“Reboot scenario” floated by Bill Simmons

[RPGenerate]

CUte idea and I love Tatum but that team probably wins 35 games unless he makes a major leap quick... and if he did make that leap you’d be kicking yourselves the team didn’t have a second star like kyrie so they could actually contend.

Again, I'm not sure why we're referring to contending with Kyrie as if it's a given that having him means we would be able to contend.

Recent evidence suggests otherwise.

I feel as if this point has been repeated multiple times, but Kyrie is a superstar talent, offensively. Superstar talent is needed to be contenders, and many of us doubt anyone else on this team has the potential to be a superstar. It's as simple as that.

[Boston Garden Leprechaun]

If Kyrie opts to go elsewhere...it is pretty simple...

-Prolly resign Rozier
-Build around Tatum and Brown
-get a few more years out of Al
-Pray Hayward returns to form

And you have most likely 3 number one picks to draft or package for a better pick or player. They will be quite young but there would be some vets with Smart, Al and Hayward.

Hayward is the wildcard. He is not healthy, he is timid and looks like he has no idea what his role is.

and that is why as much as we like our young players you invest in the known before the unknown. brown and tatum are not equal to kyrie and AD. you give yourself the best shot to win titles.
there is no guarantee with any draft picks of how they will pan out.

I am not disagreeing with you. Keeping Kyrie and trading for AD should be the top option. Just saying that if it goes the other way, it won't be all gloom and doom to where the Cs fall off the earth. Still good young talent to win with.

I agree with you on re-signing Kyrie then trading for AD.

But if that doesn't happen then I think the Celts should rebuild again.

Tatum and Brown are still young.

Celts should trade Horford if there's no Kyrie or AD.

There's just no point in becoming a middle of the pack team with Al Horford.

that is definitely worth considering

[gpap]

If Kyrie opts to go elsewhere...it is pretty simple...

-Prolly resign Rozier
-Build around Tatum and Brown
-get a few more years out of Al
-Pray Hayward returns to form

And you have most likely 3 number one picks to draft or package for a better pick or player. They will be quite young but there would be some vets with Smart, Al and Hayward.

Hayward is the wildcard. He is not healthy, he is timid and looks like he has no idea what his role is.

and that is why as much as we like our young players you invest in the known before the unknown. brown and tatum are not equal to kyrie and AD. you give yourself the best shot to win titles.
there is no guarantee with any draft picks of how they will pan out.

I am not disagreeing with you. Keeping Kyrie and trading for AD should be the top option. Just saying that if it goes the other way, it won't be all gloom and doom to where the Cs fall off the earth. Still good young talent to win with.

I agree with you on re-signing Kyrie then trading for AD.

But if that doesn't happen then I think the Celts should rebuild again.

Tatum and Brown are still young.

Celts should trade Horford if there's no Kyrie or AD.

There's just no point in becoming a middle of the pack team with Al Horford.

Even if Kyrie leaves, there are other ways to reboot and still be competitive. How many times are we going to go through the rebuild stage? As a fan, I have no interest in that scenario.

There's still free agency, trades, the draft. Many different avenues where Ainge can reboot the team to be competitive, even if Ky leaves.

[footey]

Just listening to Simmons podcast.

Both he and Ryen Russillo mention Tatum's regression as a major slice of the blame pie. Both list Kyrie as the biggest slice, Simmons had Hayward's struggles second, and Tatum third, Ryen had Tatum 2nd. Russillo even went so far to say that Ingram was having a better season than Tatum. That's hard to argue against.

I think Tatum has gotten a free pass from most of us, who have obsessed mostly on Kyrie, Hayward and Stevens (and lately, Morris).

[Jamilmac99]

Interesting thread. I'm going to listen to the Simmons podcast today although people have pretty much summed it up here. The unfortunate thing with all of this is that the writing may already be on the wall. It just seems Kyrie has built himself into a box with the whole "media hates me" vibe that he cannot seem to let go of. I think at this point there less than a 20% chance he resigns which is just terrible from the standpoint of not getting anything for him in return. If this season has proven anyhting it's that a player like Kyrie Irving is not made for the media pressures of a Boston market (or New York for that matter!)! Rebuilding around Tatum and Brown, etc. might be more appealing if both had played at an increased level this year. Do we really know the ceiling of Tatum? As much as I do not want to include him (I think the Pelicans will demand this) the chance to land Davis would immediately propel the team into contention. The risky part of course is getting Davis to sign a long term deal.

[Who]

Just listening to Simmons podcast.

Both he and Ryen Russillo mention Tatum's regression as a major slice of the blame pie. Both list Kyrie as the biggest slice, Simmons had Hayward's struggles second, and Tatum third, Ryen had Tatum 2nd. Russillo even went so far to say that Ingram was having a better season than Tatum. That's hard to argue against.

I think Tatum has gotten a free pass from most of us, who have obsessed mostly on Kyrie, Hayward and Stevens (and lately, Morris).

I would go

(1) Hayward = his play has been the difference between a team winning 65-70 games to the team being a 55-60 win team.

(2) Kyrie = done a lot of individually good things this year (phenomenal scoring numbers) but he hasn't brought the team together. He is the PG - the lead ball-handler, the initiator of the offense, the one responsible for getting the most of the guys around him. Of putting his teammates in position to succeed. He hasn't done that. His leadership has been poor (downright hurtful to the team really).

(3) Stevens = hasn't held people accountable (especially Tatum & Rozier). The decision to start Hayward when he clearly wasn't ready cost the team early in the season and hurt team chemistry moving forward.

(4) Tatum & Rozier = Tatum has regressed as a defender. He continues to coast as a rebounder which disappoints men greatly because Horford needs more help on the boards and Tatum is the 2nd best rebounder in the starting lineup. Too much isolation on offense. Rozier - inefficient, wild and out of control more often than not.

I put Stevens ahead of the other two because I think he could have fixed (or at least done more to fix) the issues with Rozier & Tatum and because those guys are young and still learning. They need help and they are not getting it. Not from their veteran teammates (calling them out isn't help; showing them how to do it better is help) and not from the coaching staff.

I think those are the main reasons why Boston dropped from 65-70 win caliber team to a 55-60 win team (Hayward) to a 47-52 win team (Kyrie, Stevens, Tatum, Rozier).

[Jamilmac99]

Lot's of blame pie to go around. It starts with Kyrie. Stevens has been painfully average this year as well!

[slamtheking]

Just listening to Simmons podcast.

Both he and Ryen Russillo mention Tatum's regression as a major slice of the blame pie. Both list Kyrie as the biggest slice, Simmons had Hayward's struggles second, and Tatum third, Ryen had Tatum 2nd. Russillo even went so far to say that Ingram was having a better season than Tatum. That's hard to argue against.

I think Tatum has gotten a free pass from most of us, who have obsessed mostly on Kyrie, Hayward and Stevens (and lately, Morris).

I would go

(1) Hayward = his play has been the difference between a team winning 65-70 games to the team being a 55-60 win team.

(2) Kyrie = done a lot of individually good things this year (phenomenal scoring numbers) but he hasn't brought the team together. He is the PG - the lead ball-handler, the initiator of the offense, the one responsible for getting the most of the guys around him. Of putting his teammates in position to succeed. He hasn't done that. His leadership has been poor (downright hurtful to the team really).

(3) Stevens = hasn't held people accountable (especially Tatum & Rozier). The decision to start Hayward when he clearly wasn't ready cost the team early in the season and hurt team chemistry moving forward.

(4) Tatum & Rozier = Tatum has regressed as a defender. He continues to coast as a rebounder which disappoints men greatly because Horford needs more help on the boards and Tatum is the 2nd best rebounder in the starting lineup. Too much isolation on offense. Rozier - inefficient, wild and out of control more often than not.

I put Stevens ahead of the other two because I think he could have fixed (or at least done more to fix) the issues with Rozier & Tatum and because those guys are young and still learning. They need help and they are not getting it. Not from their veteran teammates (calling them out isn't help; showing them how to do it better is help) and not from the coaching staff.

I think those are the main reasons why Boston dropped from 65-70 win caliber team to a 55-60 win team (Hayward) to a 47-52 win team (Kyrie, Stevens, Tatum, Rozier).

Agree that Hayward is at the top of the list.  almost a year and a half removed from the injury and he's nowhere near the player he was pre-injury.  it doesn't even look like it's a physical issue at this point but mostly mental.

I'd consider moving Brad up to the second issue.  just a lousy coaching job this year -- the major misfire on the initial starting line-up as well as the current starting line-up issues.  the regression of Brown (he's been bouncing back to what he was but no progression this year), regression of Tatum, completely wasted year by Rozier, lack of preparation and effort by the team in general in far too many games and finally no answer on offense to the frequent scoring droughts when this team is bricking away from the 3 point line.  The lack of team cohesiveness on the floor that's apparent in almost every game is on him.

after those two, I'd have the rest of the players in the primary rotation except Al as the issue.  the effort and cohesiveness is on them as well as Brad.

[Jamilmac99]

I can agree with most of your point but not even a mention of Kyrie?? His actions, body language, and generally extremely poor attitude have rubbed off on the team. He is the shining example of exactly how to NOT handle the media and NOT be a leader. This team hates each other. Zero team chemistry.

[PhoSita]

I think Tatum has gotten a free pass from most of us, who have obsessed mostly on Kyrie, Hayward and Stevens (and lately, Morris).

Tatum's lack of progress is disconcerting and disappointing.

One of my biggest questions right now is how that lack of progress is best explained.
 
Is it him refusing to commit to play the right way? 

Is he just not as good as we thought?  Was he so good as a rookie because he was closer to a finished product than the vast majority of 20 year olds are?

Or are the struggles of the team as a whole this year getting in the way of him developing the way we hoped?

[PhoSita]

CUte idea and I love Tatum but that team probably wins 35 games unless he makes a major leap quick... and if he did make that leap you’d be kicking yourselves the team didn’t have a second star like kyrie so they could actually contend.

Again, I'm not sure why we're referring to contending with Kyrie as if it's a given that having him means we would be able to contend.

Recent evidence suggests otherwise.

I feel as if this point has been repeated multiple times, but Kyrie is a superstar talent, offensively. Superstar talent is needed to be contenders, and many of us doubt anyone else on this team has the potential to be a superstar. It's as simple as that.

That's fine -- I get that reasoning, and I've said the same thing many times this season.


But we shouldn't talk as though having Kyrie is enough to be contender.

We shouldn't even suggest that having Kyrie, a good coach, and a solid supporting cast is enough to be a contender.

We have seen quite clearly that it's not as simple as that.



I believe a team could contend with Kyrie as its best player, but I think what we've seen this year and last is that contending with Kyrie as your best player probably requires more luck and a more delicate balance of chemistry and roster construction than we might have hoped.

[Moranis]

CUte idea and I love Tatum but that team probably wins 35 games unless he makes a major leap quick... and if he did make that leap you’d be kicking yourselves the team didn’t have a second star like kyrie so they could actually contend.

Again, I'm not sure why we're referring to contending with Kyrie as if it's a given that having him means we would be able to contend.

Recent evidence suggests otherwise.

I feel as if this point has been repeated multiple times, but Kyrie is a superstar talent, offensively. Superstar talent is needed to be contenders, and many of us doubt anyone else on this team has the potential to be a superstar. It's as simple as that.

That's fine -- I get that reasoning, and I've said the same thing many times this season.


But we shouldn't talk as though having Kyrie is enough to be contender.

We shouldn't even suggest that having Kyrie, a good coach, and a solid supporting cast is enough to be a contender.

We have seen quite clearly that it's not as simple as that.



I believe a team could contend with Kyrie as its best player, but I think what we've seen this year and last is that contending with Kyrie as your best player probably requires more luck and a more delicate balance of chemistry and roster construction than we might have hoped.

I don't actually think a team could win a title with Kyrie as its best player and haven't from before the trade was made to Boston.  He just isn't good enough overall and that includes offensively.  What I mean is, Irving goes through a lot of shooting slumps and he doesn't do enough else even offensively to survive those shooting slumps.  that is why I consistently mention his assist and rebound numbers and get hammered for them.  He isn't a guy that can still lead an offense when his shot isn't falling and his shot isn't falling enough that it is a real problem in close tight playoff games.  And he certainly can't make up for it defensively as he is a terrible defender.  Boston quite simply isn't winning a title with Irving as its best player.  I was holding out hope that Hayward would regain his pre-injury form and be Boston's best player this year, but that obviously and unfortunately didn't happen.  Tatum isn't ready to take a real leap into that discussion yet, which leaves Boston with a nice deep team, but one that isn't going to do much in an improved Eastern Conference playoffs.  In other words, Boston is a pretty classic example of a solid regular season team (much like Toronto the last few years).  Given just how much better the East is at the top this year, and given Boston's current seeding just getting out of the 1st round won't be easy and I'd be pretty surprised if Boston beat Toronto or Milwaukee in the 2nd round (let alone both to reach the finals). 

As for Simmons idea, if that is what Boston was going to do, it should have traded Irving at the deadline.  Trading him to the NY for Porzingis and Hardaway should have been explored (as an example).  At this point, Boston has to offer Irving the full max.  If he doesn't take it and he leaves there is nothing you can do at that point, but I do feel maybe Ainge wasn't properly reading the tea leaves with not just Irving, but the team in general.  Ainge needed to do something at the deadline.  I gave him an F for not doing anything then, and I'm re-grading to a F- now as this team is a mess and Ainge should have done something to try and fix it (at a minimum he should have traded Morris and probably should have moved Rozier as well - obviously if you move Irving you don't move Rozier, but I do think moving Irving was always a long shot).

[philr13]

If Irving walks you can't simply "Build around Tatum and Brown".

The Celts will still be over the cap and won't be able to sign anybody of consequence. They'll have to wait until Horford's contract is over and Hayward's is either over or close enough to the end that he'll accept a buyout, before they can even entertain the idea of signing top free agents again. We're talking at least 2 years.

In the meantime they'll have to sign Tatum and Brown to new deals and pay them while the franchise is in a holding pattern.

Building a team doesnt mean just signing players.

Celtics last championship team was built through trades

Yes. You build a team through signing players, trades, and the draft.

But, you can't build around Tatum and Brown by trading them. The last championship team was built by trading young players for veterans.

The best way to build around Tatum and Brown is to sign Irving and trade him after the required amount of time has passed. That's if you want to build around them. Otherwise, you could just trade them for someone (Davis?) and hope for the best.

[PhoSita]

  Ainge needed to do something at the deadline.  I gave him an F for not doing anything then, and I'm re-grading to a F- now as this team is a mess and Ainge should have done something to try and fix it (at a minimum he should have traded Morris and probably should have moved Rozier as well - obviously if you move Irving you don't move Rozier, but I do think moving Irving was always a long shot).

Yeah.  Hindsight is 20/20, but I think it would be very hard to argue against Bill's conclusion that getting rid of Rozier and Morris, by the deadline if not earlier, regardless of the return, would have been a positive for the team as a whole.

[PhoSita]

Even if Kyrie leaves, there are other ways to reboot and still be competitive. How many times are we going to go through the rebuild stage? As a fan, I have no interest in that scenario.

There's still free agency, trades, the draft. Many different avenues where Ainge can reboot the team to be competitive, even if Ky leaves.

The way I'm looking at this, Kyrie is not reliable at this point.  I don't believe we can sign him and be confident that he's going to remain happy and committed to making it work in Boston.  It feels like an unstable relationship.  That might just be Kyrie's personality.

With Davis, I worry that because he's only got a year left on his deal, if the team trades for him, that means they only get a single year to convince him to stick around.

What makes anybody think, given what we've seen this year, that there's a very high likelihood that everything is going to go so well in that first year that Davis will definitely stick around?



When I say let's stick with Tatum and Brown and see what they can be, I'm not suggesting that the team is going to be contender that way, in the short term or even necessarily in the long term.

But I do think that path provides a lot more stability and certainty that the team is going to be well stocked with talent and not be totally screwed 18 months from now.

I don't think Kyrie and AD are enough of a sure thing to risk being left with basically nothing in 2020 and beyond.

I'd rather go forward with Tatum, Brown, Horford, Smart, Hayward and a bunch of draft picks, knowing that we can have that group for at least a few years, and see what opportunities come along to build with that foundation.



I recognize that many people here are "championship or bust" types, which means, I suppose, being willing to mortgage all of the long term assets we have for a chance at having a maybe-MVP talent on the roster in Davis, even though we might only have him for a year.

As of a few months ago, I was totally on board with that plan.  But that was because I still believed that the foundation we already have here in Boston was strong enough that the chances of convincing Davis to stay were very good.

I no longer believe that.



Basically -- if you think that trading for Davis is very likely to go the way trading for Kawhi has gone for Toronto this season, then that makes sense.

I'm not confident about that anymore.