SI.com: Danny's summer was a flop, second worst among "notable" teams

[Scintan]

So, to be clear....

Grades are a very subjective way to measure anything, but how you give that lower than a B is a mystery to me.

You just need to use common sense, and not overrate everything Celtics because you're a Celtics fan.  The argument is there, and logical. 

Whether it turns out to be right or not is the question moving forward.

[unclebay]

Ok, let's try the common sense route: We signed a 27 year old play making all star forward, drafted what looks so far to be the best player in the draft, and took the necessary routes to keep IT on the team albeit painfully.  *using common sense*...:

Really good off season.

[jpotter33]

We had an objectively great summer, so to measure us based on the moves that we could have made but didn't just seems like subjectively moving the goal post for Boston. I think someone just has an axe to grind with the C's.

I mean, we land Hayward, Tatum, who has been the best rookie by far in summer league, Morris, Baynes, and a probable top-5 pick next year at the mere cost of essentially AB, KO, and Amir, all three of which we were unlikely to keep anyways, and that's somehow bad because we didn't also add George, too? Seems like a flaw in logic there.

[unclebay]

So, to be clear....

Grades are a very subjective way to measure anything, but how you give that lower than a B is a mystery to me.

You just need to use common sense, and not overrate everything Celtics because you're a Celtics fan.  The argument is there, and logical. 

Whether it turns out to be right or not is the question moving forward.

Ok, let's try the common sense route: We signed a 27 year old play making all star forward, drafted what looks so far to be the best player in the draft, and took the necessary routes to keep IT on the team albeit painfully.  *using common sense*...:

Really good off season.

[jpotter33]

So, to be clear....

Grades are a very subjective way to measure anything, but how you give that lower than a B is a mystery to me.

You just need to use common sense, and not overrate everything Celtics because you're a Celtics fan.  The argument is there, and logical. 

Whether it turns out to be right or not is the question moving forward.

It's, like, the exact opposite of logical - it's demonstrably illogical. He's holding Boston to a different standard than the rest of the league, which is, by definition, illogical in this case.

[CELTICSofBOSTON]

I forgot the name of the sports guy who mentioned this.. (it was on one of ESPNs afternoon shows):  he gave the Celtics a failing grade because they missed out on a big name via trade and even mentioned Kristaps Porzingis!

Are you kidding me?  Whoever believes that we could have gotten Kristaps is so wrong that it's funny.

Let's address the trade targets we missed out on:

1. Jimmy Butler: he has a great contract and is a terrific player but was kind of meh against us in the playoffs if you ask me.  He makes an impact on both sides of the ball and we would probably be a better team with him.  However, he would have cost us the #3 pick.  I would personally rather have Tatum than Butler but thats just me. That disqualifies Jimmy Buckets.

2. Paul George:  I do wish we would have gotten him.  I would definitely give up Jae, AB, and two non-Nets picks but who knows if the Pacers value that package as much as a normal person does.  Maybe they really like Oladipo, maybe they wanted him out west, maybe this, maybe that.  Who knows?  I know one thing is for certain: I would definitely not trade a Nets pick for him.  No way.  Maybe that fact was enough to disqualify PG as a legit target.

3. Kristaps Porzinigs: Come on. This wasn't happening.  The Knicks are dumb but not that dumb.

I think the media over-estimates the likelihood/logic of the aforementioned targets and the associated trade packages.

[PhoSita]

So, to be clear....

Grades are a very subjective way to measure anything, but how you give that lower than a B is a mystery to me.

You just need to use common sense, and not overrate everything Celtics because you're a Celtics fan.  The argument is there, and logical. 

Whether it turns out to be right or not is the question moving forward.

The argument here is "well they could have done a lot better!" based on ... what?  Rumors the reporter heard?

It's if a team had cap space for two max free agents and you graded their offseason as bad because they didn't sign the top two guys on the market, even if they did lots of good things to upgrade their team.

I don't think one needs to "overrate" anything the Celts did to recognize that the outgoing talent vs the incoming talent for the Celts this summer is weighted pretty heavily in the Celts favor.

That, to me, is an obviously positive off-season, regardless of what we believe they might have been able to pull off.

[PhoSita]

So, to be clear....

Grades are a very subjective way to measure anything, but how you give that lower than a B is a mystery to me.

You just need to use common sense, and not overrate everything Celtics because you're a Celtics fan.  The argument is there, and logical. 

Whether it turns out to be right or not is the question moving forward.

It's, like, the exact opposite of logical - it's demonstrably illogical. He's holding Boston to a different standard than the rest of the league, which is, by definition, illogical in this case.

I knew I could count on you for a diagnosis of what is and is not logically sound!

[Neurotic Guy]

This is pretty much spot on, including this part:

Everyone in basketball has an opinion on what the Celtics are doing with their assets, why they're doing it, and whether it's stupid or brilliant. I'm just not sure it needed to be this complicated

Yes, the author effectively articulated the most negative spin possible for Danny's off-season. Even still, he managed to acknowledge that the C's had four positive acquisitions, an improved core over last year's top seed, and the fact that they currently have the best set of assets in the league.  It's the. best 'C' I've ever seen.

[PhoSita]

I forgot the name of the sports guy who mentioned this.. (it was on one of ESPNs afternoon shows):  he gave the Celtics a failing grade because they missed out on a big name via trade and even mentioned Kristaps Porzingis!

This is what I'm saying.

To a large extent I think there's a contingent of folks in the media and among general NBA fans who are simply tired of hearing about "Trader Danny" and his "assets." 

The sentiment seems to be a very strong "Do your business or get off the pot" (to paraphrase the traditional euphemism).

I understand where those people are coming from, but to call this off-season a "flop" because of that is just silly.  The Celts significantly upgraded their team.  Period.  The author seems to acknowledge that, also. 

The Celts may not have vaulted themselves into contention, but I think any reasonable person would agree that it was more likely than not that doing so was not going to be possible all in one summer.  That they were able to upgrade their roster significantly without sacrificing their pipeline of future assets / players has to be commended, not derided.

[notthebowler]

Does the "media" treat the Boston Celtics "unfairly"?

 

[Roy H.]

I understand the "what might have been" argument, but I think it's wildly illegitimate to only look at the best case scenarios.

What if our off-season went like this?

* The Celts get unlucky, ending up 4th in the lottery;

* The #4 is traded along with Jae and AB for PG13;

* Hayward stays in Utah;

* Paul George does nothing to calm the "he's leaving" rumors, leaving a dark cloud over the franchise.

* Danny gives KO a 5 year, $90 contract.

I wanted Fultz, Hayward and George. I'm happy with what we got.

[pearljammer10]

I love how he grades us a C but we are still second worse. What a crock.

He even says it, our lineup got better and our assets got better. What a maroon.

[fairweatherfan]

Yeah this seems like it's not only holding moves we didn't make against us, but mutually exclusive moves to boot. "Why didn't you take Fultz and also trade the pick for George?" Really weird.  We added the best free agent who was actually available and got the #3 pick who looks great so far, with a few solid role players/prospects to boot.  Seems like a pretty good offseason to me.

[obnoxiousmime]

The problem is we probably never will know the true story about George, so faulting the Celtics on that is based on speculation. We've heard that other teams had better offers on the table than what Indiana ultimately ended up taking, so perhaps Pritchard wasn't just automatically taking the "best offer," the best being subjective of course. Some theorized that Pritchard (or the owner, you can never discount the owner's meddling in these cases) let it become personal. George had told the organization that he was on board with staying during the season, then changed his tune at the end and announced publicly he wasn't returning, destroying their leverage. That probably didn't go over too well with Pacers management.

Pritchard came out recently and said all those rumored offers never actually existed, but that is suspect too. The organization and especially him took a lot of criticism for not getting enough in return, so claiming a lot of the leaked trade offers were actually false makes the deal they DID make look a little better. Actually, I take that back. Keeping him and losing him for nothing would have been freakin' better than what they got!

The other half of the criticism is choosing Tatum over Fultz and I can definitely understand that. If the writer believes, as most scouting reports did, that Fultz is a superstar and Tatum is just a good starter/occasional all-star then Ainge definitely deserves a C grade just for that. We won't get the full picture on that trade until the Lakers/Sac pick is conveyed though, so this is another one that will take a long time to judge.

To be honest, I'm not sure George + Hayward was ever a realistic plan. How were the Celtics going to pay BOTH George and Thomas? You'd never be able to convince George and Thomas to take discounts because you've got Horford and Hayward making 30/year. Would the Celtics owners really be willing to pay 120/year on four players? Add in all the other guys and you're talking about a crazy tax bill, and the team STILL might not be favored to win the title.