Poll: Yes or No Thomas at 30 million per year

[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?

[moiso]

That's sub-max. Of course you sign him.

Individual: All-NBA Second Team. 28.9 ppg (3rd). .625 eFG% (9th). 10.9 Offensive Win Shares (2nd)

Team: #1 seed in the Conference. 7th best offense. 2nd in assists per possession.

Intangibles: Played after losing his sister, after getting teeth knocked out, after tearing his labrum. Elite 4th quarter scorer. Leader.

Correct. Easy decision. Absolutely you sign him at this number.

CoachBo likes 1-way players now?

Someone hacked his account for sure.

Seems you forget about large elements of the game - passing, assists, leadership, intangibles, etc. He's not as bad a defender as his haters on this blog want to believe, either.

I think it's a proven fact by various measures that he's the worst defender in the NBA.  The "haters" must think he's the worst defender in high school!

[jambr380]

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?

While close, I think Hayward is the better player now and will be in the future, but I also answered yes to the OP. That is less than a max contract (a lot less, actually) and we would be lucky to have IT on our team moving forward.

I do agree that those three 'max' players are a little underwhelming, but Hayward would be the best of the 3 so you have to sign him if you can get him and figure out the rest of the roster later.

[More Banners]

That's sub-max. Of course you sign him.

Individual: All-NBA Second Team. 28.9 ppg (3rd). .625 eFG% (9th). 10.9 Offensive Win Shares (2nd)

Team: #1 seed in the Conference. 7th best offense. 2nd in assists per possession.

Intangibles: Played after losing his sister, after getting teeth knocked out, after tearing his labrum. Elite 4th quarter scorer. Leader.

Correct. Easy decision. Absolutely you sign him at this number.

CoachBo likes 1-way players now?

Someone hacked his account for sure.

Seems you forget about large elements of the game - passing, assists, leadership, intangibles, etc. He's not as bad a defender as his haters on this blog want to believe, either.

I think it's a proven fact by various measures that he's the worst defender in the NBA.  The "haters" must think he's the worst defender in high school!

Those assist numbers look more journeyman midlevel than all star max. Without looking anything up, the average for PG's getting starter minutes probably around His average.

He is one hell of a shooter/scorer, and I'll give you intangibles, but this team has an abundance of "intangibles."  That might actually be our greatest strength. 

 Scoring is what gets allstar consideration and money, so who knows.

[Phantom255x]

Basically, 75% of people want him gone and assume we have a replacement for a 29 PPG scorer already on the team. Fultz will come in and do just that!

Hayward isn't coming here if the plan is to let IT go or trade him. No Max FA is.

[More Banners]

Basically, 75% of people want him gone and assume we have a replacement for a 29 PPG scorer already on the team. Fultz will come in and do just that!

Hayward isn't coming here if the plan is to let IT go or trade him. No Max FA is.

As I think about it, with as much respect as he seems to get from other players, the same may be true for Bradley.

I do see next year looking great, and us rolling with them at guard again. No reason not to expect to face the Cavs in the ECF again next year.

[mmmmm]

That's sub-max. Of course you sign him.

Individual: All-NBA Second Team. 28.9 ppg (3rd). .625 eFG% (9th). 10.9 Offensive Win Shares (2nd)

Team: #1 seed in the Conference. 7th best offense. 2nd in assists per possession.

Intangibles: Played after losing his sister, after getting teeth knocked out, after tearing his labrum. Elite 4th quarter scorer. Leader.

Correct. Easy decision. Absolutely you sign him at this number.

CoachBo likes 1-way players now?

Someone hacked his account for sure.

Seems you forget about large elements of the game - passing, assists, leadership, intangibles, etc. He's not as bad a defender as his haters on this blog want to believe, either.

I think it's a proven fact by various measures that he's the worst defender in the NBA.  The "haters" must think he's the worst defender in high school!

Eh, it is only  'proven' by stats that are ultimately derived from the same core data: the raw defensive on/off plus-minus data.

But this is a fundamentally flawed analysis because it lacks understanding of context.

Consider, Isaiah's overall defensive rating, the number of points per 100 possessions that the team surrendered while he was on the floor was pretty bad:  113.1

By itself, that number looks bad and that is the seed from which such stats such as ESPN's DRPM derive their cruel ranking of Isaiah's defense.

However, if one actually takes the time to look at the context that leads to that number, then some interesting things surface.

One of the re-curring themes this year for the Celtics was that they played 'small ball' a lot.  Further, they took this to an extreme by playing 3-guard lineups a ton.   The motivation for this may seem sound:  This team's talent is skewed toward the guard position so if you want to put your best players on the floor more, you are going to end up using 3-guard lineups a lot.

Unfortunately, the 3-guard lineups, while sometimes overall net effective, were consistently _horrible_ on defense.   Overall, independent of who the other two, bigger players were, 3-guard lineups consisting of Isaiah, Avery, Marcus + 2 posted a truly horrible defensive rating of 115.2.

Now, they overall were only slightly negative because they also posted a fantastic offensive rating of 115.0.  But the subject of the moment is defense.

One of the most popular configurations was IT+AB+MS+Jae+XX.   That lineup posted a harsh 116.7 defensive rating.

The 2-gaurd configurations that include Isaiah, Avery and Jae (i.e., dropping Marcus) posted a 108.0 defensive rating, a whopping 8.7 point defensive improvement while still posting a 116.0 offensive rating!

The 2-guard configurations that include Isaiah and Avery (but exclude Marcus or Terry) were about 6 points better per 100 possessions than the 3-guard lineups while still posting a stellar 115.7 offensive rating.

The problem there, would seem to be Marcus, right?  Getting him off the floor dramatically improved the defense!  Wrong.

This is where we note that ALL of our primary 2-guard lineups all had dramatically lower defensive ratings than our 3-guard lineups.   Almost all of them were league-average defense or better.

The 3-guard lineups consistently created mismatches ... but on both ends.  They often required Marcus to defend a much bigger SF or Jae to defend a much bigger PF.

We were consistently a MUCH better defensive team in configurations that had just 2 guards on the floor.  And that was true with Isaiah on the floor.

Our heavy usage of the 3-guard lineups is the biggest factor in not only why Isaiah ended up with such a poor defensive rating, but also why Avery and Marcus and indeed the whole team ended up with relatively poor defensive ratings.

[GreenEnvy]

The truth is I don't WANT to give him $30M/yr, but I also don't want him leaving over a few million.

So yes, I max him out.

[More Banners]

I'm hoping he takes whatever keeps us out of the tax.

I'm also hoping to find a way to get Hayward and keep Olynyk.

And that Santa is really good to me this year. Hey, what can I say.

[obnoxiousmime]

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."

[Ilikesports17]

I'm hoping he takes whatever keeps us out of the tax.

I'm also hoping to find a way to get Hayward and keep Olynyk.

And that Santa is really good to me this year. Hey, what can I say.

That would mean trading 2 of Bradley, Crowder, Smart

[Kuberski33]

The Celtics without him this year were a lottery level team. That's how good he was.  To me the only question is how will he hold up physically from the pounding he will inevitably take.

[Csfan1984]

3 years $85 million.

[Celtics4ever]

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

Guys who come from West to East tend to do better, too because it is the weaker league in some ways.   I think it has improved some in that regard though.

[Future Celtics Owner]

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