had this starting lineup:

DMC
Horford
George
Smart
IT4

You can't envision that team contending? It will be harder to build an elite team now because of the gaping big man hole, but that's not due to any fault of Thomas'.

[johnnygreen]

I still don't get the "IT isn't a max player" argument.

Is he in the same category as Beal, Lillard, Conley, Horford, Parsons, H. Barnes, etc.?

Those guys are "max" guys. I don't think any of them elevates this team more than IT. Our options are pay IT, or let him walk and then hope to sign a "max" player who probably isn't as good as IT in a few years.

I don't recall reading any rumors of Mike Conley getting max offers from other teams other than Memphis offering the super max. Thomas is worth more to Boston than probably anywhere else because the team has been built around him. He deserves to get a max contract from Boston. Maybe the question should be, which team(s) may be willing to offer Thomas a max besides Boston? In negotiations, why would you bid against yourself (which is where that built up good will comes in for Boston and having to pay Isaiah)?

If we just look at this years playoff teams, which team needs a point guard? Milwaukee or Chicago? With the young players on that Milwaukee team, I can't see the team not saving the cap room to resign their own young guys. Chicago may be on the verge of hitting the reset button and rebuilding through the draft. All of the other playoff teams wouldn't even consider Thomas because their already set at the PG position. Me questioning if Thomas is a max player in the open market, is more of a supply and demand type of thing.

[Darío SpanishFan]

I still don't get the "IT isn't a max player" argument.

Is he in the same category as Beal, Lillard, Conley, Horford, Parsons, H. Barnes, etc.?

Those guys are "max" guys. I don't think any of them elevates this team more than IT. Our options are pay IT, or let him walk and then hope to sign a "max" player who probably isn't as good as IT in a few years.

IT is a max guy. Period. I don't think anyone can be against it. The question is... a max guy in a contender?

Sure, why couldn't he be? We realistically could have had this starting lineup:

DMC
Horford
George
Smart
IT4

You can't envision that team contending? It will be harder to build an elite team now because of the gaping big man hole, but that's not due to any fault of Thomas'.

I can see this team contending, of course. What happens is that we "passed on" Cousins and then your logic can't translate into our team. I can accept giving the max to IT (also, for chemistry reasons I'm reluctant to trade or let him go) but I hope the 4th year is a team option and we have other pieces to contend.

I also wanted to state something. People are always telling how much IT has given the Celtics and I've even read today that we would be far from the playoffs without him  But... where would IT be if we hadn't put him in this situation? He was an almost undrafted sixth man, a 25 minute guy scoring from the bench. Our confidence, our coach, our situation will give him millions and millions of dollars.

[johnnygreen]

I think a lot of people take for granted just how good Avery Bradley is, and the importance he has on this teams success. He is on the first team all defensive team, and has become Rip Hamilton Jr offensively with constantly moving on offense, coming off screens to make shots, and has become a reliable 3 point shooter. In other words, he doesn't give his guy and chance to rest on either end. I don't understand why so many people are willing to let him go, to help free up cap space for someone else.

[mainevent]

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.

I guess you wouldn't pay Harden either cause his defense is totally non-existent. Oh it's because of his size? Did you ever stop to think that it's his size that gives him a lot of advantages on offense? How many 6'5 guards can split a defense like he does? How many can consistently get to the rack and get buckets against 7 footers almost whenever he wants to? His ability to draw 4 defenders once he gets into the paint anywhere below the free throw line opens it up for 4 other people to score. He requires constant attention. Question, if you were putting together an expansion team and you were given your choice of PG from any team in the league who would you select before IT? If anyone you choose is NOT a max player then I concede and will agree to your point. Point is that IT is right up there with any PG in this league and Danny would be a fool not to give him max.

[mmmmm]

I still don't get the "IT isn't a max player" argument.

Is he in the same category as Beal, Lillard, Conley, Horford, Parsons, H. Barnes, etc.?

Those guys are "max" guys. I don't think any of them elevates this team more than IT. Our options are pay IT, or let him walk and then hope to sign a "max" player who probably isn't as good as IT in a few years.

IT is a max guy. Period. I don't think anyone can be against it. The question is... a max guy in a contender?

Sure, why couldn't he be? We realistically could have had this starting lineup:

DMC
Horford
George
Smart
IT4

You can't envision that team contending? It will be harder to build an elite team now because of the gaping big man hole, but that's not due to any fault of Thomas'.

I can see this team contending, of course. What happens is that we "passed on" Cousins and then your logic can't translate into our team. I can accept giving the max to IT (also, for chemistry reasons I'm reluctant to trade or let him go) but I hope the 4th year is a team option and we have other pieces to contend.

I also wanted to state something. People are always telling how much IT has given the Celtics and I've even read today that we would be far from the playoffs without him  But... where would IT be if we hadn't put him in this situation? He was an almost undrafted sixth man, a 25 minute guy scoring from the bench. Our confidence, our coach, our situation will give him millions and millions of dollars.

Uh? Regarding the part in bold.  You don't know what you are talking about. 

Prior to coming to the Celtics, Thomas had started the majority (59%) of the NBA games he played in and averaged 28 1/2 mpg.  And he _earned_ those starts because no one gift-wrapped anything for him.  And those numbers would have been much higher if not for the stupidity of the Phoenix Suns organization (for which, we Celtics fans should be massively thankful).

With the exception of the idiocy of the PHO period, and Brad Stevens conservative reluctance to change his starting lineup mid-season in that same year, Thomas has been an NBA starter almost exclusively.  I.E., other than the one bizarre, transitional 2014-15 season, Thomas has started in 84% of the NBA games he has played in across the other five seasons of his career.

He's not a freaking "6th man".  He's an NBA starter.   This is not hard.  Let it sink in.  It isn't changing any time soon and it shouldn't.  Get used to it.

Thomas also was already a 20 point, high-efficiency scorer long before he got to Boston.  Has he taken it to a new level since he's been in Boston?  Certainly!  Surprise:  Players get better as they get more experienced!  But Thomas was already a fantastic player.

So I call shenanigans on your assertion there.

And on your last, trailing point, per WS dollar values, Thomas has been worth tens and tens of millions of dollars to the Celtics since he got here, way, way in excess of the few million he has been paid.  League average WS value this year is around 2.7M per WS.  Thomas accrued 12.5 WS this year.  Do the math.

[mmmmm]

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.

I guess you wouldn't pay Harden either cause his defense is totally non-existent. Oh it's because of his size? Did you ever stop to think that it's his size that gives him a lot of advantages on offense? How many 6'5 guards can split a defense like he does? How many can consistently get to the rack and get buckets against 7 footers almost whenever he wants to? His ability to draw 4 defenders once he gets into the paint anywhere below the free throw line opens it up for 4 other people to score. He requires constant attention. Question, if you were putting together an expansion team and you were given your choice of PG from any team in the league who would you select before IT? If anyone you choose is NOT a max player then I concede and will agree to your point. Point is that IT is right up there with any PG in this league and Danny would be a fool not to give him max.

On the size thing:  I always wonder why it is asserted that Isaiah "MUST" have a disadvantage on defense due to his size ... yet if size is such a critical advantage, how come all the players in the league who are taller than he is can't seem to defend Isaiah?

And how come, if the assertion is that taller players can simply "shoot over the top of him", why is it on the shots Isaiah defends on the perimeter that opponents shoot slightly worse than their averages?

Defensively, on shots IT defends, he does get killed when shots are in close to the hoop.  Height really does matter there.   But that ends up being just a small percentage of shots taken against Isaiah.  Most shots that he defends are on the perimeter.  And he does okay there.

[Darío SpanishFan]

I still don't get the "IT isn't a max player" argument.

Is he in the same category as Beal, Lillard, Conley, Horford, Parsons, H. Barnes, etc.?

Those guys are "max" guys. I don't think any of them elevates this team more than IT. Our options are pay IT, or let him walk and then hope to sign a "max" player who probably isn't as good as IT in a few years.

IT is a max guy. Period. I don't think anyone can be against it. The question is... a max guy in a contender?

Sure, why couldn't he be? We realistically could have had this starting lineup:

DMC
Horford
George
Smart
IT4

You can't envision that team contending? It will be harder to build an elite team now because of the gaping big man hole, but that's not due to any fault of Thomas'.

I can see this team contending, of course. What happens is that we "passed on" Cousins and then your logic can't translate into our team. I can accept giving the max to IT (also, for chemistry reasons I'm reluctant to trade or let him go) but I hope the 4th year is a team option and we have other pieces to contend.

I also wanted to state something. People are always telling how much IT has given the Celtics and I've even read today that we would be far from the playoffs without him  But... where would IT be if we hadn't put him in this situation? He was an almost undrafted sixth man, a 25 minute guy scoring from the bench. Our confidence, our coach, our situation will give him millions and millions of dollars.

Uh? Regarding the part in bold.  You don't know what you are talking about. 

Prior to coming to the Celtics, Thomas had started the majority (59%) of the NBA games he played in and averaged 28 1/2 mpg.

Please. I know what I'm talking about, so you could show a little respect, to start with.

After signing his contract in Phoenix, he plays 1 out of 46 games as a starter, averaging 15 points in 25 minutes. A team that didn't make the playoffs. We've been a blessing for him, as he's been for us.

Let's discuss the opinions, not the facts. And with good manners, if you can.

[Big333223]

I still don't get the "IT isn't a max player" argument.

Is he in the same category as Beal, Lillard, Conley, Horford, Parsons, H. Barnes, etc.?

Those guys are "max" guys. I don't think any of them elevates this team more than IT. Our options are pay IT, or let him walk and then hope to sign a "max" player who probably isn't as good as IT in a few years.

Agree 100%, Roy. Don't understand the "IT isn't a max guy" or "IT needs to come off the bench" comments and thoughts. It's almost as if people aren't watching what has transpired on this team the last two years and how much IT starting at PG and being the leader of this team is responsible for it.

And the idea that Fultz or Ball would come right in and be at IT's level so we can't pay IT or have him on the team while they are on the team is absurd. Anyone drafted this year probably won't be ready to be a leader and top producer on a playoff team that could be headed to the ECF for 4-6 years, or in other words, after ITs prime and max contract is over.

I can't speak for everyone else but while I think he is a max caliber player (and I think all of the 6th man talk is ludicrous) I doubt he'll get it on the open market.

I've argued this before but the cap is going to level off which means less teams will even be able to offer max money. The league is already flush with PG's and 5 of the top 10 draft picks this summer are likely to be PG's so of the teams that have max money, there might not be any that need a PG. And all of the defense/size/age concerns that posters here have about IT (which are mostly valid) will be shared by opposing GM's.

So whether or not he's "worth" max money and whether or not someone will be willing to give it to him on the open market are two different questions. I don't think he'll get that offerr.

[mctyson]

I haven't changed my opinion. The guy is a star and we should build around him.

Correct.  He is going to make an All-NBA team this year, and is still in his prime at 28.  You never let those guys walk away for nothing.

Excluding injury, there is no reason to not keep him here until his early 30s.

[Roy H.]

I still don't get the "IT isn't a max player" argument.

Is he in the same category as Beal, Lillard, Conley, Horford, Parsons, H. Barnes, etc.?

Those guys are "max" guys. I don't think any of them elevates this team more than IT. Our options are pay IT, or let him walk and then hope to sign a "max" player who probably isn't as good as IT in a few years.

Agree 100%, Roy. Don't understand the "IT isn't a max guy" or "IT needs to come off the bench" comments and thoughts. It's almost as if people aren't watching what has transpired on this team the last two years and how much IT starting at PG and being the leader of this team is responsible for it.

And the idea that Fultz or Ball would come right in and be at IT's level so we can't pay IT or have him on the team while they are on the team is absurd. Anyone drafted this year probably won't be ready to be a leader and top producer on a playoff team that could be headed to the ECF for 4-6 years, or in other words, after ITs prime and max contract is over.

I can't speak for everyone else but while I think he is a max caliber player (and I think all of the 6th man talk is ludicrous) I doubt he'll get it on the open market.

I've argued this before but the cap is going to level off which means less teams will even be able to offer max money. The league is already flush with PG's and 5 of the top 10 draft picks this summer are likely to be PG's so of the teams that have max money, there might not be any that need a PG. And all of the defense/size/age concerns that posters here have about IT (which are mostly valid) will be shared by opposing GM's.

So whether or not he's "worth" max money and whether or not someone will be willing to give it to him on the open market are two different questions. I don't think he'll get that offerr.

I think he'll get it. I don't know every team's projected cap situation, but the Lakers would sign him. Knicks. Nets. Sixers. Pistons. Magic. Spurs. Nuggets. Mavericks. Pelicans? Kings?

I think fans have this tendency to think teams are either "all in" or are doing a Sixers-style rebuild. That's how the CB Draft works, but not the NBA. Teams try to sign free agents to improve and to put butts in the seats.

[mctyson]

  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.

This is comical. He is going to make an All-NBA team this year, probably the 2nd team.  And you say he wouldn't even make the 5th team.  AND YOU ARE A CELTICS FAN.

[mctyson]

I still don't get the "IT isn't a max player" argument.

Is he in the same category as Beal, Lillard, Conley, Horford, Parsons, H. Barnes, etc.?

Those guys are "max" guys. I don't think any of them elevates this team more than IT. Our options are pay IT, or let him walk and then hope to sign a "max" player who probably isn't as good as IT in a few years.

It is an argument that was either started or perpetuated by Mike Felger, Tony Massarotti, and their sidekick with the hat.

That's why it never made sense to begin with.

[Ilikesports17]

  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.

This is comical. He is going to make an All-NBA team this year, probably the 2nd team.  And you say he wouldn't even make the 5th team.  AND YOU ARE A CELTICS FAN.

I really tried to find a list of 25 players better than Thomas. I gave every player where I think you can even make the argument the advantage. here is what I got. 

James, Leonard, Harden, Westbrook, Davis, Durant, Curry, Butler, George, Lowry, Derozan, Thompson, Green, Gobert, Wall, Irving, Cousins, Giannis, Gasol, Mike Conley, Gordon Hayward, Chris Paul, Damian Lillard, al Horford, Paul Millsap.

thats 25.

There are also a ton of guys in there who were not nearly as good as IT was this season.