Poll: Yes or No Thomas at 30 million per year

[celticsclay]

Interesting question but what I find really interesting is that people feel the need to ask it about IT but seem to take it for granted that we should pay Hayward the max if we are lucky enough to be given the chance.  Is this suggesting that people think Hayward is the better player?  Hayward did not have a better year, that is for sure.  Is it because there is a perception that paying big $$ to someone 6'-7" is somehow less risky than to someone 5'-9"?

I feel like if we give out max contracts to Horford, Hayward, and IT, that it would represent fairly low talent for 3 max contracts.  Horford and Hayward are clearly not stars.  Only IT has that potential.  so back to my original question, if Hayward, why not IT?

You make a lot of statements as if they are unassailable facts:

"Hayward is clearly not a star, only IT has that potential."
"Hayward did not have a better year, that is for sure."

You mentioned height. Why does that matter? It matters because the shorter you are, the harder it is to get your shot off. If Thomas loses any athleticism, it could affect his offense dramatically. I'm also worried that Thomas small body will be less able to take a pounding as he ages. 

Thomas is also older than Hayward, that is a factor when you are giving out long term deals. Thomas may also ask for 5 years next year whereas Hayward can only get 4 from us THIS year. That makes their ages and thus primes during their potential deals very different.

They both play different positions. PG is a deep position in the league, and also deep on this team esp. after we draft Fultz.

Hayward played in a slow-it-down offense. It is not unreasonable to assume he could post better numbers in Stevens' system.

And finally, yes his defense is not good. I'm not going to say he's the worst in the league but when considering his overall game you have to include defense. That's why it's not so simple to just say "well isaiah scored more pts, he must of had a better year than hayward."

tp

It isn't really debatable that IT had the better year than Hayward though. IT made all NBA second team and Hayward didn't make a team. IT will finish top 5-6 in the league in MVP race and Hayward will most likely not finish in top 20. Both teams probably have similar levels of talent, but with IT as the best player compared to Hayward as the best player, the Celtics made it further and won more games. You can't just discount all of that.

Some of the other stuff is definitely debatable though.

[Phantom255x]

I'd give him a "Westbrook-like deal", at around 3 years/87M (29M/Year), with a player option the third year, like Westbrook has it.

Now if people still think he's not worth that, then honestly, idk what to say.

He averaged 29/6, was an MVP candidate, now a 2x all-star, and led this team to a #1 seed in the ECF and played injured for the final part of the Wiz series + beginning of Cavs series. Also had a spectacular postseason considering the circumstances (the tragedy he dealt with).

What he needs is another few good pieces around him (Fultz + Hayward/Griffin? + Zizic), because lets be real, AB, Crowder, Horford are great players but NOT legitimate, consistent scoring threats, which Isaiah definitely is.

How far do you think Washington is going without Beal, or Toronto without one of DeRozan/Lowry? The C's meanwhile made an ECF with just one Isaiah, and no other true scorer.

Also, it won't matter how much better this defense is if no one can score, as we saw in Games 4-5, and large stretches of Game 3 before Smart had that insane game.

[Vermont Green]

Interesting question but what I find really interesting is that people feel the need to ask it about IT but seem to take it for granted that we should pay Hayward the max if we are lucky enough to be given the chance.  Is this suggesting that people think Hayward is the better player?  Hayward did not have a better year, that is for sure.  Is it because there is a perception that paying big $$ to someone 6'-7" is somehow less risky than to someone 5'-9"?

I feel like if we give out max contracts to Horford, Hayward, and IT, that it would represent fairly low talent for 3 max contracts.  Horford and Hayward are clearly not stars.  Only IT has that potential.  so back to my original question, if Hayward, why not IT?

You make a lot of statements as if they are unassailable facts:

"Hayward is clearly not a star, only IT has that potential."
"Hayward did not have a better year, that is for sure."

You mentioned height. Why does that matter? It matters because the shorter you are, the harder it is to get your shot off. If Thomas loses any athleticism, it could affect his offense dramatically. I'm also worried that Thomas small body will be less able to take a pounding as he ages. 

Thomas is also older than Hayward, that is a factor when you are giving out long term deals. Thomas may also ask for 5 years next year whereas Hayward can only get 4 from us THIS year. That makes their ages and thus primes during their potential deals very different.

They both play different positions. PG is a deep position in the league, and also deep on this team esp. after we draft Fultz.

Hayward played in a slow-it-down offense. It is not unreasonable to assume he could post better numbers in Stevens' system.

And finally, yes his defense is not good. I'm not going to say he's the worst in the league but when considering his overall game you have to include defense. That's why it's not so simple to just say "well isaiah scored more pts, he must of had a better year than hayward."

tp

It isn't really debatable that IT had the better year than Hayward though. IT made all NBA second team and Hayward didn't make a team. IT will finish top 5-6 in the league in MVP race and Hayward will most likely not finish in top 20. Both teams probably have similar levels of talent, but with IT as the best player compared to Hayward as the best player, the Celtics made it further and won more games. You can't just discount all of that.

Some of the other stuff is definitely debatable though.

All I did was ask questions with the one exception being I made the statement that IT had a better season this season than Hayward did.  I don't see how that is debatable.  In fact, in my opinion, I think IT had a better season than Hayward will ever have (that of course is opinion that is debatable).  IT may not ever have a better year either (again, debatable opinion).

I just don't get what appears to be a greater willingness to give a max to Hayward over IT, kind of without discussion.  I am not sure either is worth a max.  We probably over-maxed for Horford, where will we be if we over-max for Hayward too; and than IT on top of  that?

There is another thread where the "who is better, IT or Hayward" question did creep in and the opinions varied so that is definitely a debatable question.  Or maybe a better way to pose it is to say who will do more over the next 3 or 4 seasons.  Still very debatable.  I am not pretending to know.  If they can't get IT's hip ball back into round, it may all be moot.

[Ilikesports17]

Interesting question but what I find really interesting is that people feel the need to ask it about IT but seem to take it for granted that we should pay Hayward the max if we are lucky enough to be given the chance.  Is this suggesting that people think Hayward is the better player?  Hayward did not have a better year, that is for sure.  Is it because there is a perception that paying big $$ to someone 6'-7" is somehow less risky than to someone 5'-9"?

I feel like if we give out max contracts to Horford, Hayward, and IT, that it would represent fairly low talent for 3 max contracts.  Horford and Hayward are clearly not stars.  Only IT has that potential.  so back to my original question, if Hayward, why not IT?

You make a lot of statements as if they are unassailable facts:

"Hayward is clearly not a star, only IT has that potential."
"Hayward did not have a better year, that is for sure."

You mentioned height. Why does that matter? It matters because the shorter you are, the harder it is to get your shot off. If Thomas loses any athleticism, it could affect his offense dramatically. I'm also worried that Thomas small body will be less able to take a pounding as he ages. 

Thomas is also older than Hayward, that is a factor when you are giving out long term deals. Thomas may also ask for 5 years next year whereas Hayward can only get 4 from us THIS year. That makes their ages and thus primes during their potential deals very different.

They both play different positions. PG is a deep position in the league, and also deep on this team esp. after we draft Fultz.

Hayward played in a slow-it-down offense. It is not unreasonable to assume he could post better numbers in Stevens' system.

And finally, yes his defense is not good. I'm not going to say he's the worst in the league but when considering his overall game you have to include defense. That's why it's not so simple to just say "well isaiah scored more pts, he must of had a better year than hayward."

tp

It isn't really debatable that IT had the better year than Hayward though. IT made all NBA second team and Hayward didn't make a team. IT will finish top 5-6 in the league in MVP race and Hayward will most likely not finish in top 20. Both teams probably have similar levels of talent, but with IT as the best player compared to Hayward as the best player, the Celtics made it further and won more games. You can't just discount all of that.

Some of the other stuff is definitely debatable though.

sure, but their success was actually remarkably similar. Utah won 51 games in a more difficult conference compared to 53 games for us. Both teams beat similarly talented teams (Washington and LAC) in 7 games before being swept by their divisions respective juggernauts.

IT did have the better year though. Absolutely. Just thought their team success was remarkably similar when all is said and done.

[Boston Garden Leprechaun]

I think Ainge will keep the team together through next season and add Fultz and Hayward.

that is my guess as far as current core. plenty bench guys are history. guess we will see!

[CelticsElite]

Fultz and Hayward help space the floor and add scoring help. Zizic will help increase our rebounds and toughness. Even fultz should help with rebounds he impressively averaged about 6 I think. We are gonna look good next year

[KG Living Legend]

 72% of Celtics don't wanna pay our best player. Go figure.

[More Banners]

 72% of Celtics don't wanna pay our best player. Go figure.

Same amount wanted to pay Mark Blount, so go figure.

[celticsclay]

Interesting question but what I find really interesting is that people feel the need to ask it about IT but seem to take it for granted that we should pay Hayward the max if we are lucky enough to be given the chance.  Is this suggesting that people think Hayward is the better player?  Hayward did not have a better year, that is for sure.  Is it because there is a perception that paying big $$ to someone 6'-7" is somehow less risky than to someone 5'-9"?

I feel like if we give out max contracts to Horford, Hayward, and IT, that it would represent fairly low talent for 3 max contracts.  Horford and Hayward are clearly not stars.  Only IT has that potential.  so back to my original question, if Hayward, why not IT?

You make a lot of statements as if they are unassailable facts:

"Hayward is clearly not a star, only IT has that potential."
"Hayward did not have a better year, that is for sure."

You mentioned height. Why does that matter? It matters because the shorter you are, the harder it is to get your shot off. If Thomas loses any athleticism, it could affect his offense dramatically. I'm also worried that Thomas small body will be less able to take a pounding as he ages. 

Thomas is also older than Hayward, that is a factor when you are giving out long term deals. Thomas may also ask for 5 years next year whereas Hayward can only get 4 from us THIS year. That makes their ages and thus primes during their potential deals very different.

They both play different positions. PG is a deep position in the league, and also deep on this team esp. after we draft Fultz.

Hayward played in a slow-it-down offense. It is not unreasonable to assume he could post better numbers in Stevens' system.

And finally, yes his defense is not good. I'm not going to say he's the worst in the league but when considering his overall game you have to include defense. That's why it's not so simple to just say "well isaiah scored more pts, he must of had a better year than hayward."

tp

It isn't really debatable that IT had the better year than Hayward though. IT made all NBA second team and Hayward didn't make a team. IT will finish top 5-6 in the league in MVP race and Hayward will most likely not finish in top 20. Both teams probably have similar levels of talent, but with IT as the best player compared to Hayward as the best player, the Celtics made it further and won more games. You can't just discount all of that.

Some of the other stuff is definitely debatable though.

sure, but their success was actually remarkably similar. Utah won 51 games in a more difficult conference compared to 53 games for us. Both teams beat similarly talented teams (Washington and LAC) in 7 games before being swept by their divisions respective juggernauts.

IT did have the better year though. Absolutely. Just thought their team success was remarkably similar when all is said and done.

Umm so this is kind of skipping over the part that we made it a round further, they played a team missing it's second best player, to win their 1 series and then also falsely claiming that we got swept (while also not acknowledging we had a 10% IT for just a game and a half of the 5 game series.

[Ilikesports17]

Interesting question but what I find really interesting is that people feel the need to ask it about IT but seem to take it for granted that we should pay Hayward the max if we are lucky enough to be given the chance.  Is this suggesting that people think Hayward is the better player?  Hayward did not have a better year, that is for sure.  Is it because there is a perception that paying big $$ to someone 6'-7" is somehow less risky than to someone 5'-9"?

I feel like if we give out max contracts to Horford, Hayward, and IT, that it would represent fairly low talent for 3 max contracts.  Horford and Hayward are clearly not stars.  Only IT has that potential.  so back to my original question, if Hayward, why not IT?

You make a lot of statements as if they are unassailable facts:

"Hayward is clearly not a star, only IT has that potential."
"Hayward did not have a better year, that is for sure."

You mentioned height. Why does that matter? It matters because the shorter you are, the harder it is to get your shot off. If Thomas loses any athleticism, it could affect his offense dramatically. I'm also worried that Thomas small body will be less able to take a pounding as he ages. 

Thomas is also older than Hayward, that is a factor when you are giving out long term deals. Thomas may also ask for 5 years next year whereas Hayward can only get 4 from us THIS year. That makes their ages and thus primes during their potential deals very different.

They both play different positions. PG is a deep position in the league, and also deep on this team esp. after we draft Fultz.

Hayward played in a slow-it-down offense. It is not unreasonable to assume he could post better numbers in Stevens' system.

And finally, yes his defense is not good. I'm not going to say he's the worst in the league but when considering his overall game you have to include defense. That's why it's not so simple to just say "well isaiah scored more pts, he must of had a better year than hayward."

tp

It isn't really debatable that IT had the better year than Hayward though. IT made all NBA second team and Hayward didn't make a team. IT will finish top 5-6 in the league in MVP race and Hayward will most likely not finish in top 20. Both teams probably have similar levels of talent, but with IT as the best player compared to Hayward as the best player, the Celtics made it further and won more games. You can't just discount all of that.

Some of the other stuff is definitely debatable though.

sure, but their success was actually remarkably similar. Utah won 51 games in a more difficult conference compared to 53 games for us. Both teams beat similarly talented teams (Washington and LAC) in 7 games before being swept by their divisions respective juggernauts.

IT did have the better year though. Absolutely. Just thought their team success was remarkably similar when all is said and done.

Umm so this is kind of skipping over the part that we made it a round further, they played a team missing it's second best player, to win their 1 series and then also falsely claiming that we got swept (while also not acknowledging we had a 10% IT for just a game and a half of the 5 game series.

Sure, but Chicago sucked. I have no doubt that Utah would have steamrolled them.

Also, I still think LAC is comparable to Washington even without Blake.

Lastly, we did not get swept but we DID get steamrolled by a team not as good as the team Utah got steamrolled by.

[Rosco917]

The fact of the matter is, if Rondo didn't get hurt we never would have gotten past the Bulls.

You know it, I know it, and all of the NBA knows it. They had IT's number, and their game plan was spot on.

Due to the mediocre teams in the East we actually now think IT is an answer. Don't forget, we we're slaughtered by the Cavs, the only game we won, was without him.

30 million dollars a year for a player that is perhaps the least valuable defender in the NBA, a player that is handicapped defensively, (I'm not a hater, I watch the games) a player that requires his teammates on the floor to continually help him cover his defensive assignment, many times leaving their own assignment open to score on them, allowing their own defensive rating to suffer, a player that is the 2nd or 3rd best facilitator on the team.

Yes, he a great scorer, yes, he has a giant heart, and he's a huge Celtic booster. I love the guy, we all do, but don't hand cuff the team for 4 years for a one way player.

[celticsclay]

The fact of the matter is, if Rondo didn't get hurt we never would have gotten past the Bulls.

You know it, I know it, and all of the NBA knows it. They had IT's number, and their game plan was spot on.

Due to the mediocre teams in the East we actually now think IT is an answer. Don't forget, we we're slaughtered by the Cavs, the only game we won, was without him.

30 million dollars a year for a player that is perhaps the least valuable defender in the NBA, a player that is handicapped defensively, (I'm not a hater, I watch the games) a player that requires his teammates on the floor to continually help him cover his defensive assignment, many times leaving their own assignment open to score on them, allowing their own defensive rating to suffer, a player that is the 2nd or 3rd best facilitator on the team.

Yes, he a great scorer, yes, he has a giant heart, and he's a huge Celtic booster. I love the guy, we all do, but don't hand cuff the team for 4 years for a one way player.

we are just ignoring all the reports and direct quotes from ainge about how the team was shellshocked from the news about ITs sister right before game 1 and really didn't play like themselves for a bit? I think most people view that as a pretty significant thing. Also, Rondo was in and out of their rotation all year. It seems pretty amazing to act like he was a star player and only reason they could win.

[Chris22]

 72% of Celtics don't wanna pay our best player. Go figure.

He got his teeth knocked out and couldn't even make it through the playoffs.
He has tremendous courage, but he's too small to survive long term.

[ThePaintedArea]

Six players in NBA history have scored more than 28 ppg with a TS% over .620.

Three are in the HOF. Two others have won MVPs (Curry, Durant). Then there's IT.

Nate "Tiny " Archibald   28.2 ppg with 9.2 assists in 71-72 and then a whopping 34 ppg with 11.4 assists!!!!!  But he never won a title until he met Bird.

And he weighed 150.

[Phantom255x]

 72% of Celtics don't wanna pay our best player. Go figure.

He got his teeth knocked out and couldn't even make it through the playoffs.
He has tremendous courage, but he's too small to survive long term.

This has to be one of the most idiotic things I've heard...