So Far, The East Has Gotten Weaker, Isn't That A Good Thing For The Us??

[Roy H.]

How does the teams that were already worse than us getting worse benefit us?

Well, for one it means we can have an even better record than last season. If those teams end up being worse than last year we may drop even less games to them, thus increasing our chances of having a really good record.

I guess, but we already dominated against sub-500 teams, which is how we won 53 games despite struggling against top-tier teams. Really, what's the difference between winning 53 and getting the one seed and winning 58 and getting the one seed, yet losing to the Cavs regardless? Realistically, it'd be the difference between picking 29th instead of 27th. Nothing else.

Because like I said, if players see us doing really well they might want to come to Boston, perhaps even during the middle of the season, and we have so many assets in which to make good trades.

Can that cut both ways? Meaning, can players look at our history and conclude that when it's time to add front tier talent, Danny will balk?

I trust Danny. He pulled out all the stops in trying to sign Paul George and the Pacers were likely either too salty after last season or George didn't want to be traded here, so they traded George for a lot less value than what we would've given them which in turn is making the Eastern Conference less competitive as a whole if you look at moves other teams in the East have made.

Indiana accepted our offer. Danny wanted to wait, and Indy moved on.

You hypothesized that players will come here because we have the ability to trade our assets to improve the team. What track record this decade is there to support that conclusion? Isn't the clearer picture that Danny *won't* trade assets to turn the team into a contender?

[footey]

How does the teams that were already worse than us getting worse benefit us?

Well, for one it means we can have an even better record than last season. If those teams end up being worse than last year we may drop even less games to them, thus increasing our chances of having a really good record.

I guess, but we already dominated against sub-500 teams, which is how we won 53 games despite struggling against top-tier teams. Really, what's the difference between winning 53 and getting the one seed and winning 58 and getting the one seed, yet losing to the Cavs regardless? Realistically, it'd be the difference between picking 29th instead of 27th. Nothing else.

Because like I said, if players see us doing really well they might want to come to Boston, perhaps even during the middle of the season, and we have so many assets in which to make good trades.

Can that cut both ways? Meaning, can players look at our history and conclude that when it's time to add front tier talent, Danny will balk?

I trust Danny. He pulled out all the stops in trying to sign Paul George and the Pacers were likely either too salty after last season or George didn't want to be traded here, so they traded George for a lot less value than what we would've given them which in turn is making the Eastern Conference less competitive as a whole if you look at moves other teams in the East have made.

Indiana accepted our offer. Danny wanted to wait, and Indy moved on.

You hypothesized that players will come here because we have the ability to trade our assets to improve the team. What track record this decade is there to support that conclusion? Isn't the clearer picture that Danny *won't* trade assets to turn the team into a contender?

Was this reported they accepted our offer ?

[Boston Garden Leprechaun]

How does the teams that were already worse than us getting worse benefit us?

Well, for one it means we can have an even better record than last season. If those teams end up being worse than last year we may drop even less games to them, thus increasing our chances of having a really good record.

I guess, but we already dominated against sub-500 teams, which is how we won 53 games despite struggling against top-tier teams. Really, what's the difference between winning 53 and getting the one seed and winning 58 and getting the one seed, yet losing to the Cavs regardless? Realistically, it'd be the difference between picking 29th instead of 27th. Nothing else.

Because like I said, if players see us doing really well they might want to come to Boston, perhaps even during the middle of the season, and we have so many assets in which to make good trades.

Can that cut both ways? Meaning, can players look at our history and conclude that when it's time to add front tier talent, Danny will balk?

I trust Danny. He pulled out all the stops in trying to sign Paul George and the Pacers were likely either too salty after last season or George didn't want to be traded here, so they traded George for a lot less value than what we would've given them which in turn is making the Eastern Conference less competitive as a whole if you look at moves other teams in the East have made.

Indiana accepted our offer. Danny wanted to wait, and Indy moved on.

You hypothesized that players will come here because we have the ability to trade our assets to improve the team. What track record this decade is there to support that conclusion? Isn't the clearer picture that Danny *won't* trade assets to turn the team into a contender?

Was this reported they accepted our offer ?

yeah i need a link on that to believe it

[Granath]

How does the teams that were already worse than us getting worse benefit us?

Well, for one it means we can have an even better record than last season. If those teams end up being worse than last year we may drop even less games to them, thus increasing our chances of having a really good record.

I guess, but we already dominated against sub-500 teams, which is how we won 53 games despite struggling against top-tier teams. Really, what's the difference between winning 53 and getting the one seed and winning 58 and getting the one seed, yet losing to the Cavs regardless? Realistically, it'd be the difference between picking 29th instead of 27th. Nothing else.

Because like I said, if players see us doing really well they might want to come to Boston, perhaps even during the middle of the season, and we have so many assets in which to make good trades.

Can that cut both ways? Meaning, can players look at our history and conclude that when it's time to add front tier talent, Danny will balk?

I trust Danny. He pulled out all the stops in trying to sign Paul George and the Pacers were likely either too salty after last season or George didn't want to be traded here, so they traded George for a lot less value than what we would've given them which in turn is making the Eastern Conference less competitive as a whole if you look at moves other teams in the East have made.

Indiana accepted our offer. Danny wanted to wait, and Indy moved on.

You hypothesized that players will come here because we have the ability to trade our assets to improve the team. What track record this decade is there to support that conclusion? Isn't the clearer picture that Danny *won't* trade assets to turn the team into a contender?

Source needed. This sounds like sour grapes more than a realistic scenario.

[Roy H.]

How does the teams that were already worse than us getting worse benefit us?

Well, for one it means we can have an even better record than last season. If those teams end up being worse than last year we may drop even less games to them, thus increasing our chances of having a really good record.

I guess, but we already dominated against sub-500 teams, which is how we won 53 games despite struggling against top-tier teams. Really, what's the difference between winning 53 and getting the one seed and winning 58 and getting the one seed, yet losing to the Cavs regardless? Realistically, it'd be the difference between picking 29th instead of 27th. Nothing else.

Because like I said, if players see us doing really well they might want to come to Boston, perhaps even during the middle of the season, and we have so many assets in which to make good trades.

Can that cut both ways? Meaning, can players look at our history and conclude that when it's time to add front tier talent, Danny will balk?

I trust Danny. He pulled out all the stops in trying to sign Paul George and the Pacers were likely either too salty after last season or George didn't want to be traded here, so they traded George for a lot less value than what we would've given them which in turn is making the Eastern Conference less competitive as a whole if you look at moves other teams in the East have made.

Indiana accepted our offer. Danny wanted to wait, and Indy moved on.

You hypothesized that players will come here because we have the ability to trade our assets to improve the team. What track record this decade is there to support that conclusion? Isn't the clearer picture that Danny *won't* trade assets to turn the team into a contender?

Source needed. This sounds like sour grapes more than a realistic scenario.

It's been posted multiple times. Woj reported it. Crowder + Smart + multiple 1sts. Indy said yes. Danny said not until Hayward made up his mind.

[TheSundanceKid]

How does the teams that were already worse than us getting worse benefit us?

Well, for one it means we can have an even better record than last season. If those teams end up being worse than last year we may drop even less games to them, thus increasing our chances of having a really good record.

I guess, but we already dominated against sub-500 teams, which is how we won 53 games despite struggling against top-tier teams. Really, what's the difference between winning 53 and getting the one seed and winning 58 and getting the one seed, yet losing to the Cavs regardless? Realistically, it'd be the difference between picking 29th instead of 27th. Nothing else.

Because like I said, if players see us doing really well they might want to come to Boston, perhaps even during the middle of the season, and we have so many assets in which to make good trades.

Can that cut both ways? Meaning, can players look at our history and conclude that when it's time to add front tier talent, Danny will balk?

I trust Danny. He pulled out all the stops in trying to sign Paul George and the Pacers were likely either too salty after last season or George didn't want to be traded here, so they traded George for a lot less value than what we would've given them which in turn is making the Eastern Conference less competitive as a whole if you look at moves other teams in the East have made.

Indiana accepted our offer. Danny wanted to wait, and Indy moved on.

You hypothesized that players will come here because we have the ability to trade our assets to improve the team. What track record this decade is there to support that conclusion? Isn't the clearer picture that Danny *won't* trade assets to turn the team into a contender?

Source needed. This sounds like sour grapes more than a realistic scenario.

It's been posted multiple times. Woj reported it. Crowder + Smart + multiple 1sts. Indy said yes. Danny said not until Hayward made up his mind.

Which is fair enough. George alone doesn't change things and he's a massive flight risk. You would only be happy signing him if you truly can beat Cleveland this year. Otherwise you are better keeping Crowder until another good opportunity comes up

[obnoxiousmime]

How does the teams that were already worse than us getting worse benefit us?

Well, for one it means we can have an even better record than last season. If those teams end up being worse than last year we may drop even less games to them, thus increasing our chances of having a really good record.

I guess, but we already dominated against sub-500 teams, which is how we won 53 games despite struggling against top-tier teams. Really, what's the difference between winning 53 and getting the one seed and winning 58 and getting the one seed, yet losing to the Cavs regardless? Realistically, it'd be the difference between picking 29th instead of 27th. Nothing else.

Because like I said, if players see us doing really well they might want to come to Boston, perhaps even during the middle of the season, and we have so many assets in which to make good trades.

Can that cut both ways? Meaning, can players look at our history and conclude that when it's time to add front tier talent, Danny will balk?

I trust Danny. He pulled out all the stops in trying to sign Paul George and the Pacers were likely either too salty after last season or George didn't want to be traded here, so they traded George for a lot less value than what we would've given them which in turn is making the Eastern Conference less competitive as a whole if you look at moves other teams in the East have made.

Indiana accepted our offer. Danny wanted to wait, and Indy moved on.

You hypothesized that players will come here because we have the ability to trade our assets to improve the team. What track record this decade is there to support that conclusion? Isn't the clearer picture that Danny *won't* trade assets to turn the team into a contender?

Source needed. This sounds like sour grapes more than a realistic scenario.

It's been posted multiple times. Woj reported it. Crowder + Smart + multiple 1sts. Indy said yes. Danny said not until Hayward made up his mind.

I have not seen it reported anywhere that Indy said "yes," and I check Hoopshype rumors page practically on the hour. I have seen it speculated by The Vertical that Indy may not to wait on Boston's "timetable." But that article did not state Indiana had already tentatively approved what Boston was offering, just that Indy "believes Boston can offer the best possible package."

[Roy H.]

How does the teams that were already worse than us getting worse benefit us?

Well, for one it means we can have an even better record than last season. If those teams end up being worse than last year we may drop even less games to them, thus increasing our chances of having a really good record.

I guess, but we already dominated against sub-500 teams, which is how we won 53 games despite struggling against top-tier teams. Really, what's the difference between winning 53 and getting the one seed and winning 58 and getting the one seed, yet losing to the Cavs regardless? Realistically, it'd be the difference between picking 29th instead of 27th. Nothing else.

Because like I said, if players see us doing really well they might want to come to Boston, perhaps even during the middle of the season, and we have so many assets in which to make good trades.

Can that cut both ways? Meaning, can players look at our history and conclude that when it's time to add front tier talent, Danny will balk?

I trust Danny. He pulled out all the stops in trying to sign Paul George and the Pacers were likely either too salty after last season or George didn't want to be traded here, so they traded George for a lot less value than what we would've given them which in turn is making the Eastern Conference less competitive as a whole if you look at moves other teams in the East have made.

Indiana accepted our offer. Danny wanted to wait, and Indy moved on.

You hypothesized that players will come here because we have the ability to trade our assets to improve the team. What track record this decade is there to support that conclusion? Isn't the clearer picture that Danny *won't* trade assets to turn the team into a contender?

Source needed. This sounds like sour grapes more than a realistic scenario.

It's been posted multiple times. Woj reported it. Crowder + Smart + multiple 1sts. Indy said yes. Danny said not until Hayward made up his mind.

I have not seen it reported anywhere that Indy said "yes," and I check Hoopshype rumors page practically on the hour. I have seen it speculated by The Vertical that Indy may not to wait on Boston's "timetable." But that article did not state Indiana had already tentatively approved what Boston was offering, just that Indy "believes Boston can offer the best possible package."

Fair to say you might have missed something?

Kaufman's interpretation of Woj's report:

https://mobile.twitter.com/AdamMKaufman/status/881151588219408384

FWF's:

Woj just said on ESPN that the Pacers wanted Crowder/Smart/multiple 1srs but we weren't willing to commit til we signed Hayward. Sounds like they panicked and jumped the gun early for some reason.