I took a lot of heat for saying that IT couldn't be the top player for an elite title contending team ... but he's getting abused on both ends of the court ...
The Celtics window is this year's #1 + next year's #1 + Bradley/Brown + Hayward + ???
If you are Danny Ainge right now there's no way you can pay IT the max ... it'd be a terrible contract
You're a fucking idiot. Guys who are top 20 players are max contract guys.
Guys who finish at the top of the scoring charts are max contract guys.
Guys who lead their team to #1 seeds are max contract guys.
I know this is hard for you ...
But what's a Top 20 player?
Stats wise, IT is a top 20 player.
But if we're judging by building a championship contending team, can you really make the argument that he's a Top 20 player?
If it isn't ridiculously apparent by now, you can make IT a liability on the defensive end of the court (too short) and offensively if you can defend him with size while staying in front of him.
Against the majority of the league, they can't put guys on him that mess him up with size while being able to stay in front of him. Against elite teams though, they can do so.
I took a lot of heat for saying that IT couldn't be the top player for an elite title contending team ... but he's getting abused on both ends of the court ...
The Celtics window is this year's #1 + next year's #1 + Bradley/Brown + Hayward + ???
If you are Danny Ainge right now there's no way you can pay IT the max ... it'd be a terrible contract
You're a fucking idiot. Guys who are top 20 players are max contract guys.
Guys who finish at the top of the scoring charts are max contract guys.
Guys who lead their team to #1 seeds are max contract guys.
I know this is hard for you ...
But what's a Top 20 player?
Stats wise, IT is a top 20 player.
But if we're judging by building a championship contending team, can you really make the argument that he's a Top 20 player?
If it isn't ridiculously apparent by now, you can make IT a liability on the defensive end of the court (too short) and offensively if you can defend him with size while staying in front of him.
Against the majority of the league, they can't put guys on him that mess him up with size while being able to stay in front of him. Against elite teams though, they can do so.
He can't win a title if he's the best player on a team. But how many guys are there in the NBA who can? James and Curry for sure. Beyond that Kawhi and Durant are the only two I'd say with any confidence. Maybe Westbrook. Maybe Harden. Maybe Davis or Towns or Giannis eventually.
IT is absolutely a guy you can win with if he's the 2nd best guy on your team. Which makes him a max guy.
You can win with him if he's your 6th man off the bench ... but I don't think his skill set works well as the 2nd or 3rd option in a starting rotation.
I took a lot of heat for saying that IT couldn't be the top player for an elite title contending team ... but he's getting abused on both ends of the court ...
The Celtics window is this year's #1 + next year's #1 + Bradley/Brown + Hayward + ???
If you are Danny Ainge right now there's no way you can pay IT the max ... it'd be a terrible contract
You're a fucking idiot. Guys who are top 20 players are max contract guys.
Guys who finish at the top of the scoring charts are max contract guys.
Guys who lead their team to #1 seeds are max contract guys.
I know this is hard for you ...
But what's a Top 20 player?
Stats wise, IT is a top 20 player.
But if we're judging by building a championship contending team, can you really make the argument that he's a Top 20 player?
If it isn't ridiculously apparent by now, you can make IT a liability on the defensive end of the court (too short) and offensively if you can defend him with size while staying in front of him.
Against the majority of the league, they can't put guys on him that mess him up with size while being able to stay in front of him. Against elite teams though, they can do so.
You actually posted that you can make him a liability on offense? Before this series nobody has been able to stop him.
I've seen Curry struggle before. Same for Kyrie Irving, Westbrook, etc. Players struggle sometimes. IT is hurt, and he's probably fucking exhausted.
Between your LeBron criticism and this, you're posting even dumber than you typically do every year it's playoff season.
You can win with him if he's your 6th man off the bench ... but I don't think his skill set works well as the 2nd or 3rd option in a starting rotation.
Boston won the one seed with him as the number one option. They are in the ECF with him as the number one option. There's no fucking way that makes him a sixth man on a title team.
Seriously dude this might be the worst post I've ever seen on the hoops bored.
That might be the 1 seed this year in the East but that's good for most years a 3 or 4 seed at best.
Offensively, what I meant is that you are starting to see teams try to put a wall around him taking away his shot and then his passing angles.
Teams defend differently in the playoffs versus the regular season ... this is well known.
And IT is a guy that needs to run screen and roll on offense to be effective ... that requires the ball being in his hand. That's better utilized IMO coming off the bench as a 6th man on a really good team.
The fact you disagree with me and think what I'm saying is stupid only further convinces me that the vast majority of hoops observers chase stats as their proof ... stats in hoops only matter so much
Jesus Christ. Boston would be dreck without IT. They can't score. They can't defend Lebron, same as everyone else.
Fucking speed limit IQ basketball takes.
Without IT and a reasonable PG replacement they are probably a 45 win team ...
The only reason they are even in the discussion as a fringe NBA contender and #1 seed in the East right now is that the dominance in the league is consolidated with the Warriors, the Spurs (Leonard), and the Cavs (when LBJ is engaged).
What they are is at, or near the top, of the next level of teams that are pretty good but will never win a NBA title as currently constructed. They are probably similar to the early 2000's Nets teams that were the best of a really bad East and fodder in the NBA Finals or the early to mid 80's Bucks teams that were very good but never elite.
I'm going to be very interested in the offseason and see what Boston does. IF they thought that this was really their window they would have made a move at the deadline for this year's likely #1.
That might be the 1 seed this year in the East but that's good for most years a 3 or 4 seed at best.
Offensively, what I meant is that you are starting to see teams try to put a wall around him taking away his shot and then his passing angles.
Teams defend differently in the playoffs versus the regular season ... this is well known.
And IT is a guy that needs to run screen and roll on offense to be effective ... that requires the ball being in his hand. That's better utilized IMO coming off the bench as a 6th man on a really good team.
The fact you disagree with me and think what I'm saying is stupid only further convinces me that the vast majority of hoops observers chase stats as their proof ... stats in hoops only matter so much
It's not just about stats, although again, guys that average 29 on 53 win teams are max contract players. I doubt there has ever been a player that scored 53 in a second round playoff game that didn't at same point have a max contract.
IT is a leader. Listen to the way Brad Stevens, Ainge, and his teammates talk about him.
He's played two shitty games against a team that has a guy playing at a historically high level. He's also hurt and has been through the fucking ringer this postseason yet is still in the ECF. Get a grip.
Jesus Christ. Boston would be dreck without IT. They can't score. They can't defend Lebron, same as everyone else.
Fucking speed limit IQ basketball takes.
Without IT and a reasonable PG replacement they are probably a 45 win team ...
The only reason they are even in the discussion as a fringe NBA contender and #1 seed in the East right now is that the dominance in the league is consolidated with the Warriors, the Spurs (Leonard), and the Cavs (when LBJ is engaged).
What they are is at, or near the top, of the next level of teams that are pretty good but will never win a NBA title as currently constructed. They are probably similar to the early 2000's Nets teams that were the best of a really bad East and fodder in the NBA Finals or the early to mid 80's Bucks teams that were very good but never elite.
I'm going to be very interested in the offseason and see what Boston does. IF they thought that this was really their window they would have made a move at the deadline for this year's likely #1.
They're the #1 seed because they have decent coaching, depth, and defense, and an absolute big baller brand that carries their offense.
I agree with you in that they're aware it's still a flawed roster, without even bringing in GS and CLE into the discussion. They've could have traded for an elite shooter like CJ McCollum, but they'd still need more firepower to be a contender, period.
None of that is IT's fault, and you can certainly build around him. Tons of speed, grit, scoring. But their roster is far too incomplete at this point.
IT will ALWAYS be a liability defensively ... that's not opinion ... that's reality.
Offensively, the problem is that he needs the ball in his hand predominately running pick and rolls. If he's going to perform in that capacity, then he either needs to be the #1 option on the starting unit or the #1 option coming in off the bench.
Playing 35-40 minutes a game I just don't think is realistic for him IF you are going to be a championship team. No question that you can win a lot of games with IT doing that. But you aren't winning a title. There are teams that would love to be in that discussion because it's an upgrade and would probably pay a max deal for that kind of player.
What you can win a title with him doing though is coming off the bench being a 25-30 minute per game guy where he's anchoring the scoring for that range from 4 minutes left in the 1st quarter through 4-5 minutes into the 2nd quarter (repeat for 2nd half) and then moving off the ball as a knock down shooter + penetrator off of kick outs in other circumstances. His ability to get you 20 points in 25 minutes is a massive difference maker in a game. THAT can contribute to a championship team.
Part of winning a championship is making sure that you have your players slotted in the right position in the lineup.
Tiny Archibald was a GREAT player ... similar in stature to IT. But he never won shit in the NBA until he got surrounded by other great players and basically became the 3rd or 4th best player (at best) on his team ... when surrounded with guys like Bird, Parrish, a young Cedric Maxwell and a young Kevin McHale coming in off the bench.
IF IT wants to win a title, he's either going to need to figure out how to be come a complementary piece on a great team or embrace a 6th man type role. If his goal is to get paid max money, he'll most likely be condemning himself to be a very good player on a 50-55 win (ceiling) team that has limited (if any) opportunity to get to a NBA title.
The only "little" player that I can see coming anywhere close to IT in terms of leading his team to a championship would be the other IT ... and that's a huge stretch in my mind.
IT will ALWAYS be a liability defensively ... that's not opinion ... that's reality.
Dude, it's the fucking NBA, even top 10-20 players specialize. I don't see anyone giving a fuck about Harden's defense, plus Boston already has defenders.
Offensively, the only problem there is IT is the only player on his team whose shooting isn't embarrassing. They need a guy like McCollum and then anpther scorer, because their offense is that bad against non-shit teams.
Something about Tiny Archibald; streamline the rest of your shit post please.
Saying IT needs to be the 4th best guy on his team to win is about as shitpost as it gets. Also Im glad GS will give max money to noted defensive stopper Steph Curry.
Saying IT needs to be the 4th best guy on his team to win is about as shitpost as it gets. Also Im glad GS will give max money to noted defensive stopper Steph Curry.
You're not seriously trying to compare IT to Curry are you?
IT's skill level is more consistent with the 2nd or 3rd option ... his size makes him ideally suited to be a 6th man.
Saying IT needs to be the 4th best guy on his team to win is about as shitpost as it gets. Also Im glad GS will give max money to noted defensive stopper Steph Curry.
You're not seriously trying to compare IT to Curry are you?
IT's skill level is more consistent with the 2nd or 3rd option ... his size makes him ideally suited to be a 6th man.
Lillard and Irving are max contract players. I think those guys are fair comparisons to IT. Lillard is a great scorer. Irving has a title to his name, but is also a one dimensional scorer without great PG skills.
No, IT is not Curry, but switch them and nothing changes this year. GS would still roll in the West and Cleveland would still beat Boston.
IT has made it further than Chris Paul ever has, without a player even close to a healthy Blake Griffin to help. Chris Paul is still a max player.
You brought up the early 2000's Nets. Jason Kidd wasn't a max player?
Saying IT needs to be the 4th best guy on his team to win is about as shitpost as it gets. Also Im glad GS will give max money to noted defensive stopper Steph Curry.
You're not seriously trying to compare IT to Curry are you?
IT's skill level is more consistent with the 2nd or 3rd option ... his size makes him ideally suited to be a 6th man.
Lillard and Irving are max contract players. I think those guys are fair comparisons to IT. Lillard is a great scorer. Irving has a title to his name, but is also a one dimensional scorer without great PG skills.
No, IT is not Curry, but switch them and nothing changes this year. GS would still roll in the West and Cleveland would still beat Boston.
IT has made it further than Chris Paul ever has, without a player even close to a healthy Blake Griffin to help. Chris Paul is still a max player.
You brought up the early 2000's Nets. Jason Kidd wasn't a max player?
The only thing you did with this post is further convince me that you don't know jack shit about basketball ...
It's hard for you to make a post that makes me think less of your opinions ...
So congratulations on that.
I'm not entirely sure what to make of Lillard ... at this point in his career he's a great stats mediocre team kind of player. I'd like to see Portland take a step up to being a 50 win team before suggesting that he's an easy max player.
Irving is a better player than IT ... forget the fact that Irving can get to the basket whenever he wants ... he's not a complete defensive liability.
The switching of IT/Curry is a pointless exercise ... the only point that you are making here is that Boston doesn't currently have a #2 player on its roster (both Horford and Bradley can be pieces on a championship team). That fact isn't IT's fault and I'm not saying that it is. What I am saying is that IT's not a #1 guy on a roster ... and if he isn't a #1 guy on a roster ... then what role does he play? If he's a #2 or #3 guy on a roster, does he contribute enough offensively to offset his defensive shortcomings? At that point are you getting good value on a max contract?
And was Jason Kidd in his prime a max player? Depends on what your objectives are. Kidd was absolutely good enough to be a 50+ win player more often than not and get at least 2-3 rounds deep in the playoffs. He had some shortcomings as a player (notably offensively) that limited the ceilings of his team. IF you make him a max player, then you likely will be short in cap space necessary to surround him with enough players to really have a championship team.
And that's the crux of the entire argument that you, and so many others, in this discussion don't understand. Paying max contracts ties up your cap space. Doing so means that you are making a commitment that the player you are paying a max contract to that that player is a cornerstone of your franchise and someone that you think can be part of challenging for championships. When you have those players you pay them. But the surest way to mediocrity in the NBA is to tie yourself up with contracts that don't get you anywhere. Stats wise, Carmello's a max player. What has that gotten?
So hypothetically, let's say that the Celtics sign IT to a max contract ... and then in the next 2 years it becomes completely clear that between the #1 pick that the Celtics have this year + his defensive shortcomings that they need to upgrade from IT. What do you think the trade market will be for a 30 year old 5'9" (if that) player? Do you think that other teams are going to be jumping up and down to take that contract on? Perhaps another way to think about a max contract is that if you sign a player to one, what's the likelihood that you could trade that player during their contract and have a trade market?
What's more likely for Boston is as follows:
Utilize their existing trade cap space to sign Gordon Hayward to a max deal ... he's a 20+ point scorer that fits defensively in today's game by being able to play and defend against multiple positions.
Use the #1 pick to either draft Markelle Fultz or leverage the pick via trade to get an appropriate return.
Consider finding ways to maximize investment in next year's draft where Boston already has Brooklyn's 1st round pick and try to get MPJ as he's got the potential to be a unicorn type NBA player that you can build around.
The core for the title run (which starts in 3-5 years) will be Fultz, Avery Bradley, Jaylen Brown, Gordon Hayward, and likely whoever they get with the Brooklyn pick next year. Nobody in that group is older than 30 at the start of that window and coincides with the aging of the Cavs (LBJ would be 35, Love at 31 - and I don't see aging well, and Irving being 28). That's the window for the Celtics.
Now, if I'm the Celtics, that's my focus on what I'm doing with my cap space. Everything I do is built with the assumption that something like that is my core and that I have enough cap space behind it to be able to afford keeping it together. If you can sign IT to some kind of bridge contract that pays him and keeps you in the 2nd or 3rd position with Boston throughout that transition period without getting in the way of the development of the young players and harming your ability to resign anybody as needed (notably because of luxury tax implications), then I'm all for it. But what I think also needs to be figured out is how to maximize the cap situation such that as the young players transition from their first to second contracts, that that transition happens with cap space available BEFORE that happens so that any missing pieces that are needed to fill out the roster (potentially a big) can take place.
The other thing that Boston needs to be very aware of is that their competition during their title window will likely NOT be Cleveland ... it will be Philly. If they try to rush their window they'll short change it a bit and assuming that Philly stays healthy they'll eventually pass them.
If Boston's going for the short-term play, then you'll probably see them try to move the #1 pick to get an asset for today (i.e. a Jimmy Butler) ... if they are playing for the long haul, they'll take Fultz and sign Hayward as a free agent.
Saying IT needs to be the 4th best guy on his team to win is about as shitpost as it gets. Also Im glad GS will give max money to noted defensive stopper Steph Curry.
You're not seriously trying to compare IT to Curry are you?
IT's skill level is more consistent with the 2nd or 3rd option ... his size makes him ideally suited to be a 6th man.
Lillard and Irving are max contract players. I think those guys are fair comparisons to IT. Lillard is a great scorer. Irving has a title to his name, but is also a one dimensional scorer without great PG skills.
No, IT is not Curry, but switch them and nothing changes this year. GS would still roll in the West and Cleveland would still beat Boston.
IT has made it further than Chris Paul ever has, without a player even close to a healthy Blake Griffin to help. Chris Paul is still a max player.
You brought up the early 2000's Nets. Jason Kidd wasn't a max player?
The only thing you did with this post is further convince me that you don't know jack shit about basketball ...
It's hard for you to make a post that makes me think less of your opinions ...
So congratulations on that.
I'm not entirely sure what to make of Lillard ... at this point in his career he's a great stats mediocre team kind of player. I'd like to see Portland take a step up to being a 50 win team before suggesting that he's an easy max player.
Irving is a better player than IT ... forget the fact that Irving can get to the basket whenever he wants ... he's not a complete defensive liability.
The switching of IT/Curry is a pointless exercise ... the only point that you are making here is that Boston doesn't currently have a #2 player on its roster (both Horford and Bradley can be pieces on a championship team). That fact isn't IT's fault and I'm not saying that it is. What I am saying is that IT's not a #1 guy on a roster ... and if he isn't a #1 guy on a roster ... then what role does he play? If he's a #2 or #3 guy on a roster, does he contribute enough offensively to offset his defensive shortcomings? At that point are you getting good value on a max contract?
And was Jason Kidd in his prime a max player? Depends on what your objectives are. Kidd was absolutely good enough to be a 50+ win player more often than not and get at least 2-3 rounds deep in the playoffs. He had some shortcomings as a player (notably offensively) that limited the ceilings of his team. IF you make him a max player, then you likely will be short in cap space necessary to surround him with enough players to really have a championship team.
And that's the crux of the entire argument that you, and so many others, in this discussion don't understand. Paying max contracts ties up your cap space. Doing so means that you are making a commitment that the player you are paying a max contract to that that player is a cornerstone of your franchise and someone that you think can be part of challenging for championships. When you have those players you pay them. But the surest way to mediocrity in the NBA is to tie yourself up with contracts that don't get you anywhere. Stats wise, Carmello's a max player. What has that gotten?
So hypothetically, let's say that the Celtics sign IT to a max contract ... and then in the next 2 years it becomes completely clear that between the #1 pick that the Celtics have this year + his defensive shortcomings that they need to upgrade from IT. What do you think the trade market will be for a 30 year old 5'9" (if that) player? Do you think that other teams are going to be jumping up and down to take that contract on? Perhaps another way to think about a max contract is that if you sign a player to one, what's the likelihood that you could trade that player during their contract and have a trade market?
What's more likely for Boston is as follows:
Utilize their existing trade cap space to sign Gordon Hayward to a max deal ... he's a 20+ point scorer that fits defensively in today's game by being able to play and defend against multiple positions.
Use the #1 pick to either draft Markelle Fultz or leverage the pick via trade to get an appropriate return.
Consider finding ways to maximize investment in next year's draft where Boston already has Brooklyn's 1st round pick and try to get MPJ as he's got the potential to be a unicorn type NBA player that you can build around.
The core for the title run (which starts in 3-5 years) will be Fultz, Avery Bradley, Jaylen Brown, Gordon Hayward, and likely whoever they get with the Brooklyn pick next year. Nobody in that group is older than 30 at the start of that window and coincides with the aging of the Cavs (LBJ would be 35, Love at 31 - and I don't see aging well, and Irving being 28). That's the window for the Celtics.
Now, if I'm the Celtics, that's my focus on what I'm doing with my cap space. Everything I do is built with the assumption that something like that is my core and that I have enough cap space behind it to be able to afford keeping it together. If you can sign IT to some kind of bridge contract that pays him and keeps you in the 2nd or 3rd position with Boston throughout that transition period without getting in the way of the development of the young players and harming your ability to resign anybody as needed (notably because of luxury tax implications), then I'm all for it. But what I think also needs to be figured out is how to maximize the cap situation such that as the young players transition from their first to second contracts, that that transition happens with cap space available BEFORE that happens so that any missing pieces that are needed to fill out the roster (potentially a big) can take place.
The other thing that Boston needs to be very aware of is that their competition during their title window will likely NOT be Cleveland ... it will be Philly. If they try to rush their window they'll short change it a bit and assuming that Philly stays healthy they'll eventually pass them.
If Boston's going for the short-term play, then you'll probably see them try to move the #1 pick to get an asset for today (i.e. a Jimmy Butler) ... if they are playing for the long haul, they'll take Fultz and sign Hayward as a free agent.
Comments
But what's a Top 20 player?
Stats wise, IT is a top 20 player.
But if we're judging by building a championship contending team, can you really make the argument that he's a Top 20 player?
If it isn't ridiculously apparent by now, you can make IT a liability on the defensive end of the court (too short) and offensively if you can defend him with size while staying in front of him.
Against the majority of the league, they can't put guys on him that mess him up with size while being able to stay in front of him. Against elite teams though, they can do so.
IT is absolutely a guy you can win with if he's the 2nd best guy on your team. Which makes him a max guy.
You can win with him if he's your 6th man off the bench ... but I don't think his skill set works well as the 2nd or 3rd option in a starting rotation.
I've seen Curry struggle before. Same for Kyrie Irving, Westbrook, etc. Players struggle sometimes. IT is hurt, and he's probably fucking exhausted.
Between your LeBron criticism and this, you're posting even dumber than you typically do every year it's playoff season.
Seriously dude this might be the worst post I've ever seen on the hoops bored.
That might be the 1 seed this year in the East but that's good for most years a 3 or 4 seed at best.
Offensively, what I meant is that you are starting to see teams try to put a wall around him taking away his shot and then his passing angles.
Teams defend differently in the playoffs versus the regular season ... this is well known.
And IT is a guy that needs to run screen and roll on offense to be effective ... that requires the ball being in his hand. That's better utilized IMO coming off the bench as a 6th man on a really good team.
The fact you disagree with me and think what I'm saying is stupid only further convinces me that the vast majority of hoops observers chase stats as their proof ... stats in hoops only matter so much
Fucking speed limit IQ basketball takes.
The only reason they are even in the discussion as a fringe NBA contender and #1 seed in the East right now is that the dominance in the league is consolidated with the Warriors, the Spurs (Leonard), and the Cavs (when LBJ is engaged).
What they are is at, or near the top, of the next level of teams that are pretty good but will never win a NBA title as currently constructed. They are probably similar to the early 2000's Nets teams that were the best of a really bad East and fodder in the NBA Finals or the early to mid 80's Bucks teams that were very good but never elite.
I'm going to be very interested in the offseason and see what Boston does. IF they thought that this was really their window they would have made a move at the deadline for this year's likely #1.
IT is a leader. Listen to the way Brad Stevens, Ainge, and his teammates talk about him.
He's played two shitty games against a team that has a guy playing at a historically high level. He's also hurt and has been through the fucking ringer this postseason yet is still in the ECF. Get a grip.
I agree with you in that they're aware it's still a flawed roster, without even bringing in GS and CLE into the discussion. They've could have traded for an elite shooter like CJ McCollum, but they'd still need more firepower to be a contender, period.
None of that is IT's fault, and you can certainly build around him. Tons of speed, grit, scoring. But their roster is far too incomplete at this point.
Offensively, the problem is that he needs the ball in his hand predominately running pick and rolls. If he's going to perform in that capacity, then he either needs to be the #1 option on the starting unit or the #1 option coming in off the bench.
Playing 35-40 minutes a game I just don't think is realistic for him IF you are going to be a championship team. No question that you can win a lot of games with IT doing that. But you aren't winning a title. There are teams that would love to be in that discussion because it's an upgrade and would probably pay a max deal for that kind of player.
What you can win a title with him doing though is coming off the bench being a 25-30 minute per game guy where he's anchoring the scoring for that range from 4 minutes left in the 1st quarter through 4-5 minutes into the 2nd quarter (repeat for 2nd half) and then moving off the ball as a knock down shooter + penetrator off of kick outs in other circumstances. His ability to get you 20 points in 25 minutes is a massive difference maker in a game. THAT can contribute to a championship team.
Part of winning a championship is making sure that you have your players slotted in the right position in the lineup.
Tiny Archibald was a GREAT player ... similar in stature to IT. But he never won shit in the NBA until he got surrounded by other great players and basically became the 3rd or 4th best player (at best) on his team ... when surrounded with guys like Bird, Parrish, a young Cedric Maxwell and a young Kevin McHale coming in off the bench.
IF IT wants to win a title, he's either going to need to figure out how to be come a complementary piece on a great team or embrace a 6th man type role. If his goal is to get paid max money, he'll most likely be condemning himself to be a very good player on a 50-55 win (ceiling) team that has limited (if any) opportunity to get to a NBA title.
The only "little" player that I can see coming anywhere close to IT in terms of leading his team to a championship would be the other IT ... and that's a huge stretch in my mind.
You don't lead the league in scoring and assists if you are anything but elite.
40 years from now people will say IT who?
Offensively, the only problem there is IT is the only player on his team whose shooting isn't embarrassing. They need a guy like McCollum and then anpther scorer, because their offense is that bad against non-shit teams.
Something about Tiny Archibald; streamline the rest of your shit post please.
IT's skill level is more consistent with the 2nd or 3rd option ... his size makes him ideally suited to be a 6th man.
No, IT is not Curry, but switch them and nothing changes this year. GS would still roll in the West and Cleveland would still beat Boston.
IT has made it further than Chris Paul ever has, without a player even close to a healthy Blake Griffin to help. Chris Paul is still a max player.
You brought up the early 2000's Nets. Jason Kidd wasn't a max player?
The NBA has way too many teams
It's hard for you to make a post that makes me think less of your opinions ...
So congratulations on that.
I'm not entirely sure what to make of Lillard ... at this point in his career he's a great stats mediocre team kind of player. I'd like to see Portland take a step up to being a 50 win team before suggesting that he's an easy max player.
Irving is a better player than IT ... forget the fact that Irving can get to the basket whenever he wants ... he's not a complete defensive liability.
The switching of IT/Curry is a pointless exercise ... the only point that you are making here is that Boston doesn't currently have a #2 player on its roster (both Horford and Bradley can be pieces on a championship team). That fact isn't IT's fault and I'm not saying that it is. What I am saying is that IT's not a #1 guy on a roster ... and if he isn't a #1 guy on a roster ... then what role does he play? If he's a #2 or #3 guy on a roster, does he contribute enough offensively to offset his defensive shortcomings? At that point are you getting good value on a max contract?
And was Jason Kidd in his prime a max player? Depends on what your objectives are. Kidd was absolutely good enough to be a 50+ win player more often than not and get at least 2-3 rounds deep in the playoffs. He had some shortcomings as a player (notably offensively) that limited the ceilings of his team. IF you make him a max player, then you likely will be short in cap space necessary to surround him with enough players to really have a championship team.
And that's the crux of the entire argument that you, and so many others, in this discussion don't understand. Paying max contracts ties up your cap space. Doing so means that you are making a commitment that the player you are paying a max contract to that that player is a cornerstone of your franchise and someone that you think can be part of challenging for championships. When you have those players you pay them. But the surest way to mediocrity in the NBA is to tie yourself up with contracts that don't get you anywhere. Stats wise, Carmello's a max player. What has that gotten?
So hypothetically, let's say that the Celtics sign IT to a max contract ... and then in the next 2 years it becomes completely clear that between the #1 pick that the Celtics have this year + his defensive shortcomings that they need to upgrade from IT. What do you think the trade market will be for a 30 year old 5'9" (if that) player? Do you think that other teams are going to be jumping up and down to take that contract on? Perhaps another way to think about a max contract is that if you sign a player to one, what's the likelihood that you could trade that player during their contract and have a trade market?
What's more likely for Boston is as follows:
Utilize their existing trade cap space to sign Gordon Hayward to a max deal ... he's a 20+ point scorer that fits defensively in today's game by being able to play and defend against multiple positions.
Use the #1 pick to either draft Markelle Fultz or leverage the pick via trade to get an appropriate return.
Consider finding ways to maximize investment in next year's draft where Boston already has Brooklyn's 1st round pick and try to get MPJ as he's got the potential to be a unicorn type NBA player that you can build around.
The core for the title run (which starts in 3-5 years) will be Fultz, Avery Bradley, Jaylen Brown, Gordon Hayward, and likely whoever they get with the Brooklyn pick next year. Nobody in that group is older than 30 at the start of that window and coincides with the aging of the Cavs (LBJ would be 35, Love at 31 - and I don't see aging well, and Irving being 28). That's the window for the Celtics.
Now, if I'm the Celtics, that's my focus on what I'm doing with my cap space. Everything I do is built with the assumption that something like that is my core and that I have enough cap space behind it to be able to afford keeping it together. If you can sign IT to some kind of bridge contract that pays him and keeps you in the 2nd or 3rd position with Boston throughout that transition period without getting in the way of the development of the young players and harming your ability to resign anybody as needed (notably because of luxury tax implications), then I'm all for it. But what I think also needs to be figured out is how to maximize the cap situation such that as the young players transition from their first to second contracts, that that transition happens with cap space available BEFORE that happens so that any missing pieces that are needed to fill out the roster (potentially a big) can take place.
The other thing that Boston needs to be very aware of is that their competition during their title window will likely NOT be Cleveland ... it will be Philly. If they try to rush their window they'll short change it a bit and assuming that Philly stays healthy they'll eventually pass them.
If Boston's going for the short-term play, then you'll probably see them try to move the #1 pick to get an asset for today (i.e. a Jimmy Butler) ... if they are playing for the long haul, they'll take Fultz and sign Hayward as a free agent.