Celtics NBA Draft Strategy: What Should Boston Do With No. 3 Pick?

NESN

by Darren Hartwell on Tue, May 17, 2016 at 9:36PM WALTHAM, Mass.

It could have been worse. Then again, it could have been better. The Boston Celtics will have the No. 3 overall pick in the 2016 NBA Draft after Tuesday’s ping pong balls failed to land them their first No. 1 pick in franchise history. “There were some groans,” Celtics president of basketball operations Danny Ainge admitted at the team’s practice facility in Waltham shortly after the NBA Draft Lottery. “There was a lot of hope that we could get a good pick. But we’ll take it.”

So, where do the C’s go from here? The primary options for Ainge and Co. on June 23 are simple: Make the No. 3 pick or trade it.

Here are arguments for both:

MAKE THE NO. 3 PICK

The Celtics likely will miss out on the top two projected picks, LSU’s Ben Simmons and Duke’s Brandon Ingram. But there still are plenty more talented players in this draft. Among them is Dragan Bender, a Croatian 7-footer who can knock down 3-pointers and has the potential to develop into the frontcourt star the Celtics desperately need.

Kentucky shooting guard Jamal Murray averaged 20 points a game on a loaded Wildcats team and could give the Celtics a scoring boost, while Oklahoma guard and reigning player of the year Buddy Hield has plenty of star potential.

Ainge insisted Tuesday the Celtics will take the “best player available,” regardless of position. Hield is the most enticing option, and drafting him could be enough to convince a big-name free agent to come to Boston.

TRADE THE NO. 3 PICK

Stocking up for the future is all well and good, but the Celtics have the assets to win now. Ainge said point-blank he expects to “get some calls” for the No. 3 pick, as there are plenty of teams that would love to jump up to that spot.

Boston has a handful of solid young players who could be packaged with the No. 3 pick to create a strong offer for a team looking to make the leap. It also has seven more picks in the 2016 draft, including two more in the first round. If giving up the No. 3 pick and a handful of players means landing an All-Star like Chicago Bulls guard Jimmy Butler, the Celtics should pounce on the opportunity.

VERDICT: TRADE THE PICK

We’ve heard enough talk about the Celtics’ arsenal of assets. They managed not to drop in this year’s draft, and Ainge should take advantage of that by concocting an offer another team can’t refuse. Sacramento Kings center DeMarcus Cousins might be out of reach, but Boston should have the resources to get Butler. If they can pull that off, the door should be open for a free agent like Atlanta Hawks big man Al Horford, or even long shot Oklahoma City Thunder forward Kevin Durant.

Read more at: http://nesn.com/2016/05/celtics-nba-draft-strategy-what-should-boston-do-with-no-3-pick/

If Durant leaves OKC for anywhere, with the run they are having, I will be fall down shocked.


bob


.

bobheckler wrote:If Durant leaves OKC for anywhere, with the run they are having, I will be fall down shocked.


bob


.

Just don't fall on top of me, because I would be dropping alongside you. I see no reason he goes anywhere.

OK, sorry, got to nominate this for the short-sighted conclusion of the night.

What should Boston do with the third pick?  Use It!

The writer apparently doesn't like acquiring good young players that fill holes in the Celtics lineup.

Yeah, god forbid we add a good player on a 4 million dollar a year contract rather than 15 million mid level veteran or whatever the going rate is.

players in the 3-6 range may not excite Danny. He may really want a player ready to compete in the NBA now, not in 2-3 years.

Guards are the best options at #3 right now and that creates a logjam on our current roster.

I think the Lottery results also mean that Danny ends up making a trade and while I would love Butler, I feel he may NOT be on the market after all.

with that said I would not be surprised to see the #3 pick traded to Philly for Okafor. They of course will want more than just that pick, IMO.

Okafor is probably a better choice than anyone we could pick at #3 this year for our roster, think a bigger Sully. He also is a better rim protector than he gets credit for with his huge wingspan.

Philly needs a PG bad and Dunn is the consensus pick as best PG in this draft class.

Stauskas would be a nice addition here also, as he is one of the better 3 point shooters in the NBA and would fit a need we have here.

not sure what philly would want for both players.

Here is an idea that I read elsewhere, with minor modifications.

We give the Suns #3, #16 and Young. (and cash, if needed)

They give us #4 and #13.

As for helping Philly, I say let them get their own guard with the 1st pick. Let them make their own hard decision without us helping to bail them out. They have too many bigs? Too bad for them. The last thing I want to do is further reward the tank unit in our own division by handing them the #3 pick to go with their own #1, which they then could use to even up their roster and plague us with it for the next decade.

gyso

History doesn't have to repeat itself, but here's where I think the question of what to do with the third pick ignores a good point; it completely misses what we've done in this range before.

The Celtics have only had a top-four pick four times in the common draft era, right?  We took...

Kevin McHale 3rd in 1980
Chauncey Billups 3rd in 1997
Len Bias 2nd in 1986
Dave Cowens 4th in 1970.

Terrible talent there.  Can't build a team with any of those guys.

One was traded in a hysterically insane move (sorry Zan Tabak fans), another was tragically and immediately gone, but all were cornerstone type players.

Other notable 3rd selections include...

James Harden, Al Horford, Carmelo Anthony (they were in a hurry forgot to select his defense), Pau Gasol, Grant Hill, and some guy by the last name of Jordan.  Michael Jordan, I think it was.  Wonder if he ever amounted to anything?

Yes, I'm cherry picking and there are swings and misses at pick number three also.  It cannot be ignored, however, that in this year's draft there will be several players available who look like solid NBA material, and who may fill serious needs we have.  What's more is that a rebuilding team selecting a promising young player could have them around for a very long time, starting off at a bargain compared to a free agent.  Besides that, no one says they can't contribute right away, at 3rd or later; isn't that right Mr. Pierce?

Just sayin', I think there's a little sunshine here.

NYCelt wrote:OK, sorry, got to nominate this for the short-sighted conclusion of the night.

What should Boston do with the third pick?  Use It!

The writer apparently doesn't like acquiring good young players that fill holes in the Celtics lineup.

The writer is implying that none of the players expecting to be selected around the 3rd pick will fill holes in the Celtics lineup at this time.

The most NBA ready players in Dunn and Hield would be battling for minutes with Avery Bradley, Marcus Smart and Isaiah Thomas. All 3 of those current guards deserve somewhere between 28-34 minutes a game next year. That leaves between 0 and (at the very most) 12 minutes a game for a rookie and assumes they will be able to beat out last years two rookie guards Rozier and Hunter for minutes.

Bender is apparently going to be a 2-3 year project. He may fill a 'hole' (big man) but won't actually play meaningful minutes for some time.
'
Murray is probably the safest choice barring a trade of Smart or Bradley (in which case you prob think Hield if Bradley is gone or Dunn if Smart is). Murray is 19 with legit all-star potential if he can improve his body a bit and defense a lot. He can play PG or SG. He could spend next year in the D-League while the C's showcase Rozier and try to trade him. Then will play very well off the bench in his 2nd year, 2017-18, which is also the last year Bradley and Thomas are under contract. If Murray looks like he's a future all-star and a perfect fit alongside Smart one of those two guards who currently bleed green and are beloved by this fanbase will likely not return when their price tags will be in the 12-18 million per year range.

Ram wrote:

NYCelt wrote:OK, sorry, got to nominate this for the short-sighted conclusion of the night.

What should Boston do with the third pick?  Use It!

The writer apparently doesn't like acquiring good young players that fill holes in the Celtics lineup.

The writer is implying that none of the players expecting to be selected around the 3rd pick will fill holes in the Celtics lineup at this time.

Ram,

Exactly.  And that's where I think the writer is completely wrong.  

We need shooting, we need someone who can score.  Hield is one good example, Brown, with some work yet to do, is another.  I think it makes perfect sense to take a guard like Hield, when our best trading chip is undoubtedly Bradley.  

I agree with those who think Murray is seriously flawed, in that other than coming off screens, he seems incapable of getting his own shot or generating serious offense.  On defense he's an NBA matador in waiting.

You can also make a strong argument for Dunn, but that probably makes the supposition that we won't go further with Rozier.  I'm not certain the team won't go that way, however.

So to my thinking, there's three, and that's just guard/wing.

We may very well also see deals made that open other needs which could be filled with a pick this high, but that's an unknown at this time.

Regards

(And nice to see you contributing your thoughts and ideas here!)

NYCelt wrote:

One was traded in a hysterically insane move (sorry Zan Tabak fans), another was tragically and immediately gone, but all were cornerstone type players.

In defense of Pitino, which I hate doing, it took Billups until his 6th season and 5th team to become a cornerstone player for the Pistons.

He was a borderline starter (87 of 159 games) in Minnesota the two years before he joined the Pistons averaging 26 mins, 11 points, 4.5 assists and under 3 rebounds and 1 steal per game. Solid 44/38/86 shooting #'s. Slightly above average 15.5 PER. Basically he was Marcus Smart with better 3 point and FT% numbers but not as aggressive when it came to rebounds, steals and overall D (although he was a very good defender). We've seen Smart do that ages 21-22. Billups was 24-25.

Kenny Anderson was 27 at the time of the trade. While he regressed a bit since his age 23 all-star selection in 1994 he was a legit starting PG averaging around 16 pts, 9 assists, 3 boards with 43/34/81 shooting %'s and a great PER of 19.2.

Mike Conley was 27 during Smart's rookie year coming off of 2 seasons where he averaged 16 points, 6 assists, 3 boards with 46/36/82 %'s and a PER of 19.1.

Basically trading Billups for Anderson is equivalent to Danny trading Smart for Conley Jr, last year. I don't think it was a hysterically insane move. Only a misguided one in terms of longevity of the players and the whole "why are you making the team better you need to pick top 5?" thing. Trading a 1999 1st rd pick for Vitaly was a FAR worse move by Pitino.

NYCelt wrote:

Ram wrote:

NYCelt wrote:OK, sorry, got to nominate this for the short-sighted conclusion of the night.

What should Boston do with the third pick?  Use It!

The writer apparently doesn't like acquiring good young players that fill holes in the Celtics lineup.

The writer is implying that none of the players expecting to be selected around the 3rd pick will fill holes in the Celtics lineup at this time.

Ram,

Exactly.  And that's where I think the writer is completely wrong.  

We need shooting, we need someone who can score.  Hield is one good example, Brown, with some work yet to do, is another.  I think it makes perfect sense to take a guard like Hield, when our best trading chip is undoubtedly Bradley.  

Murray, I agree, is seriously flawed in that other than coming off screens, he seems incapable of getting his own shot or generating serious offense.  On defense he's an NBA matador in waiting.

You can also make a strong argument for Dunn, but that probably makes the supposition that we won't go further with Rozier.  I'm not certain the team won't go that way, however.

So to my thinking, there's three, and that's just guard/wing.

We may very well also see deals made that open other needs which could be filled with a pick this high, but that's an unknown at this time.

Regards

(And nice to see you contributing your thoughts and ideas here!)

Thanks man

Agree Hield makes a lot of sense if Bradley is traded.

Ainge LOVES Bradley though. I could see him sucking it up and moving AB in a trade for a legit star at SG like Butler or Harden. But not just to make room for Hield.

Ram wrote:

NYCelt wrote:

One was traded in a hysterically insane move (sorry Zan Tabak fans), another was tragically and immediately gone, but all were cornerstone type players.

In defense of Pitino, which I hate doing, it took Billups until his 6th season and 5th team to become a cornerstone player for the Pistons.

He was a borderline starter (87 of 159 games) in Minnesota the two years before he joined the Pistons averaging 26 mins, 11 points, 4.5 assists and under 3 rebounds and 1 steal per game. Solid 44/38/86 shooting #'s. Slightly above average 15.5 PER. Basically he was Marcus Smart with better 3 point and FT% numbers but not as aggressive when it came to rebounds, steals and overall D (although he was a very good defender). We've seen Smart do that ages 21-22. Billups was 24-25.

Kenny Anderson was 27 at the time of the trade. While he regressed a bit since his age 23 all-star selection in 1994 he was a legit starting PG averaging around 16 pts, 9 assists, 3 boards with 43/34/81 shooting %'s and a great PER of 19.2.

Mike Conley was 27 during Smart's rookie year coming off of 2 seasons where he averaged 16 points, 6 assists, 3 boards with 46/36/82 %'s and a PER of 19.1.

Basically trading Billups for Anderson is equivalent to Danny trading Smart for Conley Jr, last year. I don't think it was a hysterically insane move. Only a misguided one in terms of longevity of the players and the whole "why are you making the team better you need to pick top 5?" thing. Trading a 1999 1st rd pick for Vitaly was a FAR worse move by Pitino.

Ram,

I don't think Pitino waited anywhere near long enough to understand what he had. And, for the record, I'm a Rick Pitino fan (other than his NBA time), so it's OK by me if you do defend Pitino.

Somewhere online there's a list I saw of all the players traded for Billups, and how far below his career value most were. The Celtics weren't the only one that blew it, and in the first few moves, it was consistently a matter of not seeing him develop with his teammates.

Regards

Ram wrote:

NYCelt wrote:

One was traded in a hysterically insane move (sorry Zan Tabak fans), another was tragically and immediately gone, but all were cornerstone type players.

In defense of Pitino, which I hate doing...

OK, guess I could do without some of those bright white and yellow suits of his too...

Would anyone consider this trade down?

Amir and picks 3, 51 and 58 to the Bucks for John Henson and picks 10 and 36. Or if that is not enough the C's give them pick 45 or 51 and our 2nd rd pick next year and instead of pick 36 the Bucks give us a top 10 protected 1st rd pick in 2017.

Henson is 25 and blocks 4 shots per 36 minutes. Since Kidd arrived he's only been given 18 minutes per game and that likely won't change much with Monroe's big immovable deal. He averaged 11 pts, 7 boards and 53% shooting in 26 mins back in '13-'14. His PER's have always been around 18 and he is about to start a very affordable 4 year 44 million deal. He would be everything Amir was and more from a guy 3-4 years younger without a bad ankle.

Henson, Bradley, Thomas and Crowder are 4 guys all between the ages of 25-27 making between 7-12 million (40% of the cap next year) and would be the heart of a 9 man rotation. The 3rd-6th guys. Still need two more stars, but you are well on your way.

With the 10th pick the Celtics could choose from a pool of 6 big men, three will almost certainly still be there: Poeltl, Davis, Chriss, Skal, Maker and Ellenson.

The Bucks can take Dunn or Murray. Two 6'4" PG's (like Kidd) who can also swing over and play some SG and since Giannis might be the PG of the future for them (while guarding a forward) this would give them a very good 5th starter after The Freak, Parker, Middleton and Monroe. Michael Carter-Williams goes to the bench and they keep just one of Mayo/Bayless as their 4th guard. Amir and Plumlee can be active rotational bigs for them, or they cut those guys loose and have 40 million in cap space.

This could be a win-win for both teams.

NYCelt wrote:

Ram,

I don't think Pitino waited anywhere near long enough to understand what he had.  And, for the record, I'm a Rick Pitino fan (other than his NBA time), so it's OK by me if you do defend Pitino.

Somewhere online there's a list I saw of all the players traded for Billups, and how far below his career value most were.  The Celtics weren't the only one that blew it, and in the first few moves, it was consistently a matter of not seeing him develop with his teammates.

Regards

Oh for sure. Billups is a guy I always mention when people complain about Smart's shooting and not developing as fast as they would like. Both came out after their soph years and Billups took until his 6th season to really shine.

If Boston was one pass-first calming presence brilliantly runs an offense keeps you honest by making open/clutch shots PG away from contending in 1998 then the trade for Anderson looks even better. Unfortunately they needed to be tanking.

I'll defend Pitino on that one. But I like to think had the C's hired Larry Brown instead of him they would have had a Billups, Dirk, McGrady, Camby core entering the 1999 draft where they'd likely have had a pick in the 6-9 range (Rip Hamilton, Wally Z, Shawn Marion or Andre Miller). Brown would hopefully have traded Antoine to the Raptors a year earlier for Camby, which would have been a better move than them trading him for a 35 year old Charles Oakley.

Ram wrote:Would anyone consider this trade down?

Amir and picks 3, 51 and 58 to the Bucks for John Henson and picks 10 and 36. Or if that is not enough the C's give them pick 45 or 51 and our 2nd rd pick next year and instead of pick 36 the Bucks give us a top 10 protected 1st rd pick in 2017.

Henson is 25 and blocks 4 shots per 36 minutes. Since Kidd arrived he's only been given 18 minutes per game and that likely won't change much with Monroe's big immovable deal. He averaged 11 pts, 7 boards and 53% shooting in 26 mins back in '13-'14. His PER's have always been around 18 and he is about to start a very affordable 4 year 44 million deal. He would be everything Amir was and more from a guy 3-4 years younger without a bad ankle.

Henson, Bradley, Thomas and Crowder are 4 guys all between the ages of 25-27 making between 7-12 million (40% of the cap next year) and would be the heart of a 9 man rotation. The 3rd-6th guys. Still need two more stars, but you are well on your way.

With the 10th pick the Celtics could choose from a pool of 6 big men, three will almost certainly still be there: Poeltl, Davis, Chriss, Skal, Maker and Ellenson.

The Bucks can take Dunn or Murray. Two 6'4" PG's (like Kidd) who can also swing over and play some SG and since Giannis might be the PG of the future for them (while guarding a forward) this would give them a very good 5th starter after The Freak, Parker, Middleton and Monroe. Michael Carter-Williams goes to the bench and they keep just one of Mayo/Bayless as their 4th guard. Amir and Plumlee can be active rotational bigs for them, or they cut those guys loose and have 40 million in cap space.

This could be a win-win for both teams.

Ram,

In my opinion, if we are going to give up the #3 pick, and we might, it will be for an all-star or someone just on the cusp.  Henson is not that.  I do not buy the argument that Henson is only getting 18mpg because of Monroe's contract.  Contracts do not equal playing time, just ask Gerald Wallace and David Lee.  Kidd wants to win and he doesn't care about money, that's management's job.  He had a good year 2 years ago and he wanted to build upon that last year.  If he played Monroe a lot more than Henson it's because he likes Monroe more than Henson.

Two players I would give up the #3 pick for (plus Amir and more picks) for are Cousins and Butler.  Cousins is a 2x All-Star and was All-NBA 2nd team last year.  Butler is a 2x All-Star and 2x All Defense 2nd team.  That's the quality of player I want for a #3.  Good players, like Henson, are not that hard to get, a LOT easier to get than #3 picks.

Lastly, Amir will make $12M next year.  Henson will make $2.9M.  The numbers do not even come remotely close to matching.  The only trade with Milwaukee that works is Amir for Henson and Khris Middleton, and I do not see Milwaukee doing that trade.

http://espn.go.com/nba/tradeMachine


bob


.

Bob,

Next year Henson will be starting a 4 year $44m contract, so this trade could be done starting 7/1.
I think Milwaukee is pretty happy with the 10th pick. There's a good chance they will pick Poeltl at #10 if he's still there.
Milwaukee really wants to play Monroe at PF and Parker at SF.

Henson is just not that good of a player. He offers little on offense and at times has fallen out of the rotation.

tjmakz wrote:Bob,

Next year Henson will be starting a 4 year $44m contract, so this trade could be done starting 7/1.
I think Milwaukee is pretty happy with the 10th pick. There's a good chance they will pick Poeltl at #10 if he's still there.
Milwaukee really wants to play Monroe at PF and Parker at SF.

Henson is just not that good of a player. He offers little on offense and at times has fallen out of the rotation.

TJ,

Thanks. The Trade Machine hasn't updated its salaries yet. I agree about Henson.


bob


.

bobheckler wrote:
Ram,

In my opinion, if we are going to give up the #3 pick, and we might, it will be for an all-star or someone just on the cusp.  Henson is not that.  I do not buy the argument that Henson is only getting 18mpg because of Monroe's contract.  Contracts do not equal playing time, just ask Gerald Wallace and David Lee.  Kidd wants to win and he doesn't care about money, that's management's job.  He had a good year 2 years ago and he wanted to build upon that last year.  If he played Monroe a lot more than Henson it's because he likes Monroe more than Henson.

Two players I would give up the #3 pick for (plus Amir and more picks) for are Cousins and Butler.  Cousins is a 2x All-Star and was All-NBA 2nd team last year.  Butler is a 2x All-Star and 2x All Defense 2nd team.  That's the quality of player I want for a #3.  Good players, like Henson, are not that hard to get, a LOT easier to get than #3 picks.

Lastly, Amir will make $12M next year.  Henson will make $2.9M.  The numbers do not even come remotely close to matching.  The only trade with Milwaukee that works is Amir for Henson and Khris Middleton, and I do not see Milwaukee doing that trade.

http://espn.go.com/nba/tradeMachine

bob

Bob,

Henson made 2.9 million THIS year. He will make 12.27 million next year. He actually signed an AMAZING deal as far as value. Similar to the ones Avery, IT and Crowder signed. 4 years 44 million with descending figures each year. So the 3 years after that he is making 11.4, 10.6 and 9.7 million all while the cap is going UP UP UP.

The cap is expected to be between 105-120 million the last 2 years of his deal, which means he will average out to less than 10% of the cap those years. Seasons he turns 28 and 29 years old (Amir's age now but with far less miles on his body). For comparisons sake, Perkins was making 4.5 million in '08 with a 54 million cap. Posey was making 3.2 million. Basically guys like Henson and Crowder at 10 and 8 million in 2018-20 are the same impact on the cap moving forward the next 4 years of deals they are already inked to as those two were a decade ago. We know cRowder's contract is always mentioned as making him super valuable, nearly as much as his play does. Those would be your #5 starter and 6th men on a contender.

As for the #3 pick only being worth an all-star. I agree. I too would trade it i a deal for Butler, Cousins, George and Harden. My proposal with the Bucks involves a situation where Ainge CANNOT get those stars and is stuck REALLY liking a couple of those 6 big men, 1/2 of who would still be there at #10. It is all about maximizing the value of the pick. Why take Murray or Bender if you really actually want Deyonta Davis or Jakob Poeltl and you know they will be gone by 16?

Out of Butler, Cousins, George and Harden I think everyone would agree Butler is the most likely player to be moved. Danny already had deadline discussions about him if you believe the rumors.

So what was likely Chicago's Godfather asking price back in February?

- Nets unprotected picks this year and next year
- Another #1 pick (Dallas or ours this year, ours or the Grizz in 2018)
- Amir's non-guaranteed deal (to make the $ work)
- Jae Crowder or possibly Marcus Smart

I agree that was too much to give up.

If Ainge were to counter right now with:

- The #3, #23 and #35 picks in this draft
- Terry Rozier and James Young
- Amir's non-guaranteed deal
- The Nets 2017 pick top 3 protected pick (Nets pick unprotected 2018 if Bulls don't get it in 2017)

I think that would be enough. Would the Bulls?

I think they would ask for Avery Bradley instead of Rozier and for the C's to take back Taj Gibson's 9 million. I think that would once again be too much.

Now if the Celtics were to make a trade down move with the Bucks to #10, I think they would be willing to meet the Bulls demands of taking Taj Gibson and giving up Avery Bradley in a deal like this one:

Bulls Get:

- Avery Bradley (perfect backcourt teammate for Rose, younger than Butler, will maniacally defend the guard Rose would have the harder time with letting Rose 'rest' on D and then not get in his way or challenge him for alpha dog on offense like Butler did).
- Amir's non-guaranteed deal (helps wipe away 9 million in Taj contract)
- James Young and maybe Tyler Zeller (if he is given the QO)
- Picks 10, 23, 35, 51 and 58 in this draft
- Nets pick in 2017 top 3 protected. Nets pick unprotected in 2018 plus the worst pick between Boston and Memphis in 2018.
- T'Wolves 2nd rd pick in 2017

Boston Gets:

- Jimmy Butler
- Taj Gibson
- Bulls 2nd rd pick #45

Would the Bulls trade Butler if it was pick #10 and not pick #3 involved? Maybe with all the other assets upgraded. Avery would take the place (rotation/mins wise) of a guard like Murray or Hield they might pick at #3. Meanwhile the big they might want at #14 but know would be gone could be there at #10. I think Poeltl or Davis would be great for them alongside Booker as they begin a mini-rebuild.

Boston now has Henson, Olynyk, Mickey and Gibson in their frontcourt. At #16 they'll pray one of those 6 young big men slide (or maybe try to trade up with Utah or Phoenix) but if none of those players slip they can just take Ante Zizic, who they are likely interested in at #23. He's a rebounding brut who can stay overseas one more year and replace Gibson the following season.

Boston would still have 30 million in cap space and the ability to go HARD after Durant. They will likely come up short. It is possibly they could then blow all their cap space on Horford and try to get Turner back on a big one year deal with no guaranteed $ after 2017 (like Amir's this year). If there is no Horford deal a small 'hometown discount' deal for Turner like Avery's 4/32 makes sense. They would then still be able to offer Durant (if he just signs for 1 year with options) the max summer of 2018, after a season in which Boston likely went toe to toe with Cleveland in the ECF.