SI: Who has the better future

[TheSundanceKid]

Is this article simply the anti Boston bias coming out or am I not seeing what they are seeing?

You might be looking for slights, if you see an article where 4 out of 6 analysts pick the Celtics as an example of anti-Celts bias.

But when you read it does it feel like 4 of 6 are going to pick them? Reading Andrew Sharp it certainly doesn't feel like he's supportive of our chances, he basically says I want to pick the 76ers but I guess it's Boston.

At this stage I don't think it's arguable who will have the best future over the next 5 or 6 years. We have won 6 of 8 match ups this year, we are on the brink of winning a series without 2 of the 3 stars who we would consider the 'win now' components of the team. Our draftees are out playing the Phila guys of the same drafts. We have similar future picks, a superior coach and front office.

The use of 'potential ceiling' is just a way for them to ignore progress of one team and anoint who they want. I just don't see how objectively they can be compared ahead of us. A 50:50 split of votes would not be a fair assessment and honestly neither is a weak 4 out of 6.

[TheSundanceKid]

Inside the NBA talked about this two nights ago.

Charles asked and Shaq + Kenny BOTH said Celtics.

I think Shaq put it pretty well: "Celtics have a system in place while Philly is a team with individual talents and some spot up shooters, but no clear system. Also for PHI to struggle mightily against Stevens and a Celtics team that's depleted is quite telling"

I do think IF Philly adds Lebron, OR add BOTH George + Kawhi (or Kawhi + Lebron), I'd honestly say Philly. We'll see.

Actually I remember that now! It's a really good point, we have a system that we believe in and a culture that encourages sacrificing to win.

Phila would have to get one of those guys first, and I think we've learnt that asset rich teams tend to pay more than we expect them to pay to get a star like Kyrie or Kawhi. So it'll definitely improve them but they will sacrifice to get them.

If there was no split, what would the point of the article be?   

I guess that's my point. There wouldn't be an article on who has the brighter future out of Minnesota and Sacramento..

[Moranis]

Inside the NBA talked about this two nights ago.

Charles asked and Shaq + Kenny BOTH said Celtics.

I think Shaq put it pretty well: "Celtics have a system in place while Philly is a team with individual talents and some spot up shooters, but no clear system. Also for PHI to struggle mightily against Stevens and a Celtics team that's depleted is quite telling"

I do think IF Philly adds Lebron, OR add BOTH George + Kawhi (or Kawhi + Lebron), I'd honestly say Philly. We'll see.

Actually I remember that now! It's a really good point, we have a system that we believe in and a culture that encourages sacrificing to win.

Phila would have to get one of those guys first, and I think we've learnt that asset rich teams tend to pay more than we expect them to pay to get a star like Kyrie or Kawhi. So it'll definitely improve them but they will sacrifice to get them.

If there was no split, what would the point of the article be?   

I guess that's my point. There wouldn't be an article on who has the brighter future out of Minnesota and Sacramento..

Minnesota and Sacramento aren't comparable though, Boston and Philadelphia are for any number of reasons that just don't exist in your weird comparison.  They both won 50 games and are playing in the 2nd round with very close games in the series thus far.  They both have young talent.  They both have likely lottery picks from other teams as well as their own 1st's.  Philly has cap space for a max contract, while Boston does not it did previously use cap space to sign a max contract (well 2 actually).  It is a pretty logical comparison to make.

[Chris22]

I don't understand all the praise for Embiid. Tatum and Horford beat him one on one three times in the last two minutes the other day. If the refs did not give him seven seconds in the lane this series would already be over.

[Big333223]

I don't understand all the praise for Embiid. Tatum and Horford beat him one on one three times in the last two minutes the other day. If the refs did not give him seven seconds in the lane this series would already be over.

I have been struck by Embiid's lack of skill this series. He's clearly very talented. Big, athletic, coordinated. But based on his highlights I was expecting a more skilled basketball player. This series, though, I haven't seen him do much other than drop his shoulder and barrel to the basket.

He's got time to put together a repertoire (or even just a go-to move) but in this series he hasn't shown any kind of skill in the post. 

[Ed Hollison]

Two things that are easy to forget:

1) That Embiid is made of glass. He was just healthy for the first time in his pro career, and still only played 63 games in the regular season. He's played a total of 94 games over the four years of his rookie contract. He has had major back and knee injuries. It's "recency bias"; we remember what we saw recently.

2) That the Sixers' young stars are older than ours. Embiid is already 24 years old, for goodness sake. Simmons is a few months older than Jaylen Brown, and nearly two years older than Tatum.

Really, luck plays a huge role in what happens. Coming off that '86 championship, and about to add Len Bias, everyone assumed the Celtics would rule the league for years. Instead Bias tragically left us and McHale broke his foot, and they never won another title. Not saying something like that is in the cards, but it's just a reminder that a lot of this comes down to chance.

[greece66]

I don't understand all the praise for Embiid. Tatum and Horford beat him one on one three times in the last two minutes the other day. If the refs did not give him seven seconds in the lane this series would already be over.

I have been struck by Embiid's lack of skill this series. He's clearly very talented. Big, athletic, coordinated. But based on his highlights I was expecting a more skilled basketball player. This series, though, I haven't seen him do much other than drop his shoulder and barrel to the basket.

He's got time to put together a repertoire (or even just a go-to move) but in this series he hasn't shown any kind of skill in the post.

 iirc it has been clear from the start that Embiid is unpolished offensively. As you say, he doesn't have a repertoire.

His strong point is IMO his defence, but the Celtics have dealt p well with that.

[Roy H.]

At this stage I don't think it's arguable who will have the best future over the next 5 or 6 years.

I think it’s arguable. Their arguments are based upon upside, and everything working out ideally: Embiid, Simmons and Fultz develop, they hit on our lottery pick, they sign a difference-maker in free agency, etc.

Our future seemingly has a higher floor with fewer question marks. Even if Tatum and Brown don’t develop at al, the Celts should be in great shape. The one big issue for us is the luxury tax. How much of our peripheral core will we have to dump? Rozier, Smart, Morris, Baynes? Horford? There’s a realistic shot all could be gone in 2-3 years.

[seancally]

Some of this depends on Fultz, who could go either way. But also, there are three things we need to define:

Future: Like, next year? 5 years? 10? In the next 0-5 years, I think Boston has a clear advantage. We have three all-stars (and one superstar) right NOW in Irving, Hayward and Horford. Over the next 3 years those guys should be remarkably effective together. In 3 years they'll be 29-34. In 5 years they'll be getting older - though it remains to be seen how they each age - but by then Tatum and Brown will be in their mid-20s and beginning their primes. 10 years from now, those two will be about 30-31. Frankly, I don't see the point in projecting that far out. Impossible to know what could happen between now and then.

Ceiling: A lot of the debate is based on the idea that Simmons and Embiid have the highest ceilings. OK, I want to deconstruct that. What are the absolute highest possible ceilings of each young stud? For Embiid it's gotta be Hakeem the Dream and for Simmons it could be Lebron. Tatum could be Durant, Brown might be Kawhi or even D-Wade. We're talking absolute best case scenario. Then the question is, what's the likelihood of each happening? Frankly, I think Tatum has a higher chance of turning into Durant than Simmons/Embiid do of reaching those lofty heights.

Draft/trades/FA: This is why it's so hard to project this stuff, but bear in mind Boston DOES still have a top-1 protected SAC pick next year (assuming LA does not convey) and that MEM pick coming up. I trust Ainge to draft well in the high lottery, if we have that chance. I also trust Ainge to trade and sign better than the average GM. Finally, I trust CBS to develop/maximize talent.

I'd say..... we're in good shape. Of all teams in the league, we're as likely to win a title next year as we are in 5 years.

[jambr380]

At this stage I don't think it's arguable who will have the best future over the next 5 or 6 years.

I think it’s arguable. Their arguments are based upon upside, and everything working out ideally: Embiid, Simmons and Fultz develop, they hit on our lottery pick, they sign a difference-maker in free agency, etc.

Our future seemingly has a higher floor with fewer question marks. Even if Tatum and Brown don’t develop at al, the Celts should be in great shape. The one big issue for us is the luxury tax. How much of our peripheral core will we have to dump? Rozier, Smart, Morris, Baynes? Horford? There’s a realistic shot all could be gone in 2-3 years.

It makes it all the more 'unfair' that we have so many injuries this year. If we roll back the same line-up next season, that will be the best team we will probably ever have during this run.

It will be interesting to see what direction Danny chooses this summer: going all-in for a championship next year against possibly the best team in NBA history (GSW) or making a couple of trades to push back our window a bit. Of course we will have a strong core moving forward, but if we are without Rozier, Smart, Morris, Baynes, and [of course] Al, our supporting cast will take a major hit. I guess we have to hope for some really good vet minimum guys if we are sporting 4 max contracts.

But this topic is probably better left for the off-season. We need to focus on finishing off this series!

[BringToughnessBack]

The team with the better future is most likely the team that avoids career threatening/hampering injuries. Both teams have players that could easily fall into the buyer beware category. Leg and Knee injuries have a way in resurfacing again at varying levels of impact. I hope both teams do not succumb to severe injuries but that will most likely not be the case.

[keevsnick]

Is this article simply the anti Boston bias coming out or am I not seeing what they are seeing?

You might be looking for slights, if you see an article where 4 out of 6 analysts pick the Celtics as an example of anti-Celts bias.

But when you read it does it feel like 4 of 6 are going to pick them? Reading Andrew Sharp it certainly doesn't feel like he's supportive of our chances, he basically says I want to pick the 76ers but I guess it's Boston.

At this stage I don't think it's arguable who will have the best future over the next 5 or 6 years. We have won 6 of 8 match ups this year, we are on the brink of winning a series without 2 of the 3 stars who we would consider the 'win now' components of the team. Our draftees are out playing the Phila guys of the same drafts. We have similar future picks, a superior coach and front office.

The use of 'potential ceiling' is just a way for them to ignore progress of one team and anoint who they want. I just don't see how objectively they can be compared ahead of us. A 50:50 split of votes would not be a fair assessment and honestly neither is a weak 4 out of 6.

You can think whatever you want man, but it certainly is arguable. We are up 3-1 in this series, we certainly deserve to be. But if Bellineli moves back six inches or Brett brown had called a timeout in Boston we could just of easily be down 3-1 or tied 2-2.This series has been close, so I think its a little disingenuous to pretend like we are waxing the 76ers right now. Now we are missing two all stars right now, but Phili has max cap room this summer and if they strike out can roll that cap space into the following summer. There's no guarantee they get another star, but they have as good a chance of anyone as getting a Paul George level player. They are also ding this with absolutely no contribution from their last #1 pick Fultz. maybe you dont' believe in him long term, but he's a good bet to give you more then zero moving forward and still represents some upside. They are going to lose Reddick at some point, but we are likely to lose Horford or at least have his skills decline at some point in the next 2-3 years ad he's been maybe our best player this postseason. We probably have overall  a better set of draft picks moving forward, as the SAC pick will likely be better than this years LAL pick, but its hard to know what will be of the MEM pick and the like and thats the only other high upside one.

All that aside the crux of the article is how much do you value the perceived higher upside of Simmons and Embiid over perceived safer bets with fewer glaring weaknesses like Brown and Tatum. Most analysts when building a team prefer the guys with the higher upside, because thats what wins in the playoffs in general. Now we can all argue about the relative upside of Brown and Tatum to Embiid and Simmons, but the general consensus among non Boston fans and analysts is that those guys have a higher ceiling, in part because they are already very good. Embiid is probably #2 in DPOY and Simmons is regarded as a borderline all nba player, so some guys are gonna go with 76ers.

Now I happen to think Brown and Tatum have pretty high upsides. Brown could be a Paul George level player, Tatum could score 25+ a night. But its far from certain, and Simmons and Embiid are better right, even if they have underperformed in the playoffs. I would go with the Celtics. But I really don't see how 4/6 picking the Celtics is bias, even if some say its close. Because it is close.

[keevsnick]

Ceiling: A lot of the debate is based on the idea that Simmons and Embiid have the highest ceilings. OK, I want to deconstruct that. What are the absolute highest possible ceilings of each young stud? For Embiid it's gotta be Hakeem the Dream and for Simmons it could be Lebron. Tatum could be Durant, Brown might be Kawhi or even D-Wade. We're talking absolute best case scenario. Then the question is, what's the likelihood of each happening? Frankly, I think Tatum has a higher chance of turning into Durant than Simmons/Embiid do of reaching those lofty heights.

I agree that a lot of this debate has to do with ceiling, I think our young guys have alot of it. The 76ers guys get a lot of love because they are closer to that ceiling right now, which in some ways makes it more projectable. Tatum and Brown are solid starter level, maybe better players. Embiid and Simmons are All NBA, and borderline All NBA players (Simmons will get some votes, could make third team). This goes to your point about how likely the absolute ceilings of players are to bereached. Embiid and Simmons right now are probbaly higher just becuase they are closer to those ceilings, but i think our young guys close the gap next season.

I have to very much disagree with your Tatum point. He literally can't be Durant because Durant is neary 7 feet tall with a massive wingspan and a better athelte. He just doesn't, and wont ever have those physcial tools. Its not that he can't be good, or a top 10 NBA player, but he it isnt a good comparison for Durant because no one is.

[droopdog7]

I continue to be astonished by the fact that many people, including some celtic fans, don't recognize what DA has done/is doing.  It's about the sum of the parts, not the individual pieces.  Can one argue that the sixers have the two best talents?  Sure.  I mean, you could argue the the other way (simmons can't shoot, the days of dominant centers are gone, tatum is a stud, etc.) but I can certainly buy the argument.

But if you look at the sum of the parts, you can see what DA has accomplished.  Switchable players that can all defend, shoot, and score.  No team, not even the warriors will be able to field that kind of line up.  Also, people never seem to ask or even wonder why the celtics have the best defense.  The versatility of this team is downright scary.

As was said earlier, the sixer picks seem to center on what if (they sign someone), while the celtics are already there.

[KGs Knee]

Embiid and Simmons are quickly proving themselves to be fools gold. Tatum is showing in this series he's going to be better than either of them.

The Celtics have the brighter future. I guarantee Boston wins more titles over the next 10 years than Philly (who I bet doesn't win any).