The Little Guy has to

[KGBirdBias]

Ok maybe not hate but he's not the problem. It looks like he's the problem on defense because if we had a bigger team and a more offensive team, his deficiencies wouldn't stand out as much.

You don't sacrifice the best player because of one weakness when others on the team have multiple weaknesses. That makes no sense. You improve the team's weakness and his weakness is overshadowed.

[jbpats]

Agree with the OP, been saying it all year.
IT is a good player, it's been a fun ride but if championships are on our mind IT is not the guy that will bring them.
Eddie House was an unfair comparison.. but with that being said on a team with Pierce/KG/Ray Allen IT would probably be nothing more than a Eddie House.

[Darío SpanishFan]

Ok maybe not hate but he's not the problem. It looks like he's the problem on defense because if we had a bigger team and a more offensive team, his deficiencies wouldn't stand out as much.

You don't sacrifice the best player because of one weakness when others on the team have multiple weaknesses. That makes no sense. You improve the team's weakness and his weakness is overshadowed.

It's not "one weakness". It's the weakness of 50% of the whole game.

[KGBirdBias]

Wait, who are we getting to dump IT? LOL

If we get PG13 and Hayward. My question would be where have they got their teams as the leaders of the teams?

I'm just saying if you're going to dump IT, it better be for someone better...not on the same level but proven to be better. IT can't help it that his teammates can't shoot and don't have his toughness.

[notthebowler]

I think a lot of it has to do with who you have around him.  If he is 1 of 3 high quality scorers (with Fultz & Hayward/Griffin, for example), then I think it is worth it to pay him the max.  Then he and Horford have their max contracts expire right around the time Fultz and next year's #1 are up for an extension.  To me, that is pretty close to a best case scenario.

If things go poorly in both the lottery and in free agency and Bradley is still the 2nd best player on the team, then I think you have no choice but to make major changes.  Paying big money to essentially keep this same roster for 4 more years would not be productive.

Should we be fortunate in one or the other - only Fultz or only a high level free agent, then it becomes a tougher question, and I still expect that such a roster would not be able to compete for a title.

[KGBirdBias]

Of a Big 3, IT can easily be the 2nd guy.

PG13, IT and Horford are a good Big 3.

I'm not sure Butler or Hayward can be a #1 and get us to the Finals.

[jbpats]

Wait, who are we getting to dump IT? LOL

If we get PG13 and Hayward. My question would be where have they got their teams as the leaders of the teams?

I'm just saying if you're going to dump IT, it better be for someone better...not on the same level but proven to be better. IT can't help it that his teammates can't shoot and don't have his toughness.

You don't necessarily have to "dump" IT for somebody better. I think you dump him for the better of the team. Realistically the NBA will be Cavs vs. Warriors for the next 2-3 years. There is nothing we can that even puts us in the same sentence as either of those teams. So what is the best strategy in that case?
To me it’s have the most money available in 2-3 years and the best young talent to build around. Jaylen has potential, we could possibly have Fultz, and Brooklyn is looking like they have a strong chance of being a last place team next season. We also have potential impact players oversees. In 2-3 years you also have Horford and IT off the books, and need to begin considering if it’s time to pay these youngsters.
I just don’t see what having IT on this team for the next 6 years at a max does for us. When the Warriors start to lost guys because they can’t afford them, and the cavs age, what do we have in response? A 32 year old 5’9” PG who doesn’t play defense and lost a step at a max deal for 3 more years.. This team is getting fans in the seats, that’s all Ainge and the owners want. I truly believe Ainge knows that our future is with the youth and not with the current core. I also don't think trading IT will be as easy as people think it is if he is on a max deal. You let him walk after next season.

[johnnygreen]

Wait, who are we getting to dump IT? LOL

If we get PG13 and Hayward. My question would be where have they got their teams as the leaders of the teams?

I'm just saying if you're going to dump IT, it better be for someone better...not on the same level but proven to be better. IT can't help it that his teammates can't shoot and don't have his toughness.

You don't necessarily have to "dump" IT for somebody better. I think you dump him for the better of the team. Realistically the NBA will be Cavs vs. Warriors for the next 2-3 years. There is nothing we can that even puts us in the same sentence as either of those teams. So what is the best strategy in that case?
To me it’s have the most money available in 2-3 years and the best young talent to build around. Jaylen has potential, we could possibly have Fultz, and Brooklyn is looking like they have a strong chance of being a last place team next season. We also have potential impact players oversees. In 2-3 years you also have Horford and IT off the books, and need to begin considering if it’s time to pay these youngsters.
I just don’t see what having IT on this team for the next 6 years at a max does for us. When the Warriors start to lost guys because they can’t afford them, and the cavs age, what do we have in response? A 32 year old 5’9” PG who doesn’t play defense and lost a step at a max deal for 3 more years.. This team is getting fans in the seats, that’s all Ainge and the owners want. I truly believe Ainge knows that our future is with the youth and not with the current core. I also don't think trading IT will be as easy as people think it is if he is on a max deal. You let him walk after next season.

I agree with this. If the Celtics are lucky enough to get the first pick and get Fultz (who Danny apparently really likes), then I think it would be the perfect scenario. Have IT start and Fultz come off the bench for next year. Then when IT becomes a free agent, you let him walk and have Fultz take over as the starting PG. The other issue is I don't think IT is a PG, but has been pigeon holed into the position because of his size. The reality is that Thomas is more of a natural SG.

BTW, I don't understand the hate when the OP referred to IT as a super Eddie House. Both guys are/were instant offense, undersized for their positions and were bad defensive players that needed help defensively. The only difference is Thomas became a regular starter, thus the "super" part of the equation.

[CoachBo]

Wait, who are we getting to dump IT? LOL

If we get PG13 and Hayward. My question would be where have they got their teams as the leaders of the teams?

I'm just saying if you're going to dump IT, it better be for someone better...not on the same level but proven to be better. IT can't help it that his teammates can't shoot and don't have his toughness.

You don't necessarily have to "dump" IT for somebody better. I think you dump him for the better of the team. Realistically the NBA will be Cavs vs. Warriors for the next 2-3 years. There is nothing we can that even puts us in the same sentence as either of those teams. So what is the best strategy in that case?
To me it’s have the most money available in 2-3 years and the best young talent to build around. Jaylen has potential, we could possibly have Fultz, and Brooklyn is looking like they have a strong chance of being a last place team next season. We also have potential impact players oversees. In 2-3 years you also have Horford and IT off the books, and need to begin considering if it’s time to pay these youngsters.
I just don’t see what having IT on this team for the next 6 years at a max does for us. When the Warriors start to lost guys because they can’t afford them, and the cavs age, what do we have in response? A 32 year old 5’9” PG who doesn’t play defense and lost a step at a max deal for 3 more years.. This team is getting fans in the seats, that’s all Ainge and the owners want. I truly believe Ainge knows that our future is with the youth and not with the current core. I also don't think trading IT will be as easy as people think it is if he is on a max deal. You let him walk after next season.

Then this franchise is in a boatload of trouble ...

[Future Celtics Owner]

Ok maybe not hate but he's not the problem. It looks like he's the problem on defense because if we had a bigger team and a more offensive team, his deficiencies wouldn't stand out as much.

You don't sacrifice the best player because of one weakness when others on the team have multiple weaknesses. That makes no sense. You improve the team's weakness and his weakness is overshadowed.

It's not "one weakness". It's the weakness of 50% of the whole game.

Exactly. We preach defense and yet most on CB are okay with paying max money to a guy that needs to be hidden on defense. The league has plenty of guards and players like Lou Williams can be gotten for a late 1st rounder.

If we get Fultz then IMO the best path to our next championship would be to trade IT and AB this summer (bc they only have 1 more year left on their deals and their value would be higher this summer than at the trade deadline) and then do trades for Crowder/Horford.

[Future Celtics Owner]

Wait, who are we getting to dump IT? LOL

If we get PG13 and Hayward. My question would be where have they got their teams as the leaders of the teams?

I'm just saying if you're going to dump IT, it better be for someone better...not on the same level but proven to be better. IT can't help it that his teammates can't shoot and don't have his toughness.

You don't necessarily have to "dump" IT for somebody better. I think you dump him for the better of the team. Realistically the NBA will be Cavs vs. Warriors for the next 2-3 years. There is nothing we can that even puts us in the same sentence as either of those teams. So what is the best strategy in that case?
To me it’s have the most money available in 2-3 years and the best young talent to build around. Jaylen has potential, we could possibly have Fultz, and Brooklyn is looking like they have a strong chance of being a last place team next season. We also have potential impact players oversees. In 2-3 years you also have Horford and IT off the books, and need to begin considering if it’s time to pay these youngsters.
I just don’t see what having IT on this team for the next 6 years at a max does for us. When the Warriors start to lost guys because they can’t afford them, and the cavs age, what do we have in response? A 32 year old 5’9” PG who doesn’t play defense and lost a step at a max deal for 3 more years.. This team is getting fans in the seats, that’s all Ainge and the owners want. I truly believe Ainge knows that our future is with the youth and not with the current core. I also don't think trading IT will be as easy as people think it is if he is on a max deal. You let him walk after next season.

Then this franchise is in a boatload of trouble ...

But if we draft Fultz and sign IT, is that not a boatload of trouble.

[KGBirdBias]

So we're the #1 seed...more realistically the #2 seed and you guys want to wait another 2-3 years? Well why did we sign Horford? Why did we go after Durant? We've had the same team for 2 years, it's time to pay up.

If we're still in "build through draft" mode verses fill in around what we have and use assets to get vets then we aren't 2-3 years off...we're 4-5 years off. Then when you have all these rookies, all of their contracts are up around the same time...Philly is going to find that out.

We will in essence have 3 rookies next year...maybe 4. Fultz, Yaba, Zizic and Nader. Do you really think we could be vying for the Conf Finals by moving IT?

[jbpats]

So we're the #1 seed...more realistically the #2 seed and you guys want to wait another 2-3 years? Well why did we sign Horford? Why did we go after Durant? We've had the same team for 2 years, it's time to pay up.

If we're still in "build through draft" mode verses fill in around what we have and use assets to get vets then we aren't 2-3 years off...we're 4-5 years off. Then when you have all these rookies, all of their contracts are up around the same time...Philly is going to find that out.

We will in essence have 3 rookies next year...maybe 4. Fultz, Yaba, Zizic and Nader. Do you really think we could be vying for the Conf Finals by moving IT?

If we were able to land Durant everything else changes. We weren't which is why I said we ride out the current core for the next 2 seasons and at that point have cash on the books to pay our youth and sign free agents. If we signed Durant and had a nucleus of he, IT and Horford (along with our other pieces) we are a contender.. BUT we didn't sign Durant and we ARE NOT a contender.

[CoachBo]

Wait, who are we getting to dump IT? LOL

If we get PG13 and Hayward. My question would be where have they got their teams as the leaders of the teams?

I'm just saying if you're going to dump IT, it better be for someone better...not on the same level but proven to be better. IT can't help it that his teammates can't shoot and don't have his toughness.

You don't necessarily have to "dump" IT for somebody better. I think you dump him for the better of the team. Realistically the NBA will be Cavs vs. Warriors for the next 2-3 years. There is nothing we can that even puts us in the same sentence as either of those teams. So what is the best strategy in that case?
To me it’s have the most money available in 2-3 years and the best young talent to build around. Jaylen has potential, we could possibly have Fultz, and Brooklyn is looking like they have a strong chance of being a last place team next season. We also have potential impact players oversees. In 2-3 years you also have Horford and IT off the books, and need to begin considering if it’s time to pay these youngsters.
I just don’t see what having IT on this team for the next 6 years at a max does for us. When the Warriors start to lost guys because they can’t afford them, and the cavs age, what do we have in response? A 32 year old 5’9” PG who doesn’t play defense and lost a step at a max deal for 3 more years.. This team is getting fans in the seats, that’s all Ainge and the owners want. I truly believe Ainge knows that our future is with the youth and not with the current core. I also don't think trading IT will be as easy as people think it is if he is on a max deal. You let him walk after next season.

Then this franchise is in a boatload of trouble ...

But if we draft Fultz and sign IT, is that not a boatload of trouble.

I agree. Just pointing out this thread's tilt back to the "perpetual rebuild" and the misplaced, fictional faith in Ainge's draft record.

[Vermont Green]

So we're the #1 seed...more realistically the #2 seed and you guys want to wait another 2-3 years? Well why did we sign Horford? Why did we go after Durant? We've had the same team for 2 years, it's time to pay up.

If we're still in "build through draft" mode verses fill in around what we have and use assets to get vets then we aren't 2-3 years off...we're 4-5 years off. Then when you have all these rookies, all of their contracts are up around the same time...Philly is going to find that out.

We will in essence have 3 rookies next year...maybe 4. Fultz, Yaba, Zizic and Nader. Do you really think we could be vying for the Conf Finals by moving IT?

We went after Durant but didn't get him.  Had he signed here, everything would have changed and yes, then you start trading the picks for pieces to put round Durant.  But we didn't get Durant so it is not the same to trade our lottery picks for players to put around IT and Horford.

There is no sure fire way to get there.  Drafting with as many picks as we have is not a bad option but no guarantee.  Trading picks for a true star is probably an even harder path unless part of that plan is signing a top player.  So far, we have not been able to sign or trade for the key piece around which the whole strategy would pivot.  So short of that, we can keep taking the draft picks.

We can always still trade the players later if somehow a veteran star end up here.  I don't see the problem people have with what we are doing.  We have more options than maybe any team in the league and perhaps a better chance than any team that we can get lucky and draft a star or make a trade for a star.  What more do you want?