Kawhi wants out of San Antonio

[tlance]

^ I concur...

... Kawhi is both 1.) a rental and 2.) disgruntled.... (maybe an injury risk too?)

Maybe it might make sense for a team like the Lakers, who have been so low for so long, to go "all in" on him... especially if Kawhi is motioning that he would be willing to stay in L.A. long term.

But the Celtics? They shouldn't be in a rush to outbid the market... heck, another year of growth out of guys like Brown, Tatum and Ojeleye and they should be ready next year to challenge Golden State. Let's look at Boston's line up again if they do nothing but sit on their thumb (and resign Aaron Baynes, I guess):

• Kyrie Irving
• Jaylen Brown
• Gordon Hayward
• Jason Tatum
• Al Horford

• Marcus Smart
• Marcus Morris
• Aaron Baynes
• Semi Ojeleye
• Daniel Theis
• Shane Larkin
• Guerschon Yabusele

^ Yeah, I'll say it: Good enough to challenge Golden State starting next year.

LOL.

No it isn't.

This roster has the look of a team that will perennially be top 3 or 4, but never win.

 

[Gman]

LOL.

No it isn't.

This roster has the look of a team that will perennially be top 3 or 4, but never win.

They were top 3 or 4 without 2 all star caliber players in their line up...

... next year they get those 2 all stars back, in addition to realistic growth from guys like Tatum, Brown and Ojeleye.

I completely disagree with you.

 

[Gman]

LOL.

No it isn't.

This roster has the look of a team that will perennially be top 3 or 4, but never win.

Heck... I just realized I left Terry Rozier off our bench.

That roster is stacked with talent and depth. The starting 5 is top 3 in the NBA, the bench is fantastic, and they have the look of the top defensive team in the NBA again.

 

[The Q]

For the Celtics part, sure. But I don't think a deal could get done with him in it unless its a 3 teamer to a team that he wants to resign with. There's no way I'm taking back Kyrie if I'm SA because I feel pretty confident he wouldn't resign there. I'd demand one of either Brown or Tatum and damn near every pick Boston has even if they put Kyrie in the trade. But its not going to happen because Kawhi's return will be low unless he says he wants to resign. That's why I think Boston is in a bigger bind than people realize when they keep throwing out the "Boston can put together the best deal!" lines. They can theoretically, but they also open themselves up to huge risks if it blows up. Their offer should be the bare minimum. They shouldn't be tossing in most of their assets like a lot of these hypotheticals are suggesting.

Actually, the more I think about it, Kyrie shouldn't be in the deal. It makes it even worse because it makes Boston a worse team and less likely that Kawhi would stick around. You'd want him on your team in hopes that maybe the two gel and decide we'll stick around. All the more reason to keep an offer for Kawhi slim just in case it doesn't.

San Antonio was one of the few teams kyrie asked to be traded to. Boston was not.

 

[Gman]

San Antonio was one of the few teams kyrie asked to be traded to. Boston was not.

Presumably, a big part of Kyrie wanting to be in San Antonio was the fact that Kawhi would be there with him.

 

[flyerhawk]

Heck... I just realized I left Terry Rozier off our bench.

That roster is stacked with talent and depth. The starting 5 is top 3 in the NBA, the bench is fantastic, and they have the look of the top defensive team in the NBA again.

And the Warriors starting 5 is top 1 in the NBA by a large margin.

I get why Celtics fans are excited about the future. The Celtics are going to be very good next year. But there are a few reasons why you guys might want to temper your excitement.

1. Adding Hayward and Irving back will improve the team but not necessarily as much as you think. They are both very good players. But they will both be coming off of injuries and the minutes they take up will be minutes not given to Brown, Tatum, and others. You can't just assume that adding those two players is a purely cumulative effect.
2. The Celtics played extremely well in the playoffs but they also wound up winning nearly every close game. They went 7 games in 2 out of the 3 series they played and could have been bounced in the 1st round.
3. The offseason is going to change a lot of teams. The Celtics could easily lose Smart and Baynes. Depending on what the Sixers do, the Celtics may not even be the favorite to win the East. They currently have the 2nd best odds in the East.
4. The Warriors are still the Warriors.

 

[tlance]

They were top 3 or 4 without 2 all star caliber players in their line up...

... next year they get those 2 all stars back, in addition to realistic growth from guys like Tatum, Brown and Ojeleye.

I completely disagree with you.

You think that because they got to the ECF. But they weren't top 4.

Cleveland was better. Houston and GS were far better. New Orleans, Utah (when healthy) probably OKC and maybe even Toronto were as good or better.

Philly's inexperience, Toronto's mental block against LeBron and overall crappiness of the Cavs roster has overinflated your outlook of your squad.

If Boston were in the West they wouldn't have gotten out of the first round. With Kyrie and Hayward, sure. Not without. Getting to the ECF does not make you top 4 when the West was FAR stronger.

 

[Gman]

And the Warriors starting 5 is top 1 in the NBA by a large margin.

Conceded. We haven't seen the Boston starting 5 in action, though, but theoretically it is stacked too.

I don't see how this point necessarily nullifies my claim, though: that the C's are legit challengers starting next year... I'm not saying favorites, I'm saying reasonable challengers.

I get why Celtics fans are excited about the future. The Celtics are going to be very good next year. But there are a few reasons why you guys might want to temper your excitement.

1. Adding Hayward and Irving back will improve the team but not necessarily as much as you think. They are both very good players. But they will both be coming off of injuries and the minutes they take up will be minutes not given to Brown, Tatum, and others. You can't just assume that adding those two players is a purely cumulative effect.

Adding 2 all star caliber players is 100% a positive and good thing. Period.

I've seen takes such as yours before... and they read (to me) like contrarian and devil's advocate type thinking. Arguing just to argue type stuff... finding the small bit of negative in an overwhelming overall positive.

2. The Celtics played extremely well in the playoffs but they also wound up winning nearly every close game. They went 7 games in 2 out of the 3 series they played and could have been bounced in the 1st round.

From my vantage point, the C's were a very young team that blossomed before our eyes.

That the young kids plus Al Horford did what they did is, again, an overwhelmingly positive thing. Not something to nit pick to find the negative take on.

3. The offseason is going to change a lot of teams. The Celtics could easily lose Smart and Baynes. Depending on what the Sixers do, the Celtics may not even be the favorite to win the East. They currently have the 2nd best odds in the East.

I fully concede that if Philly gets LeBron (let's say) it changes the whole conversation.

4. The Warriors are still the Warriors.

Conceded, again.

I'd argue that the Celtics match up well against GS, though... better than they do against a LeBron led Cleveland team... I think it would be a fighting series at the very least.

It's a shame the C's choked in Game 7 of the ECFs... I think they would have been a better fight against GS... although they would have lost the series all the same.

 

[Gman]

You think that because they got to the ECF. But they weren't top 4.

Cleveland was better. Houston and GS were far better. New Orleans, Utah (when healthy) probably OKC and maybe even Toronto were as good or better.

Philly's inexperience, Toronto's mental block against LeBron and overall crappiness of the Cavs roster has overinflated your outlook of your squad.

If Boston were in the West they wouldn't have gotten out of the first round. With Kyrie and Hayward, sure. Not without. Getting to the ECF does not make you top 4 when the West was FAR stronger.

We'll probably have to agree to disagree. The past is past... and we could debate the power rankings of last season endlessly and only get so far.

You give concessions to Philly for their inexperience and Utah for their injury situation... well, the obvious retort is that Boston had the exact same excuses.

Anywho... looking ahead to next season... Boston is stacked... no weakness on the roster... certainly top 3 or 4 as things now stand.

 

[shopson67]

What would the Suns offer? They already said they're not trading the #1 pick and Booker is certainly off limits too. Anything else the Suns have won't be enough

Besides, nobody of working age wants to go to Arizona.

 

[shopson67]

^ I concur...

... Kawhi is both 1.) a rental and 2.) disgruntled.... (maybe an injury risk too?)

Maybe it might make sense for a team like the Lakers, who have been so low for so long, to go "all in" on him... especially if Kawhi is motioning that he would be willing to stay in L.A. long term.

But the Celtics? They shouldn't be in a rush to outbid the market... heck, another year of growth out of guys like Brown, Tatum and Ojeleye and they should be ready next year to challenge Golden State. Let's look at Boston's line up again if they do nothing but sit on their thumb (and resign Aaron Baynes, I guess):

• Kyrie Irving
• Jaylen Brown
• Gordon Hayward
• Jason Tatum
• Al Horford

• Marcus Smart
• Marcus Morris
• Aaron Baynes
• Semi Ojeleye
• Daniel Theis
• Shane Larkin
• Guerschon Yabusele

^ Yeah, I'll say it: Good enough to challenge Golden State starting next year.

Sure, but just remember that Irving is also on the last year of his contract and is unwilling to sign an extension, looking for that max money. Will Ainge trade him to avoid losing him for nothing? If so, he's not an ideal part of a Kawhi trade from the Spurs perspective for the very same reason. They will be looking for young talent with years of control to reload/rebuild. Hayward seems a perfect Spurs type, but that injury changes everything until he can prove himself healthy again (which also applies to Kyrie and Kawhi). Man, what a mess lol.

 

[tlance]

We'll probably have to agree to disagree. The past is past... and we could debate the power rankings of last season endlessly and only get so far.

You give concessions to Philly for their inexperience and Utah for their injury situation... well, the obvious retort is that Boston had the exact same excuses.

Anywho... looking ahead to next season... Boston is stacked... no weakness on the roster... certainly top 3 or 4 as things now stand.

You said Boston was a top 3 or 4 team without Kyrie and Hayward.

The Utah team with rubio that defeated OKC would beat those Celtics rather easily.

 

[tlance]

We'll probably have to agree to disagree. The past is past... and we could debate the power rankings of last season endlessly and only get so far.

You give concessions to Philly for their inexperience and Utah for their injury situation... well, the obvious retort is that Boston had the exact same excuses.

Anywho... looking ahead to next season... Boston is stacked... no weakness on the roster... certainly top 3 or 4 as things now stand.

And yes.

They are top 3 or 4 with Kyrie and Hayward.

Still pretty far behind GS.

But, if Ainge can make a couple moves to turn some of the depth into high end talent, they will have a chance. As is, I just can't see it.

 

[Gman]

You said Boston was a top 3 or 4 team without Kyrie and Hayward.

The Utah team with rubio that defeated OKC would beat those Celtics rather easily.

This sort of unknowable claim could be argued endlessly without resolution.

Therefore, the only issue I would take is your flip use of a word like "easily."

Nah, it wouldn't be "easy" anything. That would have been a pretty good series, I'd say... we'll never know though.

 

[Wamu]

Any dad's out there have plans for the day? Did the Fathers Day thing yesterday instead because it's supposed to be raining on & off all day.

 

[Gman]

And yes.

They are top 3 or 4 with Kyrie and Hayward.

Still pretty far behind GS.

But, if Ainge can make a couple moves to turn some of the depth into high end talent, they will have a chance. As is, I just can't see it.

Fair enough.

My retort is still the same: the Celtics could sit on their thumb for the most part and still get significant improvement in the form of reasonable growth from multiple guys... Tatum, Brown, Rozier and Ojeleye all have ceilings to grow into.

The other part of the equation is match up... I'd argue the C's match up better against GS than they do against other top teams. The best defense in the NBA isn't sexy... but it's built for the playoffs.

 

[Wamu]

It would be funny if the Spurs trade Kawhi to the Clippers instead of the Lakers. Am I right @Mecca & @ChiefsLakers67?

 

[flyerhawk]

Conceded. We haven't seen the Boston starting 5 in action, though, but theoretically it is stacked too.

I don't see how this point necessarily nullifies my claim, though: that the C's are legit challengers starting next year... I'm not saying favorites, I'm saying reasonable challengers.

They are challengers because the East is pretty weak and, assuming Lebron leaves Cleveland, it is a 2 team race for the Eastern conference title.

Adding 2 all star caliber players is 100% a positive and good thing. Period.

I've seen takes such as yours before... and they read (to me) like contrarian and devil's advocate type thinking. Arguing just to argue type stuff... finding the small bit of negative in an overwhelming overall positive.

Not contrarian. Every season is a new season and you are assuming that everything will remain static and simply having Kyrie and Hayward in the playoffs will make them significantly better.

From my vantage point, the C's were a very young team that blossomed before our eyes.

That the young kids plus Al Horford did what they did is, again, an overwhelmingly positive thing. Not something to nit pick to find the negative take on.

It was definitely a great run and the Celtics are a serious threat to reach the finals. But unless they get a big time piece, they aren't beating the Warriors or Rockets.

 

[tlance]

Fair enough.

My retort is still the same: the Celtics could sit on their thumb for the most part and still get significant improvement in the form of reasonable growth from multiple guys... Tatum, Brown, Rozier and Ojeleye all have ceilings to grow into.

The other part of the equation is match up... I'd argue the C's match up better against GS than they do against other top teams. The best defense in the NBA isn't sexy... but it's built for the playoffs.

All true.

Kyrie and Hayward aren't improving the defense though. Fewer minutes for players like Smart, Morris and Brown make the defense weaker. At least some of what you gain offensively is given back on the other end.

 

[Black Adam]

Any dad's out there have plans for the day? Did the Fathers Day thing yesterday instead because it's supposed to be raining on & off all day.

likewise. family took me out to eat at Black Angus yesterday so it was nice to hang with the kids and grandkids...

so today's all about going into chill mode...