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

[Casperian]

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.

Yeah, when you put it like that, it almost sounds like a good thing, eh?

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?

If and how much better this team will be remains to be seen. Personally, I think the loss of Avery Bradley is a pretty big deal, for example.

[celticsclay]

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.

Wait are you referencing Hayward with this? He hasn't missed more than 10 games in a year since 2012 and has improved his scoring every single season.

[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.

Wait are you referencing Hayward with this? He hasn't missed more than 10 games in a year since 2012 and has improved his scoring every single season.

He's also never played more than 80, and seems to invariably miss 5-10 games on average each season. I know some people don't care about this, but to me it's not a good indicator.

[saltlover]

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.

You must be the only person who could describe a player who played the 7th-most minutes over the prior three seasons as "oft-injured."

[Casperian]

Again, no one has graded this season a failure.

Well, I did, but, you know, extremely bold predictions are kinda my thing. 

[Chris22]

Danny got us Hayward, Tatum, Morris, Baynes, and the Lakers pick next year(conditional).
Plus, we got to keep all our younger players and first round picks.
The writer of this SI article is an idiot.
Danny is a genius.

[saltlover]

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.

Yeah, when you put it like that, it almost sounds like a good thing, eh?

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?

If and how much better this team will be remains to be seen. Personally, I think the loss of Avery Bradley is a pretty big deal, for example.

It does remain to be seen, but even this writer who grades the Celtics poorly says they improved. If you're going to believe his argument that the Celtics are boxed in and therefore did poorly, while ignoring his omission of the other teams who are boxed in even more, you could at least concede that point.

[Casperian]

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.

Yeah, when you put it like that, it almost sounds like a good thing, eh?

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?

If and how much better this team will be remains to be seen. Personally, I think the loss of Avery Bradley is a pretty big deal, for example.

It does remain to be seen, but even this writer who grades the Celtics poorly says they improved. If you're going to believe his argument that the Celtics are boxed in and therefore did poorly, while ignoring his omission of the other teams who are boxed in even more, you could at least concede that point.

He graded them a "C". As the title says, second worst among "notable" teams. As others have pointed out, opportunity cost has to factor in with a team as loaded as we were going into off-season.

Personally, I rate this off-season poorly not so much because of the immediate talent upgrade from last season to next, which is questionable, but not inconceivable, but more because I'm very worried about how all of this will play out in future seasons.

I don't see a superstar on this team, neither currently nor potentially, and I believe it will take an Anthony Davis level miracle for us to reach that level.

[unclebay]

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.

I imagine you're not too disappointed with ice cream or nutella or pie  as well.

[CelticsElite]

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.

Yeah, when you put it like that, it almost sounds like a good thing, eh?

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?

If and how much better this team will be remains to be seen. Personally, I think the loss of Avery Bradley is a pretty big deal, for example.

It does remain to be seen, but even this writer who grades the Celtics poorly says they improved. If you're going to believe his argument that the Celtics are boxed in and therefore did poorly, while ignoring his omission of the other teams who are boxed in even more, you could at least concede that point.

He graded them a "C". As the title says, second worst among "notable" teams. As others have pointed out, opportunity cost has to factor in with a team as loaded as we were going into off-season.

Personally, I rate this off-season poorly not so much because of the immediate talent upgrade from last season to next, which is questionable, but not inconceivable, but more because I'm very worried about how all of this will play out in future seasons.

I don't see a superstar on this team, neither currently nor potentially, and I believe it will take an Anthony Davis level miracle for us to reach that level.

IT plays like a superstar and Hayward is almost there

[CelticsBR]

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.

Wait are you referencing Hayward with this? He hasn't missed more than 10 games in a year since 2012 and has improved his scoring every single season.

He's also never played more than 80, and seems to invariably miss 5-10 games on average each season. I know some people don't care about this, but to me it's not a good indicator.

Are you kidding? There are 82 games a season!!! Even a athletic freak like Lebron can't play every game in a season!

[BitterJim]

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.

Wait are you referencing Hayward with this? He hasn't missed more than 10 games in a year since 2012 and has improved his scoring every single season.

He's actually never missed more than 10 games in a season. 2012 was the lockout year, and he played 66/66 games that year

[Neurotic Guy]

This is spot on:

What actually happened: Boston's starting nucleus is better than it was last year, and they still have more assets than any team in the league. They added Gordon Hayward, they drafted Jayson Tatum and grabbed a lottery pick from the Sixers, and they forfeited very little. Losing Avery Bradley will hurt, but they flipped him for Marcus Morris on an affordable deal, and that's better than losing Bradley for nothing next summer. After this summer, the Celtics believe they're positioned to continue winning now, with young players who will be around to keep it going well into the next decade.

That's at least a stand up double, right? Maybe even a triple.

Danny had a couple of shots at HRs, but I don't think anybody can call a summer where we landed Hayward, Tatum and a likely lottery pick a "C", behind loser franchises like the Hawks.

That part is spot on and I would say close to a home run. The rest of what he said is a joke. Nobody knows what the real odds were to get PG, the cost and if he would just be a rental. Lottery picks IMO right now are worth a ton with everyone in the league getting max contracts or close to it. Only time will tell but I find it annoying people give grades before they see the end result.

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

The one thing I'll say in defense of the cynics is that the assessment of a trade/transaction really should be made BOTH at the time of trade and then over time.  Anyone can get lucky (or unlucky) in time (doesn't prove or disprove the correctness of a trade/transaction).  It's good that people objectively judge the wisdom and logic of a move at the time it's made.  I think there can be disagreement of course.  Some here admit that time may look favorably on the Fultz trade if Tatum turns out superior and/or if the LAL/Sac trade hits.  But they may be just as wise in saying that with all information currently at hand (and as they interpret that information), Fultz is the better bet. In this way a fan may think it's a bad trade based on today's realities, but may hope that the long-term outcome turns in Boston's favor.   No one knows the long-term, so I think proclaiming victory from that end is wrong and cocky. Differing opinions on the moves (and the off-season as a whole)  is a just that - opinion - though I believe the stronger case to be that the Fultz trade was good and off-season has been exceptional.   

It would great if the doubters would make their case for what worries them, and perhaps follow that with excitement about the possibility that this could turn out great.  But of course that just serves my own group-rooting, green-glasses needs and everyone is entitled to their own opinion and their own fan pathway.

[KG Living Legend]

Haaahahhhaaaaahhhaaa

What hack wrote THAT trash...

 His name is Andrew Sharp, should change that to Manny Moron.

[Tr1boy]

Boston Celtics

The Celtics are sort of the inverse of the Thunder story, and not just because they were the biggest name that missed out on Paul George. Like OKC, processing the Summer of Ainge means considering not just what happened, but what was possible.

What actually happened: Boston's starting nucleus is better than it was last year, and they still have more assets than any team in the league. They added Gordon Hayward, they drafted Jayson Tatum and grabbed a lottery pick from the Sixers, and they forfeited very little. Losing Avery Bradley will hurt, but they flipped him for Marcus Morris on an affordable deal, and that's better than losing Bradley for nothing next summer. After this summer, the Celtics believe they're positioned to continue winning now, with young players who will be around to keep it going well into the next decade.

What was possible: The Celtics could have come away from this summer with a potential cornerstone for the post-Warriors, post-Isaiah era, but they traded Markelle Fultz to Philly. They could've put together a title nucleus for this season, but they refused to include any of their most valuable assets in Paul George talks with the Pacers—a factor that may have annoyed Indiana into taking the OKC offer. Instead they are betting big on a poor man's version of Paul George (Hayward), a lottery pick with a lower ceiling than Markelle Fultz (Tatum), and they just traded a shooting guard who's perimeter defense helps hide Isaiah Thomas's biggest weakness. (Also, now that Fultz is in Philly and Bradley is in Detroit, 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. Maybe that will come via next year's Nets pick? Or the Lakers/Kings pick? Or another trade? Or maybe it'll change with a promising rookie season from Tatum. The only guarantee is that arguments about the Celtics will continue for at least another few years. This is our new version of the Sixers. 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. Grade: C

https://www.si.com/nba/2017/07/10/nba-offseason-grades-free-agency-draft-trades-rumors-summer-league

Only the Cavs were rated worse.

What a fool this SI writer is