Report: Celtics extend qualifying offer to Kelly Olynyk

fierce wrote:

Rmbone wrote:

fierce wrote:The objective is to win a championship.

Not long-term flexibility, not plenty of minutes for rookies.

Long-term flexibility is only for small teams that can't afford to pay luxury tax.

We're not talking about the Memphis Grizzlies here.
The Boston Celtics can afford to pay luxury tax.
Just like the Warriors can afford to pay luxury tax.

The long-term or the future is NOW!

If Bill Belichick had that attitude the Patriots wouldn't be perennial Super Bowl contenders. Every team in the NBA has that mentality, NOW NOW NOW. DON'T TRADE KG AND PIERCE TO BROOKLYN! TRADE ALL THE BROOKLYN PICKS FOR KEVIN LOVE! TRADE FOR JOSH SMITH AND GIVE RONDO A MAX CONTRACT!!!  DRAFT BUDDY HIELD OR KRIS DUNN, NOT THE 19 YEAR OLD JAYLEN BROWN!! TRADE ALL THE PICKS FOR PAUL GEORGE!!

It's long-term strategic thinking and impulse control. We're in perfect position to assemble a team that is a top contender every year for 10+ years. And even if Danny assembled a "superteam" full of small forwards, and even if we DID beat the Cavs, look at how the Cavs played against the Warriors. They got steamrolled.

You gotta know when to hold em, know when to fold em. One more year of being a top 2 seed in the east and making it to the ECF again isn't going to be the end of the world, and it will be MUCH better for our long-term future. It might even attract a LeBron James to Boston next summer, to go along with Michael Porter Jr. Now THAT's a SF combination I can get behind, and it wouldn't cost all our assets, or even all our cap space flexibility.

You can't compare the NFL with the NBA.

The NBA has a soft cap, the NFL doesn't.

We can argue all night long because it's a difference of opinion.

But here's the thing, if what you're saying is the right move, why isn't Ainge following what you want?

Why is Ainge willing to spend 30m per year on Hayward instead of Crowder + Olynyk + 15 million in cap space + long-term flexibility + plenty of minutes for Jayson Tatum, Ojeleye, and Jaylen Brown?

Probably because he's not married to the idea of maxing out IT4, which I agree with. IT and Hayward might both be overrated, but Hayward's slightly below average defense is miles better than IT's defense, and Crowder can play the 4 if push comes to shove and rebounding goes out the window.

Rmbone wrote:

fierce wrote:

Rmbone wrote:

fierce wrote:The objective is to win a championship.

Not long-term flexibility, not plenty of minutes for rookies.

Long-term flexibility is only for small teams that can't afford to pay luxury tax.

We're not talking about the Memphis Grizzlies here.
The Boston Celtics can afford to pay luxury tax.
Just like the Warriors can afford to pay luxury tax.

The long-term or the future is NOW!

If Bill Belichick had that attitude the Patriots wouldn't be perennial Super Bowl contenders. Every team in the NBA has that mentality, NOW NOW NOW. DON'T TRADE KG AND PIERCE TO BROOKLYN! TRADE ALL THE BROOKLYN PICKS FOR KEVIN LOVE! TRADE FOR JOSH SMITH AND GIVE RONDO A MAX CONTRACT!!!  DRAFT BUDDY HIELD OR KRIS DUNN, NOT THE 19 YEAR OLD JAYLEN BROWN!! TRADE ALL THE PICKS FOR PAUL GEORGE!!

It's long-term strategic thinking and impulse control. We're in perfect position to assemble a team that is a top contender every year for 10+ years. And even if Danny assembled a "superteam" full of small forwards, and even if we DID beat the Cavs, look at how the Cavs played against the Warriors. They got steamrolled.

You gotta know when to hold em, know when to fold em. One more year of being a top 2 seed in the east and making it to the ECF again isn't going to be the end of the world, and it will be MUCH better for our long-term future. It might even attract a LeBron James to Boston next summer, to go along with Michael Porter Jr. Now THAT's a SF combination I can get behind, and it wouldn't cost all our assets, or even all our cap space flexibility.

You can't compare the NFL with the NBA.

The NBA has a soft cap, the NFL doesn't.

We can argue all night long because it's a difference of opinion.

But here's the thing, if what you're saying is the right move, why isn't Ainge following what you want?

Why is Ainge willing to spend 30m per year on Hayward instead of Crowder + Olynyk + 15 million in cap space + long-term flexibility + plenty of minutes for Jayson Tatum, Ojeleye, and Jaylen Brown?

Probably because he's not married to the idea of maxing out IT4, which I agree with. IT and Hayward might both be overrated, but Hayward's slightly below average defense is miles better than IT's defense, and Crowder can play the 4 if push comes to shove and rebounding goes out the window.

Crowder can play 4 for other teams.

Only way Crowder remains with the Celts is if the Celts fail to get both Hayward and George.

kdp59 wrote:and I opened this thread thinking it was about Kelly O.


LOL

We do tend to wander a bit.

fierce wrote:

cowens/oldschool wrote:you need great players to go at great players, nobody stops Lebron, but if you have a superstar like prime time Paul Pierce going at him for 30, you can be in a position to win.

Totally agree.

Remember Game 7 Cavs vs. Celtics in the 2008 east semis?

Lebron had 45 points.

If the Celts had Jae Crowder and Crowder only scored 25 points, there would have been no Banner 17 as the Celts would have lost to the Cavs.

Celts won that game because Paul Pierce came up big with 41 points.



That negated Lebron's 45 points.

right then in next series he matched and dominated Kobe a few times

fierce wrote:

112288 wrote:

fierce wrote:

cowens/oldschool wrote:you need great players to go at great players, nobody stops Lebron, but if you have a superstar like prime time Paul Pierce going at him for 30, you can be in a position to win.

Totally agree.

Remember Game 7 Cavs vs. Celtics in the 2008 east semis?

Lebron had 45 points.

If the Celts had Jae Crowder and Crowder only scored 25 points, there would have been no Banner 17 as the Celts would have lost to the Cavs.

Celts won that game because Paul Pierce came up big with 41 points.
That negated Lebron's 45 points.

Pierce had 41 points that night!  LeBron could not guard Pierce.  We are stuck in a period in basketball that does not permit physical basketball and is lacking the physical players.   LeBron would be put on his ass night in and night out if Malone, Shacq and other physical players were still playing the game in their prime.

112288

The mid-1990s had the Knicks of Ewing and Oakley playing physical basketball and teams would only score 90 points per game.
It was boring.
That's why the league changed the rules to lessen physical basketball.

You have to admit, whether you're a Warriors fan or not, their brand of basketball is fun to watch.

as long as you like watching a bunch of little [______]

There are 240 minutes in a regulation game (the Celtics averaged 240.91mpg last year, so there were some OTs, about 15 5-minute OTs, which could include double OTs for 10 extra minutes/game).  Only 5 players can be on the court at any one time.  WHO those players are, therefore, is more important than in any other sport except tennis or some other singles-or-doubles type of sport.

Of the 19,755 total minutes played by the Celtics last year our top utilized 5 (IT, Al, Crowder, AB and Smat) played 11,331.  That's 57.3%.  Add starter Amir Johnson to that and now we're talking 12,939 minutes out of 19,755.  65.4%.  When 6 players are consuming 2 out of every 3 minutes then those 6 better be kick-ass or you're losing a lot of games.

Having a quality bench from 7-10 does not offset having a quality starting 5 or 6 unless 7-10 are getting heavy minutes.

If George or Hayward is an upgrade over Crowder, then he is worth having.  If he gobbles up cap space, so be it, because someone is going to gobble up that cap space, and if you are going to do that you have to do it for your studs, the players that will be playing heavy minutes.

I like Kelly, I've been beating his drum most of this year, but is he worth $15M/year for 4 years?  Not if he is only going to play 1538 minutes.  Looking at it another way, would you pay Avery Bradley $15M/year for 4 years?  He only played 300 minutes more than Kelly last year and he's a starter and one of the top defensive guards in the league.


bob


.

cowens/oldschool wrote:

fierce wrote:

112288 wrote:

fierce wrote:

cowens/oldschool wrote:you need great players to go at great players, nobody stops Lebron, but if you have a superstar like prime time Paul Pierce going at him for 30, you can be in a position to win.

Totally agree.

Remember Game 7 Cavs vs. Celtics in the 2008 east semis?

Lebron had 45 points.

If the Celts had Jae Crowder and Crowder only scored 25 points, there would have been no Banner 17 as the Celts would have lost to the Cavs.

Celts won that game because Paul Pierce came up big with 41 points.
That negated Lebron's 45 points.

Pierce had 41 points that night!  LeBron could not guard Pierce.  We are stuck in a period in basketball that does not permit physical basketball and is lacking the physical players.   LeBron would be put on his ass night in and night out if Malone, Shacq and other physical players were still playing the game in their prime.

112288

The mid-1990s had the Knicks of Ewing and Oakley playing physical basketball and teams would only score 90 points per game.
It was boring.
That's why the league changed the rules to lessen physical basketball.

You have to admit, whether you're a Warriors fan or not, their brand of basketball is fun to watch.

as long as you like watching a bunch of little [_____]

Cowens,

We have talked to you before about the use of such language.  It will NOT be tolerated.  Period.  Now stop it.

You didn't even spell it correctly.  Way to look good, guy...


bob


.

Love you Cow, but let's avoid using epithets and invectives even in jest that are insulting to people who have been discriminated against severely and sometimes fatally because of their sexual orientation.

In prep school in the 60's the guys were merciless against gays, and I regret not having the awareness then to speak out against it.

Which brings me to a funny story.

We had a grounds crew made up of local town people who were mostly Polish. The guys at are school had never worked a day in their lives and were mostly rich spoiled brats like me. They would yell the worst kinds of swears out the 2nd and 3rd floor windows at the grounds crew when they were out there working, and one day our Headmaster addressed the entire school on the matter. He said, "There will be no more epithets and invectives hurled at the ground crew!"

Thereafter the rowdy preppies would no longer yell swear words out the window. Instead they would scream out "Epithet" and "Invective" at the grounds crew workers down below, men who had no idea what the hell was being said to them.

worcester wrote:Love you Cow, but let's avoid using epithets and invectives even in jest that are insulting to people who have been discriminated against severely and sometimes fatally because of their sexual orientation.

In prep school in the 60's the guys were merciless against gays, and I regret not having the awareness then to speak out against it.

Which brings me to a funny story.

We had a grounds crew made up of local town people who were mostly Polish. The guys at are school had never worked a day in their lives and were mostly rich spoiled brats like me. They would yell the worst kinds of swears out the 2nd and 3rd floor windows at the grounds crew when they were out there working, and one day our Headmaster addressed the entire school on the matter. He said, "There will be no more epithets and invectives hurled at the ground crew!"

Thereafter the rowdy preppies would no longer yell swear words out the window. Instead they would scream out "Epithet" and "Invective" at the grounds crew workers down below, men who had no idea what the hell was being said to them.

I will stop using that term if it bothers you worse, that term doesn't mean anything to me, we used it in childhood when we didn't even know what it meant....I should have used the word sissy

cowens/oldschool wrote:

worcester wrote:Love you Cow, but let's avoid using epithets and invectives even in jest that are insulting to people who have been discriminated against severely and sometimes fatally because of their sexual orientation.

In prep school in the 60's the guys were merciless against gays, and I regret not having the awareness then to speak out against it.

Which brings me to a funny story.

We had a grounds crew made up of local town people who were mostly Polish. The guys at are school had never worked a day in their lives and were mostly rich spoiled brats like me. They would yell the worst kinds of swears out the 2nd and 3rd floor windows at the grounds crew when they were out there working, and one day our Headmaster addressed the entire school on the matter. He said, "There will be no more epithets and invectives hurled at the ground crew!"

Thereafter the rowdy preppies would no longer yell swear words out the window. Instead they would scream out "Epithet" and "Invective" at the grounds crew workers down below, men who had no idea what the hell was being said to them.

I will stop using that term if it bothers you worse, that term doesn't mean anything to me, we used it in childhood when we didn't even know what it meant....I should have used the word sissy

Cow don't they basically mean the same thing but one is less offensive?

How about soft.  Now let' use it in a sentence.  Kelly Olynyk is a soft player.  Steph Curry wears flipflops and he is a soft player.  See nothing offensive but you still get the point.

dboss

Whether the Warriors small ball lineup is short or even soft in anyone's eyes, they sure as hell can play basketball plenty well enough that they are basically pushing the traditional big man completely out of the game.

Times changes sports and society, and none of us can deny this fact even if some folks do not like it.

Please add me to the list of people who object to calling people [_____] or such other words on our forum.

Now on to some thoughts of extending a qualifying offer to Olynyk.

Ainge still likes Olynyk and I think that he matches any and every contract Olynyk gets that is less than $7-8 Million. He would certainly really like it if Olynyk gets no offers above the $4.7 that is his qualifying offer so that he can save additional money under the $99M salary cap.

At $7-8 M (and, perhaps less if Ainge gets lucky) Ainge can afford to carry Olynyk's inconsistency while always hoping, planning and praying that his inconsistent performances end sooner rather than later. At $13-15 M, Olynyk's inconsistency is just too much of a gamble as a guy who makes that kind of money just cannot have twenty games a year where he only scores 5 PPG, gets 2 RPG due to only earns 6-8 minutes per game.

I have been wondering what other teams will be willing to make such a commitment ($13-15 M for 4 years-as mentioned many places) because they all have to know of Olynyk's history of a lack of consistency. I have not heard Olynyk being tied to any other team. Anyone hear anything that I have missed?

dboss wrote:

cowens/oldschool wrote:

worcester wrote:Love you Cow, but let's avoid using epithets and invectives even in jest that are insulting to people who have been discriminated against severely and sometimes fatally because of their sexual orientation.

In prep school in the 60's the guys were merciless against gays, and I regret not having the awareness then to speak out against it.

Which brings me to a funny story.

We had a grounds crew made up of local town people who were mostly Polish. The guys at are school had never worked a day in their lives and were mostly rich spoiled brats like me. They would yell the worst kinds of swears out the 2nd and 3rd floor windows at the grounds crew when they were out there working, and one day our Headmaster addressed the entire school on the matter. He said, "There will be no more epithets and invectives hurled at the ground crew!"

Thereafter the rowdy preppies would no longer yell swear words out the window. Instead they would scream out "Epithet" and "Invective" at the grounds crew workers down below, men who had no idea what the hell was being said to them.

I will stop using that term if it bothers you worse, that term doesn't mean anything to me, we used it in childhood when we didn't even know what it meant....I should have used the word sissy

Cow don't they basically mean the same thing but one is less offensive?

How about soft.  Now let' use it in a sentence.  Kelly Olynyk is a soft player.  Steph Curry wears flipflops and he is a soft player.  See nothing offensive but you still get the point.

dboss

Steph Curry's flipflops are soft.

wideclyde wrote:Now on to some thoughts of extending a qualifying offer to Olynyk.

Ainge still likes Olynyk and I think that he matches any and every contract Olynyk gets that is less than $7-8 Million.  He would certainly really like it if Olynyk gets no offers above the $4.7 that is his qualifying offer so that he can save additional money under the $99M salary cap.

At $7-8 M (and, perhaps less if Ainge gets lucky) Ainge can afford to carry Olynyk's inconsistency while always hoping, planning and praying that his inconsistent performances end sooner rather than later.   At $13-15 M, Olynyk's inconsistency is just too much of a gamble as a guy who makes that kind of money just cannot have twenty games a year where he only scores 5 PPG, gets 2 RPG due to only earns 6-8 minutes per game.

I have been wondering what other teams will be willing to make such a commitment ($13-15 M for 4 years-as mentioned many places) because they all have to know of Olynyk's history of a lack of consistency.  I have not heard Olynyk being tied to any other team.  Anyone hear anything that I have missed?

I heard the Mets are considering an offer.

steve3344 wrote:

dboss wrote:

cowens/oldschool wrote:

worcester wrote:Love you Cow, but let's avoid using epithets and invectives even in jest that are insulting to people who have been discriminated against severely and sometimes fatally because of their sexual orientation.

In prep school in the 60's the guys were merciless against gays, and I regret not having the awareness then to speak out against it.

Which brings me to a funny story.

We had a grounds crew made up of local town people who were mostly Polish. The guys at are school had never worked a day in their lives and were mostly rich spoiled brats like me. They would yell the worst kinds of swears out the 2nd and 3rd floor windows at the grounds crew when they were out there working, and one day our Headmaster addressed the entire school on the matter. He said, "There will be no more epithets and invectives hurled at the ground crew!"

Thereafter the rowdy preppies would no longer yell swear words out the window. Instead they would scream out "Epithet" and "Invective" at the grounds crew workers down below, men who had no idea what the hell was being said to them.

I will stop using that term if it bothers you worse, that term doesn't mean anything to me, we used it in childhood when we didn't even know what it meant....I should have used the word sissy

Cow don't they basically mean the same thing but one is less offensive?

How about soft.  Now let' use it in a sentence.  Kelly Olynyk is a soft player.  Steph Curry wears flipflops and he is a soft player.  See nothing offensive but you still get the point.

dboss

Steph Curry's flipflops are soft.

yes I am sure they are.

dboss