Problems with trading Terry Rozier....

I was very happy when we picked Terry at #16, and I frequently suggested trading him next year for value to avoid future cap problems. Now I realize I was being stupid.

Plan A - keep Terry throughout next season and win #19. Period. That's how we follow up to winning #18 this year.

Figure out the rest after that. Who knows what may happen thereafter 2018-19? What if Kyrie ventures too close to the edge of the Earth and falls off? What if we have another key injury? We have talent, experience, and a winning mentality with Terry. Let's keep him as long as we can, and let Danny sort out the future.

Plan B - There should be no Plan B.

worcester wrote:I was very happy when we picked Terry at #16, and I frequently suggested trading him next year for value to avoid future cap problems. Now I realize I was being stupid.

Plan A - keep Terry throughout next season and win #19. Period. That's how we follow up to winning #18 this year.

Figure out the rest after that. Who knows what may happen thereafter 2018-19? What if Kyrie ventures too close to the edge of the Earth and falls off? What if we have another key injury?  We have talent, experience, and a winning mentality with Terry. Let's keep him as long as we can, and let Danny sort out the future.

Plan B - There should be no Plan B.

+1 the voice of reason

No, no, a thousand times no.This topic actually gives me a stomach ache. Some if you all would have traded  Havlicek because his skill set duplicated Sharman or Ramsey. Hondo probably wanted to start too, but he bided his time. Has Rozier ever suggested he was unhappy? I`m looking forward to seeing a lot of him as the primary ballhandler with Kyrie off the ball. Anticipating that a guy who has never been a problem and has improved exponentially every season will be a locker room cancer because, damn him, he think`s he is good enough to start is the height of chicken little-ism . There is no reason to trade TR  at this juncture. He plays with nonstop energy at warp speed. Despite his lack of size, he is an excellent defender and rebounder. Trading a young , accomplished , fierce player for a draft pick not named James  or Durant is the height of folly, in my opinion. This isn`t a video game . The team that stays together wins together.

I'd feel better about trading him if Kyrie signed an extension. Right now, he's insurance in case he doesn't. On the other hand, Terry is at peak value, playing like a star in the playoffs, multiple years of team control. There is a strong draft to target talent cheaply, Ayton, Doncic, Porter, Young, Bamba.

jrleftfoot wrote:No, no, a thousand times no.This topic actually gives me a stomach ache. Some if you all would have traded  Havlicek because his skill set duplicated Sharman or Ramsey. Hondo probably wanted to start too, but he bided his time. Has Rozier ever suggested he was unhappy? I`m looking forward to seeing a lot of him as the primary ballhandler with Kyrie off the ball. Anticipating that a guy who has never been a problem and has improved exponential every season will be a locker room cancer because, damn him, he think`s he is good enough to start is the height of chicken little-ism . There is no reason to trade TR  at this juncture. He plays with nonstop energy at warp speed. Despite his lack of size, he is an excellent defender and rebounder. Trading a young , accomplished , fierce player for a draft pick not named James  or Durant is the height of folly, in my opinion. This isn`t a video game . The team that stays together wins together.

+1

Too many fans spend their time looking towards the horizon and fail to recognize what is right in front of them. What the Celtics are building is an incredible group of players that may eventually include 10-12 players that, on any other team, would be considered in their top 7 rotation. Imagine having a 10-12 player rotation in the playoffs that can sub in and out of the game without any perceptible drop off in skill set. The guy on TNT said last night that he's never seen anything like the Celtics. The Celtics have redefined the term, "next man up".

gyso

Each game watching TR makes it more difficut to justify a trade involving him.

Stephen A now suggests that Boston should trade Irving to SA for Leonard straight up.

We can come up with reasons to trade anyone.  In the end I really would prefer that Boston does not trade Terry.  I see no need for Leonard and I do not see the need for Anthony Davis or any other high end talent.

I suspect that the collection of developing talent along with options to add through the draft will take this team to the top of the mountain.

I think GYSO sums it up.  With that in mind I am changing my vote to no and hell no.  I would not trade TR or Jaylen or Tatum or Smart or Irving, Hayward,  Horford, etc.  There will always be players out there that have great talent but I love the way our team fits together.

dboss wrote:Each game watching TR makes it more difficut to justify a trade involving him.

Stephen A now suggests that Boston should trade Irving to SA for Leonard straight up.

We can come up with reasons to trade anyone.  In the end I really would prefer that Boston does not trade Terry.  I see no need for Leonard and I do not see the need for Anthony Davis or any other high end talent.

I suspect that the collection of developing talent along with options to add through the draft will take this team to the top of the mountain.

I think GYSO sums it up.  With that in mind I am changing my vote to no and hell no.  I would not trade TR or Jaylen or Tatum or Smart or Irving, Hayward,  Horford, etc.  There will always be players out there that have great talent but I love the way our team fits together.

+1

Apropos of nothing , have any of  you folks read the article about Don Nelson, his ( legal) pot plot in Hawaii, and his high stakes poker games with Willie Nelson, Woody Harrelson , and Owen Wilson? It`s hysterical. I would attach a link , but I`m a techno Neanderthal . I highly recommend looking it up.

dboss wrote:Each game watching TR makes it more difficut to justify a trade involving him.

Stephen A now suggests that Boston should trade Irving to SA for Leonard straight up.

We can come up with reasons to trade anyone.  In the end I really would prefer that Boston does not trade Terry.  I see no need for Leonard and I do not see the need for Anthony Davis or any other high end talent.

I suspect that the collection of developing talent along with options to add through the draft will take this team to the top of the mountain.

I think GYSO sums it up.  With that in mind I am changing my vote to no and hell no.  I would not trade TR or Jaylen or Tatum or Smart or Irving, Hayward,  Horford, etc.  There will always be players out there that have great talent but I love the way our team fits together.

+2

Not available. We're too close.


KJ

I think i have finally seen the light (old dogs and new tricks problem here).

after watching a weekend of NBA playoffs and seeing the reality of today's game from the level of the elite teams, i now get it.

only two teams still playing have traditional centers getting rotational minutes, Utah and Toronto. Even Embiid has the ability to switch on defense and cover outside the paint and even shoot form range



Looks like my desire to acquire a young big man is simply a blast from the past and not part of today's game.

so let the owners pony up the cash and keep this team together now. I certainly do not want Tatum, Brown or Smart traded or let go at all.

No need to move anyone and just resign Smart and Baynes this off-season. replace Monroe with a non-dinosaur type big man at the MLE (Noel?) and hope we can stay healthy next year.

Let Roziers RFA play out the following year along with Irvings UFA (opting out of his final year). With the Kings pick in hand that year Danny will have some plays he can make, if needed.

kdp59

Like you I still have this old school vision of what a great basketball team needs to compete.

The value associated with a young wing like Tatum or a PG/combo guard like Rozier has grown in significance.

the light suddenly clicked on for me ( slow on the uptake, am I) after seeing

GS with Durant basically as their center
NO with Davis
Hou with Capela
Clev with LOVE!!
Us with Horford

Philly with Embiid ( who like I said is very mobile on defense and can shoot from range)

then
Utah with Gobert
Tor with Valencius (or however you spell it)

my eyes were finally opened

now watch the league change the rules of inside play and the big men come roaring back in vogue.

Should 10 -12 players on the present Celtic roster turn out to be to be rated as top 7 caliber players, as some fans feel is possible - then consider the potential difficulty that will arise at contract time when the expectation of a contract that is befitting this lofty ranking, is now expected by these players. And it's not just the money as playing time is highly valued by most players. Certainly free agency will be calling because there just isn't enough money to go around to keep a bunch of under paid and under played players happy. Back during the early Russell years Red could pull it off - but he didn't have to compete with FREE AGENCY.

swish

kdp and dboss,

I don't think the concept of a traditional center is really old-school or lost at all. Maybe just call him a rebounder and goal defender.

Right now the league is ripe for a monster in the middle or two, in my opinion. Take a lineup like Boston's, and add a genuine rebounding and inside scoring presence. Someone who can rack up the blocks. There are already perimeter shooters, and guys who can slash their way to the rim on the roster. So many teams have gotten away from a strong center, a team that has one would present matchup problems for any opposing squad.

Another theory that I think has merit is that it's becoming a big-man's league. The death of small ball is because there are so many bigger, more mobile wings and guards. It's not that the center is a dinosaur, it's that as training has evolved bigger men are occupying most spots on the court. The thinking on this one is that it's the smaller guard who's going extinct. For those of us that can't get to sleep, this is the idea that Billups, Rose and others have been floating on some of the post-game late-night chatter.

Either way, I think the situation screams go get yourself a big. Lots of them in this years draft are going early in the draft. They aren't all going to be sitting on the bench. Go big, get boards, have an inside game to compliment the perimeter, win titles.

Regards

NYCelt

I think the big difference is not that a rebouding shot blocking center is not important.  I think the big difference is that teams would prefer centers that can play on the perimeter.  That is a trend but not a new concept.  Think Dave Cowens.  Over 40 years ago Cowens drained jumpers from the top of the key.

I think however that the skill level of guards and wings has changed offenses.  In particular the 3 point shot option has changed focus on the way teams play.  There was a time when a big center was inherently more valuable than a guard or a small forward.  

Once Boston finishes Philly off there will be no high profile low post centers left.  The zone defenses takes away the paint and the 3 point shot opens it back up.

NYCelt wrote:kdp and dboss,

I don't think the concept of a traditional center is really old-school or lost at all. Maybe just call him a rebounder and goal defender.

Right now the league is ripe for a monster in the middle or two, in my opinion. Take a lineup like Boston's, and add a genuine rebounding and inside scoring presence. Someone who can rack up the blocks. There are already perimeter shooters, and guys who can slash their way to the rim on the roster. So many teams have gotten away from a strong center, a team that has one would present matchup problems for any opposing squad.

Another theory that I think has merit is that it's becoming a big-man's league. The death of small ball is because there are so many bigger, more mobile wings and guards. It's not that the center is a dinosaur, it's that as training has evolved bigger men are occupying most spots on the court. The thinking on this one is that it's the smaller guard who's going extinct. For those of us that can't get to sleep, this is the idea that Billups, Rose and others have been floating on some of the post-game late-night chatter.

Either way, I think the situation screams go get yourself a big. Lots of them in this years draft are going early in the draft. They aren't all going to be sitting on the bench. Go big, get boards, have an inside game to compliment the perimeter, win titles.

Regards

Right on target NYCelt - the evolution in the game is all about the number of BIGS that have also added the skills of the face the basket non post players. Those that still play the old style center position still make huge contributions - especially on the defensive side of the ball.

swish

dboss wrote:NYCelt

I think the big difference is not that a rebouding shot blocking center is not important.  I think the big difference is that teams would prefer centers that can play on the perimeter.  That is a trend but not a new concept.  Think Dave Cowens.  Over 40 years ago Cowens drained jumpers from the top of the key.

I think however that the skill level of guards and wings has changed offenses.  In particular the 3 point shot option has changed focus on the way teams play.  There was a time when a big center was inherently more valuable than a guard or a small forward.  

Once Boston finishes Philly off there will be no high profile low post centers left.  The zone defenses takes away the paint and the 3 point shot opens it back up.

Dave Cowens did a lot more than shoot jumpers, he made Marcus Smart type plays en vouge in that era. Find me an athletic 6’9” big that can crash the boards, defend the post and all over, run the floor, post, shoot, run the high post offense...that guy is hard to find and can play in any era.