[ECSF] #1 Boston Celtics vs. #4 Washington Wizards

Who ya got?

  • Celtics in 4

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Celtics in 6

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Wizards in 4

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Wizards in 5

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Wizards in 7

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    6
  • Poll closed .
Status
Not open for further replies.

Mr. S£im Citrus

Doryphore of KingsFans.com
Staff member
#91
If you do end up with the #1 overall pick, you probably to ask the rookie to come off the bench because the Celtics are not a rebuilding team. They cannot afford to let an unproven rookie refine his game at the cost of aspiring to win the Eastern Conference.

Considering Thomas is a PG, I wonder when the last time a rookie PG led a team with the Conference Finals and won, so starting a rookie PG expecting him to lead you to the Finals is a big risk.
That seems like an unusually specific standard, but okay... probably the 1979-80 lakers. It should be noted that, in more recent memory, the Spurs and Celtics have both won championships with second-year point guards, and it's not like the Celtics are a threat to win a championship in the next two years, anyway.

Either way, that kind of seems like an intentional dodge of the spirit of my question: let's say, for the sake of argument, that the Celtics get the Number One overall pick, and Stevens plays him off the bench next year. Since, with most Number One picks, you know what you have by the end of the first year, what happens at the end of next season, when Ainge decides the kid is ready, and Thomas is an unrestricted free agent?
 
#92
That seems like an unusually specific standard, but okay... probably the 1979-80 lakers. It should be noted that, in more recent memory, the Spurs and Celtics have both won championships with second-year point guards, and it's not like the Celtics are a threat to win a championship in the next two years, anyway.

Either way, that kind of seems like an intentional dodge of the spirit of my question: let's say, for the sake of argument, that the Celtics get the Number One overall pick, and Stevens plays him off the bench next year. Since, with most Number One picks, you know what you have by the end of the first year, what happens at the end of next season, when Ainge decides the kid is ready, and Thomas is an unrestricted free agent?
In that case, Thomas has to want to return at the price Boston if willing to offer. All these hypothetical situations assume IT won't leave to another team if it suits him.
 

Mr. S£im Citrus

Doryphore of KingsFans.com
Staff member
#93
What reason is there to believe that Thomas would succeed on any team that isn't built exactly the same way that Boston is built right now? It's already failed twice.
 

Tetsujin

The Game Thread Dude
#95
Did any of those 2 teams that let IT go get better after he left. If not, maybe he wasn't the only problem.
They certainly didn't get better but let's not pretend IT is currently playing with a bunch of scrubs and Kenny Natt as a coach or something.
 

Mr. S£im Citrus

Doryphore of KingsFans.com
Staff member
#96
Did any of those 2 teams that let IT go get better after he left. If not, maybe he wasn't the only problem.
What exactly do you think that proves? The "Ewing/Gay Effect" is the exception, not the rule. Teams aren't supposed to get better when they lose an All-Star level talent for nothing. How much better have the Kings been since The All-Star Break?
 
#97
What exactly do you think that proves? The "Ewing/Gay Effect" is the exception, not the rule. Teams aren't supposed to get better when they lose an All-Star level talent for nothing. How much better have the Kings been since The All-Star Break?
That the supporting cast wasn't there for IT to succeed. Yea his tenure with the Kings ended up in 30 wins, but the team was devoid of talent. IT and Cousins couldn't do it themselves.

Why are we even holding his time with the Kings against him? We are all familiar with the situation and dysfunction, ineptitude, incompetence was not because of IT.
 
#98
They certainly didn't get better but let's not pretend IT is currently playing with a bunch of scrubs and Kenny Natt as a coach or something.
No Boston isn't a bunch of scrubs, but IT isn't being carried by the KD, Curry or Thompson either. IT is playing an integral part in Boston's success. Why is surrounding a good player with other capable players considered an indictment. We've seen how ugly things can get when you support an AS player with talentless hacks. In fact, we've seen 7 years of it.
 

Mr. S£im Citrus

Doryphore of KingsFans.com
Staff member
#99
That the supporting cast wasn't there for IT to succeed. Yea his tenure with the Kings ended up in 30 wins, but the team was devoid of talent. IT and Cousins couldn't do it themselves.

Why are we even holding his time with the Kings against him? We are all familiar with the situation and dysfunction, ineptitude, incompetence was not because of IT.
I am not, for one, holding Thomas' tenure with the Kings against him. My personal distaste for him aside, Thomas is a very good player. My point is that, very good player or not, Thomas did not succeed in the NBA until he went to a team that 1) has a good coach, and 2) has role players which complement his skill set. The fact that the two franchises he played for before he got to Boston are inept does not disprove that.
 
I am not, for one, holding Thomas' tenure with the Kings against him. My personal distaste for him aside, Thomas is a very good player. My point is that, very good player or not, Thomas did not succeed in the NBA until he went to a team that 1) has a good coach, and 2) has role players which complement his skill set. The fact that the two franchises he played for before he got to Boston are inept does not disprove that.
So what exactly is the purpose of your point? Those "facts" can be applied to 99% of NBA players.
 

Mr. S£im Citrus

Doryphore of KingsFans.com
Staff member
What do you mean, what's the purpose of my point? I just asked what Boston should do if they ended up with the Number One overall pick. You're the one who went off on this whole other tangent, I can only surmise, because of reasons?
 
What do you mean, what's the purpose of my point? I just asked what Boston should do if they ended up with the Number One overall pick. You're the one who went off on this whole other tangent, I can only surmise, because of reasons?
I didn't go off on another tangent. I answered your question. You may not like the answer or agree with it which is fine, but that's a far cry from my not answering your question.
 
So... what happens if the Celtics **** around and get the Number One overall pick? Do they pass on the BPA, because the BPA plays the same position as their best player? If they take the BPA, what do they do with their current guy? We already know how Thomas feels about being asked to come off the bench; do you draft a kid Number One overall, and ask him to come off the bench?

I suppose that, if Boston ends up with the Number One overall pick, they could trade it. But, and sorry to offend the IT-stans out there, if you trade the Number One overall pick, and you don't get back a guy who's better than Isaiah Thomas, then you're hustling backwards. It remains to be seen whether or not Thomas can be the second-best guy on a successful basketball team. There's plenty of reasons to believe that it should work, but there are a lot of Kings Fans who thought that it should have worked in Sacramento, and it didn't. Now, you can blame the other guy, if you want to (and I find that a preponderance of Thomas fans appear to), but it didn't work in Phoenix, either. Thomas has, by his own admission, stated that he wants to be like Allen Iverson, and the thing about Iverson is that he only managed to be successful on teams where Allen Iverson was the center of the solar system.

The other thing (bringing this back to the Celtics as a team), is that what really makes them work is Al Horford. I can't remember which analyst was saying it, but he unlocks their team: he's a talented big who can pass, spreads the floor, and can defend out on the perimeter... and, most important of all, doesn't want to be the go-to guy. He's kind of like a poor man's Sheed, from his Detroit days, in that he has the talent to be a go-to guy, but he's willing to look at the guard and be like, "You got it, Shorty!" That's the real key to Boston's success, and I'm not sure that they can fulfill their master plan without losing Horford. I know that Ainge has been stockpiling these assets to acquire a superstar, but I feel like any GM worth a damn would demand Horford in the deal, and then what happens? There's four, maybe six guys in the league that would make Boston into an immediate contender, and I wouldn't take anything less than Horford, Bradley and two firsts for any of them. There's maybe 5-6 guys after that who could make Boston a contender, if paired with Thomas and Horford... and even then, I start the bidding at Bradley, Olynyk and a first.
Got to trade the pick.

Now Hayward isn't all NBA Boston for me is front runners to sign him over Utah. Yes the additional 5th year counts (33 mill) but not at the cost of winning a championship and he has his best chance of that by escaping the west.

I'd trade the first for boogie, sign Hayward and enjoy the next good 5 years. I agree horford is a key cog and potentially you don't have to give him up to get boogie knowing NO would be giving up on the two big approach by being willing to part ways, so wouldn't necessarily want horford in return.

Either way that pick is traded most definetly for a big and Hayward is signed. That is the offseason for Boston
 
Status
Not open for further replies.