NBA Playoffs 2017: Kawhi Did You Injure Me?

[briantw]

4 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

Normally I'd agree, but a lot of Boston insiders have said the Celtics tried to acquiring either of them and both the Bulls and the Pacers refused to trade. I can understand the Bulls not wanting to part ways with Butler, but the Pacers refusal makes no sense. 

All the accounts I read were that both were definitely available, but that Ainge, as is typical, overvalued his assets and wouldn't pull the trigger on a deal.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

6 minutes ago, briantw said:

All the accounts I read were that both were definitely available, but that Ainge, as is typical, overvalued his assets and wouldn't pull the trigger on a deal.

And here he sits in the ECF, with Homecourt and the #1 pick in the draft. God that guy sucks! How does he hold down a job?

[briantw]

1 minute ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

And here he sits in the ECF, with Homecourt and the #1 pick in the draft. God that guy sucks! How does he hold down a job?

He has home court, but is he favored by anyone?

That says a lot.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

Just now, briantw said:

He has home court, but is he favored by anyone?

Would he be favored by anyone with George or Butler on the roster?

[briantw]

Just now, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

Would he be favored by anyone with George or Butler on the roster?

I think Boston would have a much better shot against the Cavs with George on the team.  Butler too, but less so.  George always goes hard against LeBron.  He's the only reason that Pacers series was as competitive as it was.  Would they have been favored?  I don't know.  I guess it depends on whether they'd looked better in the first two rounds than they did.  I still think they only got out of the first round due to injury luck.

[DunderMifflin]

Definitely would be better with George but they would have to beat the Cavs in the playoffs this year or next for it not to look like a terrible deal for the Celtics.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

2 minutes ago, DunderMifflin said:

Definitely would be better with George but they would have to beat the Cavs in the playoffs this year or next for it not to look like a terrible deal for the Celtics.

BINGO. And hell, I think they have a slim chance of pulling that off as it stands. Of course their odds would be better with one of those two guys, but I don't give up 2 #1's for either of them. 

[DanteGabriel]

31 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

And here he sits in the ECF, with Homecourt and the #1 pick in the draft. God that guy sucks! How does he hold down a job?

Brian should be the Celtics' GM, he knows the NBA so much better than Ainge. I mean, he knows what went on in those trade discussions, he knows the exact value of his assets, and he identified Isaiah Thomas's sneaky ability to get 40 free throws per night, fooling all other observers and even the league's own scorekeepers.

Most importantly, he can handle the mental gymnastics required to hold the simultaneous beliefs that Isaiah Thomas ain't all that, the Celtics have way overvalued assets, and that they're a Jimmy Butler away from catching up with Cleveland.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

15 minutes ago, DanteGabriel said:

Brian should be the Celtics' GM, he knows the NBA so much better than Ainge. I mean, he knows what went on in those trade discussions, he knows the exact value of his assets, and he identified Isaiah Thomas's sneaky ability to get 40 free throws per night, fooling all other observers and even the league's own scorekeepers.

Most importantly, he can handle the mental gymnastics required to hold the simultaneous beliefs that Isaiah Thomas ain't all that, the Celtics have way overvalued assets, and that they're a Jimmy Butler away from catching up with Cleveland.

 Yeah, it's hard to overvalue a #1 overall pick. It doesn't get more valuable than that.  

[briantw]

25 minutes ago, DanteGabriel said:

Brian should be the Celtics' GM, he knows the NBA so much better than Ainge. I mean, he knows what went on in those trade discussions, he knows the exact value of his assets, and he identified Isaiah Thomas's sneaky ability to get 40 free throws per night, fooling all other observers and even the league's own scorekeepers.

Most importantly, he can handle the mental gymnastics required to hold the simultaneous beliefs that Isaiah Thomas ain't all that, the Celtics have way overvalued assets, and that they're a Jimmy Butler away from catching up with Cleveland.

I'm of the opinion that, if you have the ability to trade for one of the ten best players in the NBA (which George certainly is), you should do it.  Does George put them over the Cavs?  I don't know, but he makes it a hell of a lot closer.  Would I have traded both Nets picks for him?  No.  But one of them and some change?  Absolutely.  Draft picks are, by their nature, uncertain.  For every top pick that's LeBron James and can carry a team on his own, you get five or six who range from good to great but not game-changing and another who is a complete bust.  If you can flip that uncertainty, especially in a draft like this where you've got a lot of potential stars but no consensus number one overall guy, into a top ten guy, I think you should do it.  

As far as Thomas goes, the comment about his forty free throws was obviously sarcasm, but it apparently ate at you enough that you keep bringing it up.  Perhaps it ate at you because it hints at a truth: that Thomas is a manufactured star.  He's a good player who got to be a star because the refs sent him to the line a million times.  But at the end of the day, he's still a 5'9 guard who can't play defense, and you're not winning anything when your best player meets either of those criteria, let alone both.  Hell, the Celtics probably get humiliated in a round one sweep if Rondo doesn't get hurt.

15 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

 Yeah, it's hard to overvalue a #1 overall pick. It doesn't get more valuable than that.  

Well, to be fair, not every number one pick is created equal.  Some years you get Anthony Davis.  Some years you get Anthony Bennett.  And even if Bennett was an admittedly awful pick, the entire top ten that year was mostly garbage.  McCollum ended up being the best player from those ten, and he was picked tenth.  

And while this draft is certainly looking to be a lot better than that one, we've had similar thoughts of other drafts that have ended up mostly disappointing, just like drafts that were supposed to suck ended up being great.  As an example, the 2011 draft was touted as the worst draft in years, but it ended up being one of the best, deepest drafts of the past fifteen years.  The 2012 draft, on the other hand, was supposed to be stacked with talent, but we ended up getting a handful of stars out of it (one of whom wasn't picked until round two) and then mostly shit.

So again, drafts tend to be a crapshoot, and I'm always wary of any draft where there's no consensus top guy, especially if you've got the best pick.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

2 minutes ago, briantw said:

Well, to be fair, not every number one pick is created equal.  Some years you get Anthony Davis.  Some years you get Anthony Bennett.  And even if Bennett was an admittedly awful pick, the entire top ten that year was mostly garbage.  McCollum ended up being the best player from those ten, and he was picked tenth.  

And while this draft is certainly looking to be a lot better than that one, we've had similar thoughts of other drafts that have ended up mostly disappointing, just like drafts that were supposed to suck ended up being great.  As an example, the 2011 draft was touted as the worst draft in years, but it ended up being one of the best, deepest drafts of the past fifteen years.  The 2012 draft, on the other hand, was supposed to be stacked with talent, but we ended up getting a handful of stars out of it (one of whom wasn't picked until round two) and then mostly shit.

So again, drafts tend to be a crapshoot, and I'm always wary of any draft where there's no consensus top guy, especially if you've got the best pick.

Sure, there's variance from year to year, but when you're talking about a lottery pick that turned out to be #1 overall, it's hard to criticize Ainge for not dealing it. I think at this point you give him credit for staying conservative and not going all in this season. Seems to me he made the right move.

[briantw]

1 minute ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

Sure, there's variance from year to year, but when you're talking about a lottery pick that turned out to be #1 overall, it's hard to criticize Ainge for not dealing it. I think at this point you give him credit for staying conservative and not going all in this season. Seems to me he made the right move.

I'd say the question is whether or not anyone in this draft will be better than Paul George, and I'd say that's a worthwhile discussion.  

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

1 minute ago, briantw said:

I'd say the question is whether or not anyone in this draft will be better than Paul George, and I'd say that's a worthwhile discussion.  

Eh, that doesn't really factor in. As DunderMifflin posited earlier, it boils down to does George get you to the next level this season or next. That's the only thing that really matters. 

[briantw]

Just now, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

Eh, that doesn't really factor in. As DunderMifflin posited earlier, it boils down to does George get you to the next level this season or next. That's the only thing that really matters. 

And I think he might have.  It's not as if the Cavs are unbeatable.  George really made them work for every win in that Pacers series, and as I noted he's one of those guys who always plays well against LeBron, which is something that can't be said for everyone. 

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

1 minute ago, briantw said:

And I think he might have.  It's not as if the Cavs are unbeatable.  George really made them work for every win in that Pacers series, and as I noted he's one of those guys who always plays well against LeBron, which is something that can't be said for everyone. 

Sure, it would've improved their chances. Bottom line, I'd rather have the #1 overall pick than a season and a quarter of George. That #1 pick is likely to be a much better value long term.

[briantw]

1 minute ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

Sure, it would've improved their chances. Bottom line, I'd rather have the #1 overall pick than a season and a quarter of George. That #1 pick is likely to be a much better value long term.

Well, assuming they traded for George, I'd also assume that they would have a conversation with him prior to doing so to see if he was open to staying with Boston.  The Cavs had a conversation like that with Kevin Love prior to trading for him, and it's totally legal if the other team agrees to it, which they obviously would if they were open to trading a guy.

Did the Celtics have that conversation?  I don't know, but I'm guessing not since that's the kind of thing that typically leaks.

[DanteGabriel]

28 minutes ago, briantw said:

I'm of the opinion that, if you have the ability to trade for one of the ten best players in the NBA (which George certainly is), you should do it.  Does George put them over the Cavs?  I don't know, but he makes it a hell of a lot closer.  Would I have traded both Nets picks for him?  No.  But one of them and some change?  Absolutely.  Draft picks are, by their nature, uncertain.  For every top pick that's LeBron James and can carry a team on his own, you get five or six who range from good to great but not game-changing and another who is a complete bust.  If you can flip that uncertainty, especially in a draft like this where you've got a lot of potential stars but no consensus number one overall guy, into a top ten guy, I think you should do it.  

As far as Thomas goes, the comment about his forty free throws was obviously sarcasm, but it apparently ate at you enough that you keep bringing it up.  Perhaps it ate at you because it hints at a truth: that Thomas is a manufactured star.  He's a good player who got to be a star because the refs sent him to the line a million times.  But at the end of the day, he's still a 5'9 guard who can't play defense, and you're not winning anything when your best player meets either of those criteria, let alone both.  Hell, the Celtics probably get humiliated in a round one sweep if Rondo doesn't get hurt.

I'd love to have Paul George on the Celtics, but not as a short-term rental. I think one Brooklyn pick may have been a fair price for him as a rental, but you can't make that argument while simultaneously criticizing Danny Ainge for over-valuing his assets. So we both agree George isn't worth both Brooklyn picks. Do you suppose Indiana limited their demands to just one Brooklyn pick? Or might they gave asked for both? Gosh, maybe Ainge came to the same fucking value determination you did and that's why he kept the picks. And golly, Danny Ainge has managed to make lottery picks in two of the last three drafts, has this year's number one, another lottery pick lined up next year, and a roster full of young players deep in the playoffs. He may still screw it up, but he's threaded the needle pretty well so far. Maybe he knows more about this shit than you.

As for Thomas, I kind of agree that he's not a star to build around. I am pretty sure I've said in these threads I don't think he can be the best or maybe even second-best player on a championship team. That's why I'm not worried about fitting Thomas and Fultz on the same team -- I don't think Thomas is part of the long term answer in Boston. I was pretty against the idea of the Celtics giving him a max contract, though these playoffs have given me doubt about it.

I brought up the stupid free throws remark because it was stupid and you didn't acknowledge my criticism before. Thomas gets fewer free throws than Westbrook and Harden. He gets about as many free throws as you can expect for a primary ballhandler and first option who drives to the rim a lot.

So Thomas is a "manufactured" star because he gets... about the expected number of free throws for his role in the offense? He's a star because no one has seen a guy his size do these things in a long time. Yes, his size limits his full value. But he's a great scorer no matter how many free throws he gets, and he is still the best player on a team in the conference championship, so to call him manufactured and to bolster your case by exaggerating his free throw frequency is lame and insults our intelligence.

[DanteGabriel]

19 minutes ago, briantw said:

Well, assuming they traded for George, I'd also assume that they would have a conversation with him prior to doing so to see if he was open to staying with Boston.  The Cavs had a conversation like that with Kevin Love prior to trading for him, and it's totally legal if the other team agrees to it, which they obviously would if they were open to trading a guy.

Did the Celtics have that conversation?  I don't know, but I'm guessing not since that's the kind of thing that typically leaks.

"The Boston Celtics, a professional sports franchise that does not have its head up its ass, didn't inquire about the likelihood of a long-term extension with a player they were interested in, because I would have heard about it if they did."

[briantw]

5 minutes ago, DanteGabriel said:

"The Boston Celtics, a professional sports franchise that does not have its head up its ass, didn't inquire about the likelihood of a long-term extension with a player they were interested in, because I would have heard about it if they did."

When teams meet with players from other teams, it always leaks, and is rarely even a secret.  When the Cavs met with Love, everyone knew about it.  Do you honestly think the Celtics could have met with George about the prospects of trading for him without anyone finding out about it in the modern NBA social media environment?

Players can't take a dump in a public restroom these days without Woj tweeting about it.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

5 minutes ago, DanteGabriel said:

"The Boston Celtics, a professional sports franchise that does not have its head up its ass, didn't inquire about the likelihood of a long-term extension with a player they were interested in, because I would have heard about it if they did."

https://media.giphy.com/media/zRuCoQfeOZgLC/giphy.gif

 

/Flawless Victory