When people say Hayward isn't worth a max deal, or that we should have gotten both him and George, or that we should have drafted Fultz, or wonder why we didn't keep Bradley, what they're really saying is that they don't see our present core as being good enough to win a title. To go further, what they're saying is they don't see Thomas, Horford, and Hayward on max deals as being enough to legitimately challenge the Cavs, much less the Warriors. To that I ask, what available magical player would have turned this team into a contender?
We couldn't keep Bradley and Thomas - it wasn't going to happen, but then we need Bradley because he guards opposing PGs and protects Thomas. Why doesn't anybody criticize Thomas for this? Guards who can shoot and also defend at a high level are very rare and expensive, so if playing Thomas always requires that kind of player next to him, having to build a contender around Thomas is always going to be difficult.
The disappointment in not getting Fultz is also tied to this. He had the shot and body/athleticism to eventually become a well rounded guard.
Horford was an important signing, because he was the first free agent to come here. That makes him absolutely worth the money. Whether we can build a contender around his contract is a separate issue, one we didn't have to consider a year ago. When people say we need a rebounder, we need a power forward, we need someone who can score more consistently inside/out, and what about switching 1-5 defensively, what they're really saying is we need somebody to make up for what Horford doesn't bring.
That, in the end, is the problem: We need certain types of players next to Thomas and Horford that make up for their deficiencies. Without those players, there is a ceiling on how good this team can be.
If anything, Hayward is the MOST worthy of a max deal of the three. He's a two-way player, a good shooter/passer, rebounds solidly, has prototypical size, and can playmake a little. Maybe he's not going to be the primary option on a great team, but he can certainly be the 2nd one. He doesn't have any obvious flaws, he just doesn't happen to be a full-time SG or PF.
I know that a lot of teams are now going into luxury tax territory in a bid to compete with the elite teams and there may be that expectation the Celtics do as well. However, I don't see any of the teams that made moves as having a realistic shot at beating the Warriors, barring a serious injury. When they're met with that reality and cannot improve their team anymore, they'll be stuck. The Celtics won't be stuck for the next few years because of the asset pool they've accumulated.
The other issue is we're basing our standard of a contending team on the Warriors, which quite frankly is an unrealistic bar to reach. The Warriors already won this battle when they locked up Green, Thompson, and Curry to long-term below-market deals BEFORE the cap spike, then added Durant who is also taking a $10 million haircut next season. Trying to match up with them now is like entering a game midway and having to play with different rules than your opponent. I'm not saying it's impossible, just that trying to be competitive with them is really a battle plan you needed to have started 5 years ago, not today.
It's not just the cap spike, but because we're trying to cheat the traditional "rebuild." Golden State built "correctly" by drafting well and locking up their guys long term, then adding one star FA. Because those 3 players were drafted by them, they were able to sign them long term to favorable deals while they were still in their early-mid 20s. The Celtics are trying to build a team of stars already on their third contracts, at 30% maxes and older than a guy on his post-rookie second contract. That's always going to be harder, especially if you start paying too much for multiple guys in their 30s, when players generally start to decline. This also typically makes your window a lot smaller.
OK, so if we've established that the Warriors standard is unrealistic and greatly assisted by an anomalous cap spike that won't happen anytime soon again, then all of a sudden the Celtics are looking downright miraculous in their rebuild. Out of the other teams contending for 2nd place, we are in a great position.
If you want to criticize, I wouldn't look at the problem of current stars. I'd be worried that the BKN pick honeymoon would have passed without us getting at least one superduper star. Sure, we love Brown and Tatum (the less said about James Young the better) but it's not clear either has the ability to become a top 10 guy in the league. At least those two have shown enough so you could make a case both could be a piece in a deal for a star, I guess. Yay, we've got two Al Jeffersons!
Topic: What fans are actually saying when they express disappointment this offseason (Read 13565 times)