Poll: Yes or No Thomas at 30 million per year

[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.

Why are you concerned about saving Wyc money?

Oh -- are you expecting him to buy you a Christmas present?  LOL!

More seriously:  Fans shouldn't really get too hung up on the luxury tax.  It is a cost of doing business.  It doesn't really factor into roster construction other than as an expense for the owners.

And sure, I'm not advocating spending foolishly.  But I see no reason to cry tears if the owners have to spend some of their massive profits in order to pay the players that have earned so much $$ for them.

Another way to put it is:  Why be concerned about saving the owner's money here and not be concerned about the player getting paid fair market value for his services?   Because THAT is the trade off here.

I wouldn't go into the tax to pay IT since once he's signed and we're over the cap, we are likely to add players with exceptions as well in that and future years, which will put us in the tax.

All good points though.

And if we are concerned about his market value, I'm willing to let the market set it, and I highly, highly doubt anyone can or will give him $30M. His market value isn't what other guys got paid in other years, it's what he'll get offered in 2018. Most teams cap space will be chewed up by then, and most of the rest already have a starting PG.

[nebist]

I think Hayward "moves the needle".  He is a [dang] good player and gives us significantly more talent and size on the wing than we currently have.  You have to take the opportunities that are there to get significantly better (like with Horford last year).  Did Horford make us a true title contender? No.  But he helped add 5 wins to our regular season record, achieve home court advantage in the playoffs, and advance to the ECF as opposed to getting knocked out in the first round.  Would Hayward make us a better team than the Cavs or Warriors? No.  But he definitely makes us better and starts to incrementally close the gap.  And that opens the door.  What if Fultz or Brown make a leap to stardom earlier than expected?  What if the favorites deal with key injuries?  What if a major big becomes available at the trade deadline for future assets?  Bottom line is Hayward moves the needle because he takes an already very strong team and gets it closer to being a true championship contender without costing the flexibility to continue to improve.

so what is the end game by signing Hayward? What other moves are you making to make the team better, alleviate the future cap issues, and get proper development of the young players? After signing Hayward what do you do next?

Sign Hayward.  Draft Fultz.  Trade Avery for the cap flexibility necessary to sign Hayward (if you can get a young/cheap rotation big in the Avery trade even better).  Develop Fultz/Brown in the rotation.  Keep BRK 18 unless it is necessary as part of a package to make a final move to get us on the level or above the Cavs/Warriors (i.e. for a legit top 15 player in the NBA, which I don't see coming available).  Why is keeping all three BRK picks and adding them to IT, Hayward, and Horford not an end-game?  That would mean having 3 current all-stars with 3 top 5 picks in the rotation.  It's totally oversold that we need to pick one direction or the other.  That team could be absolutely filthy.  Brown is a very good prospect; Fultz is on another level with his ability to score the basketball.  I would be very surprised if he wasn't obviously our 3rd best scorer (behind IT and Hayward if we can get him) by Christmas of next season. 

For context...in their first and second seasons together, the extremely young top 5 lottery pick trio of Durant/Harden/Westbrook won 50 and 55 games together in a brutal Western Conference.  The best veterans on those teams were Nick Collison, Thabo Sefolosha, and Nenad Krstic (that is not a joke).  Imagine those Thunder teams with IT, Horford, and Hayward instead.  They would have been the best team in the history of the NBA.  Now obviously you need to hit on your top 5 lottery picks, but there's no shot if we miss on those anyways.  So, yeah, that's the endgame.

[mmmmm]

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.

Why are you concerned about saving Wyc money?

Oh -- are you expecting him to buy you a Christmas present?  LOL!

More seriously:  Fans shouldn't really get too hung up on the luxury tax.  It is a cost of doing business.  It doesn't really factor into roster construction other than as an expense for the owners.

And sure, I'm not advocating spending foolishly.  But I see no reason to cry tears if the owners have to spend some of their massive profits in order to pay the players that have earned so much $$ for them.

Another way to put it is:  Why be concerned about saving the owner's money here and not be concerned about the player getting paid fair market value for his services?   Because THAT is the trade off here.

I wouldn't go into the tax to pay IT since once he's signed and we're over the cap, we are likely to add players with exceptions as well in that and future years, which will put us in the tax.

All good points though.

And if we are concerned about his market value, I'm willing to let the market set it, and I highly, highly doubt anyone can or will give him $30M. His market value isn't what other guys got paid in other years, it's what he'll get offered in 2018. Most teams cap space will be chewed up by then, and most of the rest already have a starting PG.

Again, your only stated reason for not paying him a max is ... to not end up paying luxury tax.

So again I ask, why is it you are so concerned with saving Wyc money?   You do realize he will almost certainly recoup any luxury tax investment several times over through the increased revenue and market value of the franchise that deep playoff runs bring, right?

On IT's fair market value:

If IT doesn't come back from his injury strong, then his market price will drop, of course.  But if he's anything close to what he was this last year, then he'll almost certainly get a max contract unless he himself offers to take a home-team discount.  But I don't see why he should ever be expected to take such a discount.

[Moranis]

I think Hayward "moves the needle".  He is a [dang] good player and gives us significantly more talent and size on the wing than we currently have.  You have to take the opportunities that are there to get significantly better (like with Horford last year).  Did Horford make us a true title contender? No.  But he helped add 5 wins to our regular season record, achieve home court advantage in the playoffs, and advance to the ECF as opposed to getting knocked out in the first round.  Would Hayward make us a better team than the Cavs or Warriors? No.  But he definitely makes us better and starts to incrementally close the gap.  And that opens the door.  What if Fultz or Brown make a leap to stardom earlier than expected?  What if the favorites deal with key injuries?  What if a major big becomes available at the trade deadline for future assets?  Bottom line is Hayward moves the needle because he takes an already very strong team and gets it closer to being a true championship contender without costing the flexibility to continue to improve.

so what is the end game by signing Hayward? What other moves are you making to make the team better, alleviate the future cap issues, and get proper development of the young players? After signing Hayward what do you do next?

Sign Hayward.  Draft Fultz.  Trade Avery for the cap flexibility necessary to sign Hayward (if you can get a young/cheap rotation big in the Avery trade even better).  Develop Fultz/Brown in the rotation.  Keep BRK 18 unless it is necessary as part of a package to make a final move to get us on the level or above the Cavs/Warriors (i.e. for a legit top 15 player in the NBA, which I don't see coming available).  Why is keeping all three BRK picks and adding them to IT, Hayward, and Horford not an end-game?  That would mean having 3 current all-stars with 3 top 5 picks in the rotation.  It's totally oversold that we need to pick one direction or the other.  That team could be absolutely filthy.  Brown is a very good prospect; Fultz is on another level with his ability to score the basketball.  I would be very surprised if he wasn't obviously our 3rd best scorer (behind IT and Hayward if we can get him) by Christmas of next season. 

For context...in their first and second seasons together, the extremely young top 5 lottery pick trio of Durant/Harden/Westbrook won 50 and 55 games together in a brutal Western Conference.  The best veterans on those teams were Nick Collison, Thabo Sefolosha, and Nenad Krstic (that is not a joke).  Imagine those Thunder teams with IT, Horford, and Hayward instead.  They would have been the best team in the history of the NBA.  Now obviously you need to hit on your top 5 lottery picks, but there's no shot if we miss on those anyways.  So, yeah, that's the endgame.

Westbrook doesn't become Westbrook if he gets backup minutes behind Thomas though.  Who else you getting rid of besides Bradley to free up enough minutes to add 2 more guards/wings.  Crowder? Smart? What do you do with Rozier who if all goes well won't play at all? 

Durant, Westbrook, Harden, Green, Ibaka all were allowed to play as many minutes as they could reasonably handle. That is why they developed and developed so quickly.  You stunt their growth to 15 to 20 mpg at most their first 3 years and they aren't the same level of player those years.

[Ilikesports17]

I think Hayward "moves the needle".  He is a [dang] good player and gives us significantly more talent and size on the wing than we currently have.  You have to take the opportunities that are there to get significantly better (like with Horford last year).  Did Horford make us a true title contender? No.  But he helped add 5 wins to our regular season record, achieve home court advantage in the playoffs, and advance to the ECF as opposed to getting knocked out in the first round.  Would Hayward make us a better team than the Cavs or Warriors? No.  But he definitely makes us better and starts to incrementally close the gap.  And that opens the door.  What if Fultz or Brown make a leap to stardom earlier than expected?  What if the favorites deal with key injuries?  What if a major big becomes available at the trade deadline for future assets?  Bottom line is Hayward moves the needle because he takes an already very strong team and gets it closer to being a true championship contender without costing the flexibility to continue to improve.

so what is the end game by signing Hayward? What other moves are you making to make the team better, alleviate the future cap issues, and get proper development of the young players? After signing Hayward what do you do next?

Sign Hayward.  Draft Fultz.  Trade Avery for the cap flexibility necessary to sign Hayward (if you can get a young/cheap rotation big in the Avery trade even better).  Develop Fultz/Brown in the rotation.  Keep BRK 18 unless it is necessary as part of a package to make a final move to get us on the level or above the Cavs/Warriors (i.e. for a legit top 15 player in the NBA, which I don't see coming available).  Why is keeping all three BRK picks and adding them to IT, Hayward, and Horford not an end-game?  That would mean having 3 current all-stars with 3 top 5 picks in the rotation.  It's totally oversold that we need to pick one direction or the other.  That team could be absolutely filthy.  Brown is a very good prospect; Fultz is on another level with his ability to score the basketball.  I would be very surprised if he wasn't obviously our 3rd best scorer (behind IT and Hayward if we can get him) by Christmas of next season. 

For context...in their first and second seasons together, the extremely young top 5 lottery pick trio of Durant/Harden/Westbrook won 50 and 55 games together in a brutal Western Conference.  The best veterans on those teams were Nick Collison, Thabo Sefolosha, and Nenad Krstic (that is not a joke).  Imagine those Thunder teams with IT, Horford, and Hayward instead.  They would have been the best team in the history of the NBA.  Now obviously you need to hit on your top 5 lottery picks, but there's no shot if we miss on those anyways.  So, yeah, that's the endgame.

Westbrook doesn't become Westbrook if he gets backup minutes behind Thomas though.  Who else you getting rid of besides Bradley to free up enough minutes to add 2 more guards/wings.  Crowder? Smart? What do you do with Rozier who if all goes well won't play at all? 

Durant, Westbrook, Harden, Green, Ibaka all were allowed to play as many minutes as they could reasonably handle. That is why they developed and developed so quickly.  You stunt their growth to 15 to 20 mpg at most their first 3 years and they aren't the same level of player those years.

Seems pretty speculatory

[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.

Why are you concerned about saving Wyc money?

Oh -- are you expecting him to buy you a Christmas present?  LOL!

More seriously:  Fans shouldn't really get too hung up on the luxury tax.  It is a cost of doing business.  It doesn't really factor into roster construction other than as an expense for the owners.

And sure, I'm not advocating spending foolishly.  But I see no reason to cry tears if the owners have to spend some of their massive profits in order to pay the players that have earned so much $$ for them.

Another way to put it is:  Why be concerned about saving the owner's money here and not be concerned about the player getting paid fair market value for his services?   Because THAT is the trade off here.

I wouldn't go into the tax to pay IT since once he's signed and we're over the cap, we are likely to add players with exceptions as well in that and future years, which will put us in the tax.

All good points though.

And if we are concerned about his market value, I'm willing to let the market set it, and I highly, highly doubt anyone can or will give him $30M. His market value isn't what other guys got paid in other years, it's what he'll get offered in 2018. Most teams cap space will be chewed up by then, and most of the rest already have a starting PG.

Again, your only stated reason for not paying him a max is ... to not end up paying luxury tax.

So again I ask, why is it you are so concerned with saving Wyc money?   You do realize he will almost certainly recoup any luxury tax investment several times over through the increased revenue and market value of the franchise that deep playoff runs bring, right?

On IT's fair market value:

If IT doesn't come back from his injury strong, then his market price will drop, of course.  But if he's anything close to what he was this last year, then he'll almost certainly get a max contract unless he himself offers to take a home-team discount.  But I don't see why he should ever be expected to take such a discount.

Two stated reasons: I doubt anyone else pays him the 30, and the tax.

 I'm sure somewhere someone tracked down the cap situation for each team in 2018. Not sure who else will bid on our guards then, but offhand it's doubtful that there would be an outrageous bidding war for him considering his defense and journeyman passing for a PG, a position of exceptional talent and depth these days. Many believe he's worth max money, and appear to be glad to bid against themselves.

I have no problem spending Wyc's money, just to clear that up. But there is a limit, since in the past it's been said he'd pay it for a contender. We would have to show a lot more next season, since CLE killed us. I have my doubts about beating Chicago with playoff Rondo since he is so so good at exploiting mismatches, and IT is always a mismatch defensively. And a mediocre Wiz series was decided by HCA. If we are 2 players away from contending and only get one, does Wyc pay?

So I'm on the wait and see train with IT.  I expect the team brass is as well.

[mmmmm]

I think Hayward "moves the needle".  He is a [dang] good player and gives us significantly more talent and size on the wing than we currently have.  You have to take the opportunities that are there to get significantly better (like with Horford last year).  Did Horford make us a true title contender? No.  But he helped add 5 wins to our regular season record, achieve home court advantage in the playoffs, and advance to the ECF as opposed to getting knocked out in the first round.  Would Hayward make us a better team than the Cavs or Warriors? No.  But he definitely makes us better and starts to incrementally close the gap.  And that opens the door.  What if Fultz or Brown make a leap to stardom earlier than expected?  What if the favorites deal with key injuries?  What if a major big becomes available at the trade deadline for future assets?  Bottom line is Hayward moves the needle because he takes an already very strong team and gets it closer to being a true championship contender without costing the flexibility to continue to improve.

so what is the end game by signing Hayward? What other moves are you making to make the team better, alleviate the future cap issues, and get proper development of the young players? After signing Hayward what do you do next?

Sign Hayward.  Draft Fultz.  Trade Avery for the cap flexibility necessary to sign Hayward (if you can get a young/cheap rotation big in the Avery trade even better).  Develop Fultz/Brown in the rotation.  Keep BRK 18 unless it is necessary as part of a package to make a final move to get us on the level or above the Cavs/Warriors (i.e. for a legit top 15 player in the NBA, which I don't see coming available).  Why is keeping all three BRK picks and adding them to IT, Hayward, and Horford not an end-game?  That would mean having 3 current all-stars with 3 top 5 picks in the rotation.  It's totally oversold that we need to pick one direction or the other.  That team could be absolutely filthy.  Brown is a very good prospect; Fultz is on another level with his ability to score the basketball.  I would be very surprised if he wasn't obviously our 3rd best scorer (behind IT and Hayward if we can get him) by Christmas of next season. 

For context...in their first and second seasons together, the extremely young top 5 lottery pick trio of Durant/Harden/Westbrook won 50 and 55 games together in a brutal Western Conference.  The best veterans on those teams were Nick Collison, Thabo Sefolosha, and Nenad Krstic (that is not a joke).  Imagine those Thunder teams with IT, Horford, and Hayward instead.  They would have been the best team in the history of the NBA.  Now obviously you need to hit on your top 5 lottery picks, but there's no shot if we miss on those anyways.  So, yeah, that's the endgame.

Westbrook doesn't become Westbrook if he gets backup minutes behind Thomas though.  Who else you getting rid of besides Bradley to free up enough minutes to add 2 more guards/wings.  Crowder? Smart? What do you do with Rozier who if all goes well won't play at all? 

Durant, Westbrook, Harden, Green, Ibaka all were allowed to play as many minutes as they could reasonably handle. That is why they developed and developed so quickly.  You stunt their growth to 15 to 20 mpg at most their first 3 years and they aren't the same level of player those years.

Some of my favorite players:
Dennis Johnson: 20.6 mpg as a rookie.
Kevin McHale:  20.1 mpg as a rookie.
Danny Ainge:  10.6 mpg as a rookie.
Sam Jones:  10.6 mpg as a rookie (didn't average over 20 until his 4th season).
Detlef Schrempf: 15.1 mpg as a rookie.

Some more modern examples:
Dirk Nowitski:  20.4 mpg as a rookie.
Paul George:  20.7 mpg as a rookie.
Draymond Green:  13.4 mpg as a rookie.
Jimmy Butler:  8.5 mpg as a rookie.
Kyle Lowry:  17.5 mpg as a rookie (just 10 games!)

These guys all turned out okay.

The development impact of getting immediate rookie playing time just may be a tad-bit overrated.

[Moranis]

I think Hayward "moves the needle".  He is a [dang] good player and gives us significantly more talent and size on the wing than we currently have.  You have to take the opportunities that are there to get significantly better (like with Horford last year).  Did Horford make us a true title contender? No.  But he helped add 5 wins to our regular season record, achieve home court advantage in the playoffs, and advance to the ECF as opposed to getting knocked out in the first round.  Would Hayward make us a better team than the Cavs or Warriors? No.  But he definitely makes us better and starts to incrementally close the gap.  And that opens the door.  What if Fultz or Brown make a leap to stardom earlier than expected?  What if the favorites deal with key injuries?  What if a major big becomes available at the trade deadline for future assets?  Bottom line is Hayward moves the needle because he takes an already very strong team and gets it closer to being a true championship contender without costing the flexibility to continue to improve.

so what is the end game by signing Hayward? What other moves are you making to make the team better, alleviate the future cap issues, and get proper development of the young players? After signing Hayward what do you do next?

Sign Hayward.  Draft Fultz.  Trade Avery for the cap flexibility necessary to sign Hayward (if you can get a young/cheap rotation big in the Avery trade even better).  Develop Fultz/Brown in the rotation.  Keep BRK 18 unless it is necessary as part of a package to make a final move to get us on the level or above the Cavs/Warriors (i.e. for a legit top 15 player in the NBA, which I don't see coming available).  Why is keeping all three BRK picks and adding them to IT, Hayward, and Horford not an end-game?  That would mean having 3 current all-stars with 3 top 5 picks in the rotation.  It's totally oversold that we need to pick one direction or the other.  That team could be absolutely filthy.  Brown is a very good prospect; Fultz is on another level with his ability to score the basketball.  I would be very surprised if he wasn't obviously our 3rd best scorer (behind IT and Hayward if we can get him) by Christmas of next season. 

For context...in their first and second seasons together, the extremely young top 5 lottery pick trio of Durant/Harden/Westbrook won 50 and 55 games together in a brutal Western Conference.  The best veterans on those teams were Nick Collison, Thabo Sefolosha, and Nenad Krstic (that is not a joke).  Imagine those Thunder teams with IT, Horford, and Hayward instead.  They would have been the best team in the history of the NBA.  Now obviously you need to hit on your top 5 lottery picks, but there's no shot if we miss on those anyways.  So, yeah, that's the endgame.

Westbrook doesn't become Westbrook if he gets backup minutes behind Thomas though.  Who else you getting rid of besides Bradley to free up enough minutes to add 2 more guards/wings.  Crowder? Smart? What do you do with Rozier who if all goes well won't play at all? 

Durant, Westbrook, Harden, Green, Ibaka all were allowed to play as many minutes as they could reasonably handle. That is why they developed and developed so quickly.  You stunt their growth to 15 to 20 mpg at most their first 3 years and they aren't the same level of player those years.

Some of my favorite players:
Dennis Johnson: 20.6 mpg as a rookie.
Kevin McHale:  20.1 mpg as a rookie.
Danny Ainge:  10.6 mpg as a rookie.
Sam Jones:  10.6 mpg as a rookie (didn't average over 20 until his 4th season).
Detlef Schrempf: 15.1 mpg as a rookie.

Some more modern examples:
Dirk Nowitski:  20.4 mpg as a rookie.
Paul George:  20.7 mpg as a rookie.
Draymond Green:  13.4 mpg as a rookie.
Jimmy Butler:  8.5 mpg as a rookie.
Kyle Lowry:  17.5 mpg as a rookie (just 10 games!)

These guys all turned out okay.

The development impact of getting immediate rookie playing time just may be a tad-bit overrated.

but he was talking about those guys being a 50 and 57 win during their rookie contracts.  That doesn't happen unless they get playing time as a 20 win team.  Sure ultimately stunted no idea as a rookie may not affect the long term career but it absolutely would stunt the timeframe from which potential is reached (and for the record Paul George was starting and playing nearly 27 minutes in the playoffs as a rookie - he also started the last 19 games of the season logging plenty of 30+ minute games during that stretch)

[moiso]

It's much better to force guys to play defense and play the right way, like the Celtics are doing with Brown.  I don't see how this is a debate in the first year or two.  Giving examples of guys who turned out ok after playing big minutes doesn't prove anything.  There are just as many rookies who get more time than they should that don't improve at all.

[nebist]

I'm of the mindset that earned play time is as valuable if not more so than immediately being gifted 35+ minutes a night as a young player.  That being said, I still think Fultz and Brown can see 20-25 minutes per night next season and develop just fine.  Yeah, they won't have the counting stats of Westbrook/Durant/Harden etc did as young players, but they wouldn't need to with 3 vet all stars in the house.  Overall, we could be looking at a team with 5-6 impact, all-star talent level players in the next couple of years.  That is borderline unheard of. 

Possible rotation with minutes to show development:
1 - Thomas (32), Fultz (16)
2/3 - Heyward (34), Smart (26),  Brown (22), Crowder (10), Fultz (4)
4/5 - Horford (32), Zizic (20), Crowder (16), 28 minutes at the 4/5 spot still available for Yabs or another vet big pickup.

Rozier is obviously the odd man out here, so he could be kept at first while IT is coming back from surgery and then flipped at the deadline if necessary.

Brown and Fultz get 22 and 20 minutes in this rotation.  Plenty of time to develop.  If they outperform those minutes and demand more, then great.  You've got another valuable trade chip in Crowder (or Smart I guess though he's my binky) that you can move for a big.

[mmmmm]

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.

Why are you concerned about saving Wyc money?

Oh -- are you expecting him to buy you a Christmas present?  LOL!

More seriously:  Fans shouldn't really get too hung up on the luxury tax.  It is a cost of doing business.  It doesn't really factor into roster construction other than as an expense for the owners.

And sure, I'm not advocating spending foolishly.  But I see no reason to cry tears if the owners have to spend some of their massive profits in order to pay the players that have earned so much $$ for them.

Another way to put it is:  Why be concerned about saving the owner's money here and not be concerned about the player getting paid fair market value for his services?   Because THAT is the trade off here.

I wouldn't go into the tax to pay IT since once he's signed and we're over the cap, we are likely to add players with exceptions as well in that and future years, which will put us in the tax.

All good points though.

And if we are concerned about his market value, I'm willing to let the market set it, and I highly, highly doubt anyone can or will give him $30M. His market value isn't what other guys got paid in other years, it's what he'll get offered in 2018. Most teams cap space will be chewed up by then, and most of the rest already have a starting PG.

Again, your only stated reason for not paying him a max is ... to not end up paying luxury tax.

So again I ask, why is it you are so concerned with saving Wyc money?   You do realize he will almost certainly recoup any luxury tax investment several times over through the increased revenue and market value of the franchise that deep playoff runs bring, right?

On IT's fair market value:

If IT doesn't come back from his injury strong, then his market price will drop, of course.  But if he's anything close to what he was this last year, then he'll almost certainly get a max contract unless he himself offers to take a home-team discount.  But I don't see why he should ever be expected to take such a discount.

Two stated reasons: I doubt anyone else pays him the 30, and the tax.

 I'm sure somewhere someone tracked down the cap situation for each team in 2018. Not sure who else will bid on our guards then, but offhand it's doubtful that there would be an outrageous bidding war for him considering his defense and journeyman passing for a PG, a position of exceptional talent and depth these days. Many believe he's worth max money, and appear to be glad to bid against themselves.

I have no problem spending Wyc's money, just to clear that up. But there is a limit, since in the past it's been said he'd pay it for a contender. We would have to show a lot more next season, since CLE killed us. I have my doubts about beating Chicago with playoff Rondo since he is so so good at exploiting mismatches, and IT is always a mismatch defensively. And a mediocre Wiz series was decided by HCA. If we are 2 players away from contending and only get one, does Wyc pay?

So I'm on the wait and see train with IT.  I expect the team brass is as well.

No mention of the fact that he was playing injured the last few months and especially during the Wizards series.  Sigh ...

The Rondo Bulls are rapidly growing into one of the great legendary teams, perhaps greater in stature than the Jordan Bulls of the mid-90s.

So, the kid just posted a historic season of scoring and efficiency (to go along with hefty assist and absurdly low turnover numbers), was named an all-star for the second time and to the All-NBA team for the first time, carrying this team on his stocky shoulders to the 1st seed (That HCA you dismiss was EARNED!!!!) and through the playoffs where, despite clearly being injured and hobbled and constantly double and triple teamed, he put up 23.3 points & 6.7 assists per game on efficient (56.3% TS%) scoring to get this team into the ECF.

This all after the _prior_ season having joined just Havlicek & Bird as the only Celtics to ever score 1800+ points and deal 500+ assists.   He's not a one-season wonder.  The kid has scored 20+ ppg and dished 6 assists per game in each of the last three seasons he was a starter.   His per-36 rates have been way above that for 4 straight seasons.  He's super-efficient at scoring so he isn't a shot-hog.  He does this while carrying extremely high USG AND AST rates above 30% while maintaining minuscule turnover rates!

Do you know how many player seasons you can find in the entire basketball-reference database where a minutes-qualified player posted USG and AST rates above 30% while also posting a scoring efficiency of above 60% _and_ a turnover rate below 11%?   

Just one.

And you are still on the "wait and see train"?

Okay.  I'll assume by that you just mean you are on the wait and see how well he recovers from his injury.

Because assuming he does come back even close to what he has been, what is it you are exactly waiting for otherwise?

[mmmmm]

I think Hayward "moves the needle".  He is a [dang] good player and gives us significantly more talent and size on the wing than we currently have.  You have to take the opportunities that are there to get significantly better (like with Horford last year).  Did Horford make us a true title contender? No.  But he helped add 5 wins to our regular season record, achieve home court advantage in the playoffs, and advance to the ECF as opposed to getting knocked out in the first round.  Would Hayward make us a better team than the Cavs or Warriors? No.  But he definitely makes us better and starts to incrementally close the gap.  And that opens the door.  What if Fultz or Brown make a leap to stardom earlier than expected?  What if the favorites deal with key injuries?  What if a major big becomes available at the trade deadline for future assets?  Bottom line is Hayward moves the needle because he takes an already very strong team and gets it closer to being a true championship contender without costing the flexibility to continue to improve.

so what is the end game by signing Hayward? What other moves are you making to make the team better, alleviate the future cap issues, and get proper development of the young players? After signing Hayward what do you do next?

Sign Hayward.  Draft Fultz.  Trade Avery for the cap flexibility necessary to sign Hayward (if you can get a young/cheap rotation big in the Avery trade even better).  Develop Fultz/Brown in the rotation.  Keep BRK 18 unless it is necessary as part of a package to make a final move to get us on the level or above the Cavs/Warriors (i.e. for a legit top 15 player in the NBA, which I don't see coming available).  Why is keeping all three BRK picks and adding them to IT, Hayward, and Horford not an end-game?  That would mean having 3 current all-stars with 3 top 5 picks in the rotation.  It's totally oversold that we need to pick one direction or the other.  That team could be absolutely filthy.  Brown is a very good prospect; Fultz is on another level with his ability to score the basketball.  I would be very surprised if he wasn't obviously our 3rd best scorer (behind IT and Hayward if we can get him) by Christmas of next season. 

For context...in their first and second seasons together, the extremely young top 5 lottery pick trio of Durant/Harden/Westbrook won 50 and 55 games together in a brutal Western Conference.  The best veterans on those teams were Nick Collison, Thabo Sefolosha, and Nenad Krstic (that is not a joke).  Imagine those Thunder teams with IT, Horford, and Hayward instead.  They would have been the best team in the history of the NBA.  Now obviously you need to hit on your top 5 lottery picks, but there's no shot if we miss on those anyways.  So, yeah, that's the endgame.

Westbrook doesn't become Westbrook if he gets backup minutes behind Thomas though.  Who else you getting rid of besides Bradley to free up enough minutes to add 2 more guards/wings.  Crowder? Smart? What do you do with Rozier who if all goes well won't play at all? 

Durant, Westbrook, Harden, Green, Ibaka all were allowed to play as many minutes as they could reasonably handle. That is why they developed and developed so quickly.  You stunt their growth to 15 to 20 mpg at most their first 3 years and they aren't the same level of player those years.

Some of my favorite players:
Dennis Johnson: 20.6 mpg as a rookie.
Kevin McHale:  20.1 mpg as a rookie.
Danny Ainge:  10.6 mpg as a rookie.
Sam Jones:  10.6 mpg as a rookie (didn't average over 20 until his 4th season).
Detlef Schrempf: 15.1 mpg as a rookie.

Some more modern examples:
Dirk Nowitski:  20.4 mpg as a rookie.
Paul George:  20.7 mpg as a rookie.
Draymond Green:  13.4 mpg as a rookie.
Jimmy Butler:  8.5 mpg as a rookie.
Kyle Lowry:  17.5 mpg as a rookie (just 10 games!)

These guys all turned out okay.

The development impact of getting immediate rookie playing time just may be a tad-bit overrated.

but he was talking about those guys being a 50 and 57 win during their rookie contracts.  That doesn't happen unless they get playing time as a 20 win team.  Sure ultimately stunted no idea as a rookie may not affect the long term career but it absolutely would stunt the timeframe from which potential is reached (and for the record Paul George was starting and playing nearly 27 minutes in the playoffs as a rookie - he also started the last 19 games of the season logging plenty of 30+ minute games during that stretch)

Several of those guys I listed WERE on 50+ win teams during their rookie contracts.   Most were huge factors in that, actually.

That George was able to step up and play when his team needed him to doesn't disprove the point, which is that his development wasn't stifled by getting limited minutes for most of his rookie season.

[Moranis]

I think Hayward "moves the needle".  He is a [dang] good player and gives us significantly more talent and size on the wing than we currently have.  You have to take the opportunities that are there to get significantly better (like with Horford last year).  Did Horford make us a true title contender? No.  But he helped add 5 wins to our regular season record, achieve home court advantage in the playoffs, and advance to the ECF as opposed to getting knocked out in the first round.  Would Hayward make us a better team than the Cavs or Warriors? No.  But he definitely makes us better and starts to incrementally close the gap.  And that opens the door.  What if Fultz or Brown make a leap to stardom earlier than expected?  What if the favorites deal with key injuries?  What if a major big becomes available at the trade deadline for future assets?  Bottom line is Hayward moves the needle because he takes an already very strong team and gets it closer to being a true championship contender without costing the flexibility to continue to improve.

so what is the end game by signing Hayward? What other moves are you making to make the team better, alleviate the future cap issues, and get proper development of the young players? After signing Hayward what do you do next?

Sign Hayward.  Draft Fultz.  Trade Avery for the cap flexibility necessary to sign Hayward (if you can get a young/cheap rotation big in the Avery trade even better).  Develop Fultz/Brown in the rotation.  Keep BRK 18 unless it is necessary as part of a package to make a final move to get us on the level or above the Cavs/Warriors (i.e. for a legit top 15 player in the NBA, which I don't see coming available).  Why is keeping all three BRK picks and adding them to IT, Hayward, and Horford not an end-game?  That would mean having 3 current all-stars with 3 top 5 picks in the rotation.  It's totally oversold that we need to pick one direction or the other.  That team could be absolutely filthy.  Brown is a very good prospect; Fultz is on another level with his ability to score the basketball.  I would be very surprised if he wasn't obviously our 3rd best scorer (behind IT and Hayward if we can get him) by Christmas of next season. 

For context...in their first and second seasons together, the extremely young top 5 lottery pick trio of Durant/Harden/Westbrook won 50 and 55 games together in a brutal Western Conference.  The best veterans on those teams were Nick Collison, Thabo Sefolosha, and Nenad Krstic (that is not a joke).  Imagine those Thunder teams with IT, Horford, and Hayward instead.  They would have been the best team in the history of the NBA.  Now obviously you need to hit on your top 5 lottery picks, but there's no shot if we miss on those anyways.  So, yeah, that's the endgame.

Westbrook doesn't become Westbrook if he gets backup minutes behind Thomas though.  Who else you getting rid of besides Bradley to free up enough minutes to add 2 more guards/wings.  Crowder? Smart? What do you do with Rozier who if all goes well won't play at all? 

Durant, Westbrook, Harden, Green, Ibaka all were allowed to play as many minutes as they could reasonably handle. That is why they developed and developed so quickly.  You stunt their growth to 15 to 20 mpg at most their first 3 years and they aren't the same level of player those years.

Some of my favorite players:
Dennis Johnson: 20.6 mpg as a rookie.
Kevin McHale:  20.1 mpg as a rookie.
Danny Ainge:  10.6 mpg as a rookie.
Sam Jones:  10.6 mpg as a rookie (didn't average over 20 until his 4th season).
Detlef Schrempf: 15.1 mpg as a rookie.

Some more modern examples:
Dirk Nowitski:  20.4 mpg as a rookie.
Paul George:  20.7 mpg as a rookie.
Draymond Green:  13.4 mpg as a rookie.
Jimmy Butler:  8.5 mpg as a rookie.
Kyle Lowry:  17.5 mpg as a rookie (just 10 games!)

These guys all turned out okay.

The development impact of getting immediate rookie playing time just may be a tad-bit overrated.

but he was talking about those guys being a 50 and 57 win during their rookie contracts.  That doesn't happen unless they get playing time as a 20 win team.  Sure ultimately stunted no idea as a rookie may not affect the long term career but it absolutely would stunt the timeframe from which potential is reached (and for the record Paul George was starting and playing nearly 27 minutes in the playoffs as a rookie - he also started the last 19 games of the season logging plenty of 30+ minute games during that stretch)

Several of those guys I listed WERE on 50+ win teams during their rookie contracts.   Most were huge factors in that, actually.

That George was able to step up and play when his team needed him to doesn't disprove the point, which is that his development wasn't stifled by getting limited minutes for most of his rookie season.

It isn't about minutes per se, but opportunity.  What I mean is no one was standing in Paul George's way for playing time.  When he could handle more minutes, he was given them.  As soon as he was ready, Dunleavy went to the bench and George went to the starting lineup and he never looked back. 

Jimmy Butler played just 8.5 mpg as a rookie because he was raw and wasn't ready.  The Bulls had basically the same wings in Butler's 2nd year and by the end of that season he was starting and playing 30+ mpg (he played 41 mpg in the 12 playoff games that year as well).  Jimmy Butler was the reason Jimmy Butler didn't play more minutes as a rookie, not some wall of players keeping his minutes artificially lower.


That isn't the case in Boston.  Brown absolutely could have handled more minutes last year, he was just stopped from getting them because Crowder and Bradley have been established as long time starters and because Smart was taking some minutes that could have gone to Brown.  Smart didn't play 30 mpg until this season, not because he couldn't, but because Bradley and Thomas/Rondo are/were in front of him, and frankly he probably would have played closer to 35 mpg this year instead of 30 with a clearer path (he also isn't getting the experience he could use leading a team when he comes of the bench).  Olynyk hasn't played very many minutes because he just isn't good enough, but he has had the opportunity to play as many minutes as he can handle for basically his whole career.  That is what I'm getting at.

Fultz is supposedly the most NBA ready player in this draft.  If the minutes were available, I'd expect him to play over 30 mpg and not look back, but that clearly will not happen for him in Boston, which will slow his growth and make him a worse player initially.  Ultimately, he should hit his peak eventually, but it will be slowed down by him not having the playing time initially.

[mmmmm]

I think Hayward "moves the needle".  He is a [dang] good player and gives us significantly more talent and size on the wing than we currently have.  You have to take the opportunities that are there to get significantly better (like with Horford last year).  Did Horford make us a true title contender? No.  But he helped add 5 wins to our regular season record, achieve home court advantage in the playoffs, and advance to the ECF as opposed to getting knocked out in the first round.  Would Hayward make us a better team than the Cavs or Warriors? No.  But he definitely makes us better and starts to incrementally close the gap.  And that opens the door.  What if Fultz or Brown make a leap to stardom earlier than expected?  What if the favorites deal with key injuries?  What if a major big becomes available at the trade deadline for future assets?  Bottom line is Hayward moves the needle because he takes an already very strong team and gets it closer to being a true championship contender without costing the flexibility to continue to improve.

so what is the end game by signing Hayward? What other moves are you making to make the team better, alleviate the future cap issues, and get proper development of the young players? After signing Hayward what do you do next?

Sign Hayward.  Draft Fultz.  Trade Avery for the cap flexibility necessary to sign Hayward (if you can get a young/cheap rotation big in the Avery trade even better).  Develop Fultz/Brown in the rotation.  Keep BRK 18 unless it is necessary as part of a package to make a final move to get us on the level or above the Cavs/Warriors (i.e. for a legit top 15 player in the NBA, which I don't see coming available).  Why is keeping all three BRK picks and adding them to IT, Hayward, and Horford not an end-game?  That would mean having 3 current all-stars with 3 top 5 picks in the rotation.  It's totally oversold that we need to pick one direction or the other.  That team could be absolutely filthy.  Brown is a very good prospect; Fultz is on another level with his ability to score the basketball.  I would be very surprised if he wasn't obviously our 3rd best scorer (behind IT and Hayward if we can get him) by Christmas of next season. 

For context...in their first and second seasons together, the extremely young top 5 lottery pick trio of Durant/Harden/Westbrook won 50 and 55 games together in a brutal Western Conference.  The best veterans on those teams were Nick Collison, Thabo Sefolosha, and Nenad Krstic (that is not a joke).  Imagine those Thunder teams with IT, Horford, and Hayward instead.  They would have been the best team in the history of the NBA.  Now obviously you need to hit on your top 5 lottery picks, but there's no shot if we miss on those anyways.  So, yeah, that's the endgame.

Westbrook doesn't become Westbrook if he gets backup minutes behind Thomas though.  Who else you getting rid of besides Bradley to free up enough minutes to add 2 more guards/wings.  Crowder? Smart? What do you do with Rozier who if all goes well won't play at all? 

Durant, Westbrook, Harden, Green, Ibaka all were allowed to play as many minutes as they could reasonably handle. That is why they developed and developed so quickly.  You stunt their growth to 15 to 20 mpg at most their first 3 years and they aren't the same level of player those years.

Some of my favorite players:
Dennis Johnson: 20.6 mpg as a rookie.
Kevin McHale:  20.1 mpg as a rookie.
Danny Ainge:  10.6 mpg as a rookie.
Sam Jones:  10.6 mpg as a rookie (didn't average over 20 until his 4th season).
Detlef Schrempf: 15.1 mpg as a rookie.

Some more modern examples:
Dirk Nowitski:  20.4 mpg as a rookie.
Paul George:  20.7 mpg as a rookie.
Draymond Green:  13.4 mpg as a rookie.
Jimmy Butler:  8.5 mpg as a rookie.
Kyle Lowry:  17.5 mpg as a rookie (just 10 games!)

These guys all turned out okay.

The development impact of getting immediate rookie playing time just may be a tad-bit overrated.

but he was talking about those guys being a 50 and 57 win during their rookie contracts.  That doesn't happen unless they get playing time as a 20 win team.  Sure ultimately stunted no idea as a rookie may not affect the long term career but it absolutely would stunt the timeframe from which potential is reached (and for the record Paul George was starting and playing nearly 27 minutes in the playoffs as a rookie - he also started the last 19 games of the season logging plenty of 30+ minute games during that stretch)

Several of those guys I listed WERE on 50+ win teams during their rookie contracts.   Most were huge factors in that, actually.

That George was able to step up and play when his team needed him to doesn't disprove the point, which is that his development wasn't stifled by getting limited minutes for most of his rookie season.

It isn't about minutes per se, but opportunity.  What I mean is no one was standing in Paul George's way for playing time.  When he could handle more minutes, he was given them.  As soon as he was ready, Dunleavy went to the bench and George went to the starting lineup and he never looked back. 

Jimmy Butler played just 8.5 mpg as a rookie because he was raw and wasn't ready.  The Bulls had basically the same wings in Butler's 2nd year and by the end of that season he was starting and playing 30+ mpg (he played 41 mpg in the 12 playoff games that year as well).  Jimmy Butler was the reason Jimmy Butler didn't play more minutes as a rookie, not some wall of players keeping his minutes artificially lower.


That isn't the case in Boston.  Brown absolutely could have handled more minutes last year, he was just stopped from getting them because Crowder and Bradley have been established as long time starters and because Smart was taking some minutes that could have gone to Brown.  Smart didn't play 30 mpg until this season, not because he couldn't, but because Bradley and Thomas/Rondo are/were in front of him, and frankly he probably would have played closer to 35 mpg this year instead of 30 with a clearer path (he also isn't getting the experience he could use leading a team when he comes of the bench).  Olynyk hasn't played very many minutes because he just isn't good enough, but he has had the opportunity to play as many minutes as he can handle for basically his whole career.  That is what I'm getting at.

Fultz is supposedly the most NBA ready player in this draft.  If the minutes were available, I'd expect him to play over 30 mpg and not look back, but that clearly will not happen for him in Boston, which will slow his growth and make him a worse player initially.  Ultimately, he should hit his peak eventually, but it will be slowed down by him not having the playing time initially.

You are being speculative.

My assumption would be that the criteria for getting minutes on this team isn't "NBA ready".  It has to be "ready to contribute on this playoff team".   That's a higher threshold than simply playing in the NBA.

You have no idea how good or bad Jaylen appeared in practices throughout the season.  For all you know, he looked good in his game appearances because Stevens specifically targeted favorable matchups wherever he could.   It's long been pretty obvious that KO's minutes seem to correlate with favorable match ups.   As Brown got more time, that very probably simply correlated with being more ready for broader usage than when the season started.

Ultimately, Jaylen did get plenty of minutes anyway.  He had the 12th most regular season minutes of his rookie class and he got more than any rookie in the playoffs, bringing his total to 1556 for the year.  That's a solid rookie season of minutes.

[Moranis]

I think Hayward "moves the needle".  He is a [dang] good player and gives us significantly more talent and size on the wing than we currently have.  You have to take the opportunities that are there to get significantly better (like with Horford last year).  Did Horford make us a true title contender? No.  But he helped add 5 wins to our regular season record, achieve home court advantage in the playoffs, and advance to the ECF as opposed to getting knocked out in the first round.  Would Hayward make us a better team than the Cavs or Warriors? No.  But he definitely makes us better and starts to incrementally close the gap.  And that opens the door.  What if Fultz or Brown make a leap to stardom earlier than expected?  What if the favorites deal with key injuries?  What if a major big becomes available at the trade deadline for future assets?  Bottom line is Hayward moves the needle because he takes an already very strong team and gets it closer to being a true championship contender without costing the flexibility to continue to improve.

so what is the end game by signing Hayward? What other moves are you making to make the team better, alleviate the future cap issues, and get proper development of the young players? After signing Hayward what do you do next?

Sign Hayward.  Draft Fultz.  Trade Avery for the cap flexibility necessary to sign Hayward (if you can get a young/cheap rotation big in the Avery trade even better).  Develop Fultz/Brown in the rotation.  Keep BRK 18 unless it is necessary as part of a package to make a final move to get us on the level or above the Cavs/Warriors (i.e. for a legit top 15 player in the NBA, which I don't see coming available).  Why is keeping all three BRK picks and adding them to IT, Hayward, and Horford not an end-game?  That would mean having 3 current all-stars with 3 top 5 picks in the rotation.  It's totally oversold that we need to pick one direction or the other.  That team could be absolutely filthy.  Brown is a very good prospect; Fultz is on another level with his ability to score the basketball.  I would be very surprised if he wasn't obviously our 3rd best scorer (behind IT and Hayward if we can get him) by Christmas of next season. 

For context...in their first and second seasons together, the extremely young top 5 lottery pick trio of Durant/Harden/Westbrook won 50 and 55 games together in a brutal Western Conference.  The best veterans on those teams were Nick Collison, Thabo Sefolosha, and Nenad Krstic (that is not a joke).  Imagine those Thunder teams with IT, Horford, and Hayward instead.  They would have been the best team in the history of the NBA.  Now obviously you need to hit on your top 5 lottery picks, but there's no shot if we miss on those anyways.  So, yeah, that's the endgame.

Westbrook doesn't become Westbrook if he gets backup minutes behind Thomas though.  Who else you getting rid of besides Bradley to free up enough minutes to add 2 more guards/wings.  Crowder? Smart? What do you do with Rozier who if all goes well won't play at all? 

Durant, Westbrook, Harden, Green, Ibaka all were allowed to play as many minutes as they could reasonably handle. That is why they developed and developed so quickly.  You stunt their growth to 15 to 20 mpg at most their first 3 years and they aren't the same level of player those years.

Some of my favorite players:
Dennis Johnson: 20.6 mpg as a rookie.
Kevin McHale:  20.1 mpg as a rookie.
Danny Ainge:  10.6 mpg as a rookie.
Sam Jones:  10.6 mpg as a rookie (didn't average over 20 until his 4th season).
Detlef Schrempf: 15.1 mpg as a rookie.

Some more modern examples:
Dirk Nowitski:  20.4 mpg as a rookie.
Paul George:  20.7 mpg as a rookie.
Draymond Green:  13.4 mpg as a rookie.
Jimmy Butler:  8.5 mpg as a rookie.
Kyle Lowry:  17.5 mpg as a rookie (just 10 games!)

These guys all turned out okay.

The development impact of getting immediate rookie playing time just may be a tad-bit overrated.

but he was talking about those guys being a 50 and 57 win during their rookie contracts.  That doesn't happen unless they get playing time as a 20 win team.  Sure ultimately stunted no idea as a rookie may not affect the long term career but it absolutely would stunt the timeframe from which potential is reached (and for the record Paul George was starting and playing nearly 27 minutes in the playoffs as a rookie - he also started the last 19 games of the season logging plenty of 30+ minute games during that stretch)

Several of those guys I listed WERE on 50+ win teams during their rookie contracts.   Most were huge factors in that, actually.

That George was able to step up and play when his team needed him to doesn't disprove the point, which is that his development wasn't stifled by getting limited minutes for most of his rookie season.

It isn't about minutes per se, but opportunity.  What I mean is no one was standing in Paul George's way for playing time.  When he could handle more minutes, he was given them.  As soon as he was ready, Dunleavy went to the bench and George went to the starting lineup and he never looked back. 

Jimmy Butler played just 8.5 mpg as a rookie because he was raw and wasn't ready.  The Bulls had basically the same wings in Butler's 2nd year and by the end of that season he was starting and playing 30+ mpg (he played 41 mpg in the 12 playoff games that year as well).  Jimmy Butler was the reason Jimmy Butler didn't play more minutes as a rookie, not some wall of players keeping his minutes artificially lower.


That isn't the case in Boston.  Brown absolutely could have handled more minutes last year, he was just stopped from getting them because Crowder and Bradley have been established as long time starters and because Smart was taking some minutes that could have gone to Brown.  Smart didn't play 30 mpg until this season, not because he couldn't, but because Bradley and Thomas/Rondo are/were in front of him, and frankly he probably would have played closer to 35 mpg this year instead of 30 with a clearer path (he also isn't getting the experience he could use leading a team when he comes of the bench).  Olynyk hasn't played very many minutes because he just isn't good enough, but he has had the opportunity to play as many minutes as he can handle for basically his whole career.  That is what I'm getting at.

Fultz is supposedly the most NBA ready player in this draft.  If the minutes were available, I'd expect him to play over 30 mpg and not look back, but that clearly will not happen for him in Boston, which will slow his growth and make him a worse player initially.  Ultimately, he should hit his peak eventually, but it will be slowed down by him not having the playing time initially.

You are being speculative.

My assumption would be that the criteria for getting minutes on this team isn't "NBA ready".  It has to be "ready to contribute on this playoff team".   That's a higher threshold than simply playing in the NBA.

You have no idea how good or bad Jaylen appeared in practices throughout the season.  For all you know, he looked good in his game appearances because Stevens specifically targeted favorable matchups wherever he could.   It's long been pretty obvious that KO's minutes seem to correlate with favorable match ups.   As Brown got more time, that very probably simply correlated with being more ready for broader usage than when the season started.

Ultimately, Jaylen did get plenty of minutes anyway.  He had the 12th most regular season minutes of his rookie class and he got more than any rookie in the playoffs, bringing his total to 1556 for the year.  That's a solid rookie season of minutes.

all those favorable matchup happened to coincide with injuries. That seems a little convenient don't you think?