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

[Evantime34]

I think that giving the Celtics a negative grade is the type of extreme stance that draws page views. To me this seems more hot takey than legitimate.

Order of operations in terms of making offseason moves matters. The Celtics were set on waiting until after a Hayward decision to make a trade. The Bulls and the Pacers GMs weren't willing to wait so the Celtics missed out on those two guys.

Combine that with the well circulated idea that Pritchard didn't want George to be in the East (Denver's offer in a 3 team trade that would have sent George to Cleveland also was better than what the Pacers ended up getting) and I am not going to knock Ainge for not getting George.

I'm happy that Ainge didn't consider giving up 5-9 years of guaranteed control of Tatum for a year of Paul George or Jimmy Butler. I think that the national media gets really frustrated when a gm doesn't cash in his assets to go for it now. I prefer sustained success rather than a move that could leave us high and dry for a year.

I was not happy with the 1 for 3 trade, but if we end up with a top 5 pick next year then it will have been an excellent trade for us. How Tatum has looked in summer league took a lot of the sting off that deal.

[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.

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.

Boston was a team loaded for bear, so to speak.  Of course such a team is going to be judged differently than a team that's already hosed when the offseason begins (a/k/a Brooklyn).

Look, I get that some Celtics fans can't handle even the most meek dissents.  I also get that the Celtics can do no right in the eyes of others.  However, the truth of a situation is almost always not what either the homers or haters claim it to be.

This is one of those usual situations, where one can note additions v. subtractions and have legit takes on how good the final equation ended up that are neither full blown homer nor full blown hater.

[kozlodoev]

Patriots didn't look to goo at half time during the Superbowl did they? At the end an "A" it's called "winning"!

Clearly, you get the best chance to win the Superbowl is to go down 25 points. Belichick is a genius for figuring it out first!...

... yes, that's how some of the folks in this thread sound.

[keevsnick]

Okay so first of all I think its absurd that we can add a 27 year old all star this offseason and get a C. But i'm gonna play Devil's advocate because I think generally Andrew Sharp is a pretty good writer. Again, these are not my opinions just telling you where he's coming from.

The draft pick trade is a success if you think Tatum and Fultz are on the same level or close. The problem is very few people do. In the run up to the draft the general consensus was that Fultz had separated himself from the rest and was the clear cut #1 pick. Even people who had Tatum rated highly like Kevin O Connor or Sam Vecenie still had Fultz rate #1 on their board. Some people were even a lot lower, having him rated in the back half of the top 10 prospects. In terms of ceiling the consensus seems to be his isn't as high as Fultz. In addition a lot of people in the national media are very hesitant about giving Isaiah big money, Futz was a hedge against that and now its gone. Ultimately we have to wait four or five years to really know who the better prospect is, but it you believe as most do that Fultz was the best prospect then this trade look at best okay (the definition of a C).

As for the Hayward signing its great, but we shouldn't treat the guy like Kevin Durant. he's made one all start team and signed for the max. That a great pick up, but it in and off itself won't make us a contender. Given our cap situation we are going to be a very expensive team as soon as next season that doesn't really have a chance to win a title without A LOT of luck. Adding a second star would have drastically increased those chances and those type of stars moved, for what seems like little return. Ya, doing those moves before free agency would cost you depth, but we could have done them and didn't. Its frustrating for national media types who have been following the Celtics for 4 years waiting for their move to see these moves happen and the Celtics do nothing.

The bottom line is this, from a very pessimistic perspective you have to ask. Did the moves the Celtics make really increase their chances all that much of a championship in the next three years? Did the moves they make maximize their chances in the 4-10 year window? Andrew Sharp argues no to both. Hence the C

[tankcity!]

I am starting to have this feeling Fultz is going to be a bust.

Would be nuts. He looked good in SL. I think both Tatum and him will be good. It's a pretty stacked draft. Tatum has looked the best though so far. Crazy how young he is as well.

[tankcity!]

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

Lol how many times do you want to be embarrassed by Ainge? It's pretty sad fans feel this way. You have no idea how fortunate you are to be a fan of this team ala the Knicks for example. Will enjoy making fun of you when we're contenders. It's not like Ainge hasn't proven you wrong enough times already. Same with Stevens.

I know, Ainge is right even if he's wrong.

Lol I know man. I mean you were right about Fultz so far. You're clearly a genius. Tatum has been so god awful this SL  . We definitely should've drafted Dunn over Brown as well. Shucks, Ainge really sucks. I wish a genius like you could be GM.

Have fun being miserable bro. Like I said, will be fun making fun of you in two years.

I've bolded the important part of your post.

So that means we shouldn't take anything away from SL? So I guess Fultz looking good in SL doesn't matter. The fact that Dunn looked awful in SL last year didn't matter was well. Or that Smart has shot under 40% in SL. So yeah, it doesn't mean anything.

[tankcity!]

Patriots didn't look to goo at half time during the Superbowl did they? At the end an "A" it's called "winning"!

Clearly, you get the best chance to win the Superbowl is to go down 25 points. Belichick is a genius for figuring it out first!...

... yes, that's how some of the folks in this thread sound.

Haha keep stewing dude. Like you said last year, Atlanta turned out better than Boston 

[kozlodoev]

Like you said last year, Atlanta turned out better than Boston 

But that was clearly due to the fact that they lost Teague, right?

[Casperian]

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

Lol how many times do you want to be embarrassed by Ainge? It's pretty sad fans feel this way. You have no idea how fortunate you are to be a fan of this team ala the Knicks for example. Will enjoy making fun of you when we're contenders. It's not like Ainge hasn't proven you wrong enough times already. Same with Stevens.

I know, Ainge is right even if he's wrong.

Lol I know man. I mean you were right about Fultz so far. You're clearly a genius. Tatum has been so god awful this SL  . We definitely should've drafted Dunn over Brown as well. Shucks, Ainge really sucks. I wish a genius like you could be GM.

Have fun being miserable bro. Like I said, will be fun making fun of you in two years.

I've bolded the important part of your post.

So that means we shouldn't take anything away from SL? So I guess Fultz looking good in SL doesn't matter. The fact that Dunn looked awful in SL last year didn't matter was well. Or that Smart has shot under 40% in SL. So yeah, it doesn't mean anything.

Yes, that's what it means when people say "It's only summer league".

Anthony Morrow looked a lot better than Tatum a few years back, same for Oug McErmott.

Not to mention, we clearly tried to put Tatum in the most favorable position possible, to make him look as good as possible.

Tatum won't have such a high usage rate in games that actually matter, and his little tricks won't look nearly as good against real NBA defenders. The one time he went up against a player who defended him with some real intensity (a 6'1'' PG, btw), he fell right back into his habit of chucking long, contested two's.

[PhoSita]

That's the real kicker

Boston is likely boxed into paying huge amounts of money to Thomas next summer. How much are you winning if Hayward, Isaiah, and Horford are your Big Three?)

If you've got Thomas, Hayward, Horford on the roster for the next 3-5 seasons, you're winning 50+ games every year.

If the young half of the roster develops as hoped, they could hit high 50s or even 60+ wins toward the end of that period.

That, to me, is exactly what you want.

If you can't have a generational talent on your team, you want to put together a group that can win 55+ for a half decade or more. Multiple shots at making a deep run due to luck, hot shooting, or whatever.

The Celts seem to be in position to do that.

What's more, if they hold onto jaylen, Tatum, etc, they might still be quite good for a while after that even if Thomas, hayward, and Horford all move on.

[dreamgreen]

Patriots didn't look to goo at half time during the Superbowl did they? At the end an "A" it's called "winning"!

Clearly, you get the best chance to win the Superbowl is to go down 25 points. Belichick is a genius for figuring it out first!...

... yes, that's how some of the folks in this thread sound.

Hehehehe!

It will be interesting to see the Fultz Tatum debate unfold over the years. I think both will be very good but who knows?

The PG13 thing I never believed was going to happen, sounded to good to be true so I discount that all together. IMO we got the best free agent on the market and there is no sport that matters in more than basketball.

I agreed with Roy a month ago when he said he would be very happy with Hayward and Fultz in the off season. Fultz turned into Tatum and IMO seems like just a good of a guess when predicting 19 year old kids.

For me Christmas came early! 

[Casperian]

That's the real kicker

Boston is likely boxed into paying huge amounts of money to Thomas next summer. How much are you winning if Hayward, Isaiah, and Horford are your Big Three?)

If you've got Thomas, Hayward, Horford on the roster for the next 3-5 seasons, you're winning 50+ games every year.

If the young half of the roster develops as hoped, they could hit high 50s or even 60+ wins toward the end of that period.

That, to me, is exactly what you want.

If you can't have a generational talent on your team, you want to put together a group that can win 55+ for a half decade or more. Multiple shots at making a deep run due to luck, hot shooting, or whatever.

The Celts seem to be in position to do that.

What's more, if they hold onto jaylen, Tatum, etc, they might still be quite good for a while after that even if Thomas, hayward, and Horford all move on.

Yeah, I disagree, I think that's only good if you have a real shot at a championship (which we don't), and your vision of the future also means we have to rely on way too many best-case scenarios, for my taste.

[saltlover]

That's the real kicker

Boston is likely boxed into paying huge amounts of money to Thomas next summer. How much are you winning if Hayward, Isaiah, and Horford are your Big Three?)

Without Paul George they're not all that well positioned to contend next year, and without Fultz, the young core still doesn't have any player who looks like a future superstar.

The writer doesn't like Tatum.  Entering draft night he had Tatum going 6th, with us picking Issac at 3.  Will Tatum be a future superstar?  Obviously no one knows, and that depends a bit on definition of superstar.  Given the writer's obsession with George, I'd argue he has a looser definition of the word, and to suggest after 5 games of summer league, in addition to his amateur pedigree, that Tatum doesn't look to at least have the potential of being a superstar is watching different basketball than almost every other basketball analyst out there.

Will the Celtics be able to compete with the Warriors this year?  No.  Will anyone?  Likely not.  Will the Celtics have to make some decisions next summer?  Of course.  Are they more boxed in than the Wizards, who by matching Otto Porter are millions into the luxury tax with 10 guaranteed contracts?  No.  Are they more boxed in than the Cavs, who have the choice of paying about $70 million in luxury tax next year, or losing LeBron?  No.  Are they more boxed in than the Raptors, who locked in a Tier 3 team for three years, gave up a first round pick to potentially avoid the luxury tax this year (Lowry has incentives that make this not a guarantee even after their salary dump of Carroll), and will have to do cap gymnastics to avoid the tax next year, even if they let key free agent Norman Powel walk?  No.  Are they more boxed in than OKC, which could be paying nearly $67 million alone to George and Westbrook, while being more than $20 million over the tax line in a year in which they could be eligible for the repeater tax (bear in mind, they WON the Paul George trade)?  No.  How about the Hornets, who missed the playoffs last year, didn't get hardly any better this summer, and are about $3 million from the tax line next year in guaranteed contracts, with only 11 players on the roster.  Are they less boxed in?  No.

I could go on.  But the Celtics are no more boxed in than a majority of the teams chasing Golden State, who themselves will need to figure out a solution in two offseasons when Klay hits the market. About the only teams that aren't boxed in are the ones that aren't even trying to catch Golden State. The Celtics took a conference finalist, made it better, acquired a very valuable future pick, and somehow had the second-worst offseason because they might have an expensive team in two seasons?

Please.

[SparzWizard]

SI is not a Celtics fan nor do they follow the Celtics so their opinions are irrelevant.

[kozlodoev]

I agreed with Roy a month ago when he said he would be very happy with Hayward and Fultz in the off season. Fultz turned into Tatum and IMO seems like just a good of a guess when predicting 19 year old kids.

I'm not too disappointed with Tatum. Can't really tell at this age. The proof will be in the pudding, and Ainge just put a lot more pressure on our pudding by trading out of the top spot to get him.

The team did improve because, in fairness, it was hard not to given our situation. That doesn't necessarily mean we had a great offseason. I'm sure our aspirations were bigger, including but not limited to getting Paul George, not having to trade Bradley, and once we had to -- perhaps finding a better deal.

Again, no one has graded this season a failure. But it's most certainly a mixed bag. Giving a gigantic contract to an oft-injured dude with one great season under his belt is not exactly a  clear-cut win.