another blog about a new center.

http://www.celticsblog.com/2014/11/11/7192413/would-you-trade-the-celtics-2015-1st-round-pick-for-roy-hibbert


aving lost Paul George to a season-ending injury before the season even began, the Indiana Pacers look to be among the worst teams in the Eastern Conference this season. They are probably, in fact, even worse than our own Boston Celtics.

Indiana's starting center, Roy Hibbert, much-maligned for his struggles last season, is still nevertheless one of the very best rim protectors in the league. He is, however, a rather pricey luxury for a team that might not crack 30 wins this year, and he may even opt out of his contract this upcoming summer in order to secure a long term deal.

With that in mind, it's not unreasonable to think that Hibbert may be available, for the right price. If asked, Larry Bird might set his sights on Rajon Rondo as the only acceptable return for Hibbert. The 7'2'' center is, after all, an All-Star and DPOY caliber talent at a position that is very light on high caliber players. Still, if the Celtics offered their first round pick for this year -- at worst a mid-teens selection if the team adds Hibbert mid-stream, and possibly much higher -- along with the expiring contracts of Brandon Bass and Marcus Thornton, it is plausible that Bird would assent.



So, let's assume the Pacers would play along, going into full-on tank mode while adding a pick that could help accelerate the rebuild around a recovering Paul George. Why would the Celtics make a win-now move when their roster is still so young?

In a word: Rondo.



If the Celtics are to keep Rondo, they need to act sooner rather than later to show that they can and will upgrade the roster around him to make Boston a playoff team -- a serious one, not just first round roadkill -- for the remainder of Rondo's prime. Waiting on yet another lottery pick, particularly the kind of raw big man littered throughout this year's draft class, is not an option.

Roy Hibbert on his own is certainly not enough, mind you. But he fills the most glaring need that the Celtics have right now as a pure center who protects the rim as well as anybody else in the league. Yes, he has appeared mentally soft at times, and isn't the greatest rebounder despite his huge size. Really, he is perhaps best described as a 7'2'' version of Kendrick Perkins with much softer hands. In a good situation, he can average close to a double-double with 2-3 blocks a game and provide elite rim protection, with the potential to score a lot or hardly at all depending on the matchup.

Hibbert would just be the start, though. Adding Hibbert this season would give the Celtics a real chance at sniffing the playoffs. Then, next summer, the Celtics can use their cap space to sign Rondo and one other big name free agent, ideally filling their other major need: a go-to offensive option.

Rudy Gay is a name that makes a lot of sense. There have been rumors that Ainge attempted to trade for Gay in the past, and Rondo and Gay are good friends who have talked about playing together. Like Hibbert, Gay is a flawed player who has taken his fair share of criticism for his shortcomings. He's also likely to be open to switching teams next summer because Sacramento is a city located in the midst of a drought-stricken cow pasture and the team hasn't made the playoffs in a decade.

Despite his flaws, Gay is even more physically gifted than Jeff Green, and has proven more capable of consistently carrying a large offensive load while also grabbing a really nice number of rebounds for a wing. Gay especially makes sense if Jeff Green opts out of his contract next summer and tests the free agent market, which seems rather likely if he stays on track to set a career high in points per game.



Could a core of Rondo, Bradley, Gay, Sullinger, Hibbert, Olynyk, and Smart compete for the division title and challenge the best teams in the Eastern Conference in successive playoff series? It's plausible.

That team would never be a favorite for a title, it's true. No matter. You can dream all you want about the Celtics luring Marc Gasol or LaMarcus Aldridge from their current teams next summer, but if you fall in the camp of people who think the Celtics' top priority should be to retain Rajon Rondo, a dark horse contender like that is probably your best case scenario.

we can different opinions about Hibbert being the answer at center for sure. IMO, he may never live up to his contract (current and future ones).

however, this is where the writer really loses me:

Then, next summer, the Celtics can use their cap space to sign Rondo and one other big name free agent, ideally filling their other major need: a go-to offensive option.


OK...I'll bite...HOW?

12 players under contract next year at $46.9M

take Greens option out an we are at $37.5M

two first round picks at about $3M

I'll play and say that Hibbert takes his player option next year at $15.5M

we're at $56M in salary's...the cap will likely be around $66-68M at best next season.

and we STILL haven't touched on Rondo's new deal , can anyone say $18M or more?

so WHERE is a money to sign ANYONE else, besides using the Mid-level exception?

we can't sign another UFA for big dollars IF Rondo stays, his "projected" salary will be on our CAP books until he signs here or elsewhere.


so the answer is there isn't space to sign yet another FA for more than about $5M or so.

which take us back to trading for Hibbert. is adding Hibbert alone enough to push us into contention. Apparently even the writer of this piece thinks not, and if that's the case then I would pass on him.

I have always liked Hibbert, and he is still young enough to improve. His contract is large, but he is a large presence when playing well. He certainly fits the Celtics biggest need as he is a true rim protecting center who is more than capable of scoring in double digits as well.

His unusual meltdown in the second half of last year would be a huge concern for me if I was bringing him to the Celtics. There just seemed to be no reason why he just fell off the table as a viable NBA, big time player last season for about half the season. He did make somewhat of a return to form in the playoffs, but the last months of last season are very worrisome.

If he is brought in to play along side Rondo now and also for next year, the roster and its payroll would adjust just like every team does when you start to put several high pay players together. Some of the mid range salaries the Celtics have right now would have to be moved and replaced by lesser salaried players to stay under the salary cap.

Hibbert is more suited for a traditional offense, not Stevens' motion offense. Besides, having two enigmatic players like Hibbert and Rondo on the same team might result in a black hole that swallows the planet.

I could see a trade with indy

My thinking is that they would want Sully (david west is getting older) and Young given the questions regarding Paul George, plus 2 first round picks and they may need to include bass as well.  However if they would be willing to take wallace instead then I would make the deal

it will take a ton of assets to pry hibbert away from Indy.  

I think hibbert would be a good fit.  Remember he played at GTown with Jeff green in the Princeton offense.  I doubt he would have any problems playing in brad's so-called motion office.

The way I see it is that if DA is going to pull the trigger on a big deal this season  he has to move Wallace and his $10 million contract.

dboss

I agree with outside inre Hibbert and the motion offense.  He's not particularly mobile.   On the other hand, Brad's forte is to take whatever he's given and making the best fruit salad he can with them.  Today he really doesn't have that big low post intimidator but what if he did?  I have a few qualifications about Brad, most stemming from his NBA inexperience, but I absolutely believe that if Danny got him Hibbert Brad would make the changes that would maximize Hibbert's strengths and if that meant less motion offense then that's what we'do see.


hopeful in Hue



.

Hibbert showed himself to be soft, both mentally and physically in the playoffs the last season.
9 points and 5 rebounds less than 2 blocks per game from a 7'-2" center who makes 15 million a year?

No thanks.

While I'd welcome a truly intimidating veteran center, I can also see the value of getting a young guy who hasn't formed a lot of habits that will have to be retooled to fit into Brad's system.

I'd rather it he be an existing pro because I don't believe it's sensible to rely on the draft to product a really good center for the Celtics:

• The fact that the draft's a crapshoot under the best of conditions isn't a trite comment; it's very true.

• The Celtics may not get a top five pick for years. 

• Good centers are in short supply in the draft, compared with other positions.

Sam

Whoever drafts Jahlil Okafor or Myles Turner in 2015 will have their starting center for the next decade or more.  

Both are 18 year-old college freshmen, play their very first college game this weekend, and, barring injury, I'm confident you can take my opening statement to the bank.

My mantra from here on is trade anyone and everyone not named Rondo or Smart to get one of those two, and throw in all our draft picks as well.  Maybe an overstatement, but not by much.  In reality, they'll probably go 1 and 2, making that difficult.  I think if Smart continues to look like he has, some sort of a deal involving Rondo, if it got us at least the second pick, would be the best thing we could do since getting KG and Ray Allen.  There are, of course, complicating factors trying to deal Rondo too.

I think the draft may well be the answer.  I'm always reminded a draft-day trade once got us some 6' 9" guy named Russell.

The following list of college centers and the commentary is clipped from The Big Lead, and all figure to be in the 2015 NBA draft.  It's from their estimate of the top 50 college players for '14-'15, and these are the top 6 centers in the order they list them.  They have Okafor as number 1 overall among all positions and I whole-heartedly agree.  I think Okafor and Turner will be the 1 and 2 picks in the next draft, but all listed would start for the Celtics from day 1.

In my opinion, our next center needs to come from this list...

1. Jahlil Okafor, C, Duke. First back-to-the-basket big man the Blue Devils have had since Carlos Boozer. Should be instant impact 15-10 guy from November.

2. Cliff Alexander, C, Kansas. Stud from Chicago is 6-foot-8, 250 pounds, and will quickly make everyone forget about Joel Embiid’s great freshman season.

3. Frank Kaminsky, C, Wisconsin. When he dropped 40 in a December game, I thought it was an outlier. Then, he continued to dominate all season, and was unstoppable at times in March (until Kentucky held him to eight points on seven shots). Averaged 4.2 ppg as a sophomore. Hung 28 on Arizona in the Elite 8.

4. Myles Turner, C, Texas. Seven-footer was one of the top-rated high school basketball players by the scout services. He’s expected to have an immediate impact, be one-and-done and get selected in the lottery.

5. Willie Cauley-Stein, C, Kentucky. It’s going to be a real battle for minutes among all the bigs Calipari has, but WCS is the most athletic 7-footer in the country. Tied for 6th in the nation last year in blocks (106).

6. Bobby Portis, C, Arkansas. Quietly one of the best big men in the SEC last year (12.3 ppg, 6.8 rpg) but the Razorbacks missed the tournament.

My own preference, in order, would be; Okafor, Turner, Cauley-Stein, Kaminsky, Portis and Alexander.

I would also get creative and, assuming we can't get to the top 2, trade part of the house except Rondo and Smart, and just about whatever picks it takes to get any two of these, cut our risk way down, and possibly set up a "Twin Towers" situation to go with a Rondo/Smart backcourt.  

Danny calling for me yet?  Yeah, OK...  Maybe email...

Beat

A draft Day trade also landed Kevin Mchale and Robert Parish.

The Okafor kid could be the next great center in the NBA but not all of the pundits agree with that

"Strengths: Big, powerful body with huge hands, palms the ball easily which allows him to control rebounds in traffic ... Polished, skilled back to the basket scorer with a variety of moves ... Smooth for his size, solid rebounder, very good IQ, plays to his strengths, knows his limitations and doesn't try to do things that he can't do ... NBA body and strength, quick feet for a player with such a big frame ... Has great moves and counters, the footwork of an NBA vet, soft touch around basket ... Heady passer out of double teams ... Understands how to establish position and knows how to use his body, never rushes his move and plays with great pace and patience ... savvy beyond his years for a young post player, rebounds his area ...

Weaknesses: Not a great athlete, rebounder, or shot blocker ... Lack of athleticism and ability to be a game changer on the defensive end limits his upside ... Has trouble moving his feet in pick and roll situations ... Not a great shooter and doesn't offer much in terms of pick and pop situations ... Doesn't rebound out of his area ... Doesn't impact the game defensively ... Has problems finishing over length due to the fact that he's not an explosive athlete ... Conditioning has been an issue, though he has shown solid dedication to improving his body ... Lack of athleticism will hurt him at the NBA level ... Close to being a finished product, lacks great upside, will be dominant in college ...

Overall: Has been described by some pundits as having amongst the best set of post skills ever seen on the high school level ... Dominant high school player who will be a dominant college player likely for a year ... Polished low post scorer, but doesn't project as a dominant scorer or rebounder at the pro level ..."

It sounds to me that he may not fit our needs as a rim protector and rebounder.  

Our most likely course may be the FA route.  And Perhaps we add a center (who may not be a long term solution) but can provide more quality depth at the 5 provinding us with more time to draft and develop one for the long term future.

We are going to get a center but DA has not found the right deal yet.  He probably should have drafted Dieng but that is water over the bridge.  But I think we should be patient and not push all of our chips to the middle of the table.

We have 2 first rounders in the 2015 draft (ours and the Clippers) so we are probably looking at mid teens and later at best.  Much can happen between now and then.

dboss

Willie Cauley-Stein might be there when we pick and he has the defensive skill set we need as well.

another guy I like that's not on your list is AJ Hammons from Purdue. Hes a junior but has a big NBA type body, though not elite skills. I see him as more a long time NBA BU than starter, but might be a nice pick with a late first rounder. or higher if he steps up this season.

Another guy is Kaleb Tarczewski of Arizona. He's under the radar compared to some of the other guys NYCelt listed, but when I've seen him play, he looks like a future NBA center to me.

Here's his DraftExpress profile.

http://www.draftexpress.com/profile/Kaleb-Tarczewski-6290/

dboss,

Probably a case of many opinions on Okafor.  One of his strengths is defense.  Surprising to read anyone would call him less than a great athlete, since Duke went after both him and Turner partly based on their athleticism, losing Turner to Texas.

I put limited stock in these reviews and believe what I see more.  Check some clips of him from this year's McDonald's All America game, or watch the Duke game tonight.  I think you'll see what I mean.

I'm getting more suspect of us trying to find a center by trade or free agency all the time.  I don't see free agents being attracted to Boston at this time and we don't have a great deal to trade other than Rondo.  That's one reason I'm beginning to think if Smart pans out Rondo is our ticket to a center, but via a higher draft pick than we now have.  With 6 (or it sounds like maybe more) possible NBA quality centers looking set for the 2015 draft, we may be able to create a nice opportunity for ourselves.  I wouldn't mind seeing us do it via draft, because we're not going anywhere the next few years anyway, so the time to fully develop a center is certainly there.

My $.02 anyway.

Regards

I, myself, would pass on Hibbert. There just seems to be a flawed ballplayer inside him. I do not question his ability, but, the way he folded last year just makes me very leary of him. He is just not what a young ball club like the Celtics need. I know, I know, 7 footers of quality are hard to come by, but he just does not excite me at all.

That is my two cents!

Rosalie

The two positions with the longest learning curves are point guard, because they run the team's offense, and centers because they usually need more time to grow into their bodies.  If we want to be relevant within 5 years I'm not sure drafting our starting center will be an effective path to it.



bob



.

Bob,

I think we're several seasons away from being in any kind of serious contention.  I can't even see us being a playoff team again for some time to come. We'll have some money from expiring contracts but don't have much to trade, except draft picks, and literally nothing to attract a quality free agent unless Rondo is re-signed.

My reasoning on drafting a center is that we should build for the long haul this time.  The '08 title was nice, but that team was over-populated with guys on their last mile. I'd be willing to wait longer to contend if it meant having a team with staying power.  I would expect a realistic time frame to build this up from where we are, with what we have, could easily be 5 years or more.

I would also expect you're posting at some odd hours where you are.  I hope the trip is going well.

Regards

NYCelt,

As much as I hate to admit it, I'm afraid building with the idea of staying power is fading fast.  In other words, I believe the Spurs are an anomaly and the Heat may be more the model of the future.  You can bet your bottom dollar (whatever that means) that, as soon as the Celtics or any other team in the future become a contender, all the agents of players and all the agents of greed will be very likely to rear their ugly heads and screw it all up.

It SOUNDS good, and it SOUNDS logical to plan for the future.  But it seems to me that, the way the NBA is headed, the future is the day after tomorrow.

Sam

To steal the line from another sport, "the future is NOW!" in the NBA.

Looking for draft picks (especially 19 year old centers) to turn your team around in one or even two years is highly unlikely.

There s just too much money floating around every summer (and probably even more next summer?) to be able to wait for any particular draft pick to take your team beyond the many teams who can just change their roster with a stroke or two of a pen. Take a look at Cleveland this year (last summer) when they all of a sudden added two thirds of their new 'big three'. The Celtics did the same thing in the summer that they traded for both Allen and Garnett as did the Heat when they got James and Bosh.

Ainge has plenty of draft picks, but I will predict that turning the Celtics around will come more from trading most of those draft picks than actually waiting for them to all jell together. Check out the Sixers success in waiting for all of those first round picks to change their plight.

I agree, Clyde.  I'm not a fan of depending on the crap shoot that is the lottery year after year.  One reason that's self-defeating is the biggest Catch-22 around.  If you depend on the lottery to improve, then even the first bit of serious improvement can make you just good enough to move you out of the lottery so you can no longer depend on the lottery to improve.  The Spurs lucked out and struck it rich with Duncan.  Good for them.  I believe that any team depending on benefiting from the exception rather than the rule is foolish, to put it mildly.

I have only a small preference for using free agency over the lottery to improve.  I believe that, for every free agent who makes a team better for a considerable period of time, there are multiple free agents who are either retreads nearing the end of the line or overpaid based on past performances they're unlikely to duplicate or injuries waiting to happen or ready to jump ship the next time a bigger payday shows itself.  And free agents can often cause more trouble than they're worth through the chaos they cause in a team's cap room.

Stockpiling draft picks makes a certain amount of sense, but their value is another crap shoot in terms of where those picks will actually be.  There's something wrong with reasoning that trading a good player for a package including draft picks won't help the other team to improve so that the draft picks are low ones.  I always get a kick out of trade ideas that say, "Throw in a draft pick or two," as though drafts picks are some kind of guaranteed gold nuggets.

My feeling is that the draft should be used to get good players (Smart?  Young?) who, if they're not necessarily franchise chasers, become good rotation players who can really help a team or can be packaged with others (and maybe a draft pick or two—now I'm laughing at myself) in trade for good, solid players in their prime or approaching their prime.  At least most trades don't increase a team's salary bite because of the equivalent value rule.

I understand a popular refrain might be something like, "The good general manager utilizes all three of these mechanisms, consistent with the assets, needs, and best interests of his team."  Sure sounds good.

Sam

Clyde and Sam,

I get both of your future is now analogies, and what's more, I think you could be right.

I just don't think there is any way we can pull that feat off again.  My view is that since a quick turnaround isn't likely, we may as well do it by building for the long haul.  The closest current comparisons I see may be Chicago or OKC.  Both have been building for some time, neither is quite there, both may be in shooting distance within a year or two if all goes well.

To me our best trading chips just aren't enough to bring us everything we need, and that's more than just a center.

We can trade Rondo, although there are several variables that might prevent us getting the value we think we should.  Let's suppose we do and somewhere that brings us an acceptable center.  Let's further suppose that Smart is ready to take over the point.  That gives us two players of the strength and quality a contender needs.  Let's suppose Green is also up to the task.  That's three.  That's also a lot of "suppose-ing."

In Sully and Bradley, we have two players that would be decent depth on a contender.  Kelly could be a possible third.

I'm still seeing a lot of holes.

What do we have to trade?  A boat load of draft picks?  OK, that's actually a good start.  Some of those will also end up in a decent range, selecting fairly high.  How about players to trade; who might bring us the type of center we need, one who's already in the league?  Rondo.  We would have to trade Rondo, and then we theoretically have a strong center, and a probable future star at the point, but little else.  Package deal?  Sully has good value, Bradley might have some too, many teams might already be interested in Smart.  Throw in a couple of those picks too.  So we trade depth and future promise to someone for a starting calibre center?  Can't see that one either.

We just don't have an Al Jefferson to trade to accomplish this.  We also don't have a group like Paul Pierce, Tony Allen, Kendrick Perkins and Leon Powe left behind to build with since Rondo is our only big ticket to trade.

We will have money after this season, and that will be a big help.  So now we can pursue a free agent center.  Who's coming up that we want, and other than dollars, how do we get him here?  Well, first we need to sign Rondo, because if he goes, we're not looking like a contender any time soon.  So now we take a chunk of that money 'cause Rondo's getting a max deal somewhere.  Once that's done we still have some money to work with, but again, who is available and what will it take?

Any angle you look at, this is a five plus year project.  Our biggest need is actually not finding a center who is ready to go right now.  Our biggest need is determining if Rondo can be signed and if so can we contend again before he gets too far past his prime.  Then once that's done, we can focus on a center.

We can try the available second hand bin, like Zeller, and that may bring us what we need.  That fits dollar wise and with what we have to trade.  

At the same time, we probably need to look to the draft, where there will be as many as six centers with good NBA potential coming out this year.  We've got the time to develop one.  I always like to point out to those who say the draft is a crap shoot, that most of the league's current stars were drafted.  It sounds like a humorous line, or maybe a little sarcastic or tongue-in-cheek, but it makes a point.  It takes time; they didn't all start out like Bird, or Magic, or, hopefully, Smart.

This may not be the approach most fans would like to see, but I'm completely sold that it's the most realistic and most likely to happen.

I would be completely delighted to be wrong on this.  In order for that to happen, I think Danny Ainge is going to have to trade the Ice Capades to someone.

Regards

My take is that the Celtics must pursue a young Center for the future. They may be able to find that option avalable in one of thier future 7 first round picks.

In the interim we need a veteran center.

However I think there are a lot of Celic players that could be used in a trade for a center including Rondo.

It is unlikely that te Celtics would trade their best player. PG depth is mandatory to run the offense they are running now. We have more depth at other positions.

I think that Danny Ainge wants to have his cake and eat it too. He has more than enough assets through the draft and players without having to trade their core players. I think that is very possible.

And Free agency will impact enough centers to put the Celtics at the acquisition table. This could happen mid-season.

dboss

NYCelt,

Interesting discussion.

When I say the draft is a crap shoot, I don't mean it doesn't produce a lot of talent.  I'm speaking of the sheer odds (in a 30 team league) that the top talent it produces will reside with the Celtics in any given year.

In the last 27 seasons (since the Len Bias pick), despite arguably having the worst extended stretch in their history and only one championship to show for those 27 seasons, the Celtics have reached the top five picks twice.  With one #5, they picked Jeff Green and ultimately scored with Ray as a result.  With a #3, they picked Chauncey Billups, who did go on to be a certified star.  That's two in 27 years, or 7.4% of the time.

If one wants to extend the window to the top 10 picks, the Celts have had 9 of those in 27 years,(representing 33% of the time.  Most of those top 10 picks have been quality players, although I wouldn't be too sure about Ron Mercer and Eric Montross.  So it's easy to argue that the top 10 picks usually produce pretty good players; but it's less valid to argue that the Celtics are destined to get a top 10 pick as often as not.  Regardless of how mediocre they are, the pool of mediocre teams in a talent-diluted league is pretty large.

If a team has a five-year plan in today's NBA, chances are some (if not all) of the quality pieces they acquired early in those five years will be gone when the five years end.  Danny had a 5 year plan, and it came to fruition in year 5 not because he had a lot of great draft picks during those five years but, rather, because he drafted players who were collectively sufficiently adequate to trade for KG.

The Celtics this season show some promise; but they're not (yet) playing .500 ball.  And yet, if the season ended today and the draft followed form, they'd be drafting 10th.  Meh!  In my eyes a #10 pick, converts a crap shoot into a long shot as far as getting a true impact player is concerned.  If there were six good centers in the upcoming draft (and "good" doesn't necessarily transfer to "guarantee great," does it Chris Johnson?), odds are all six would be gone before the #10 pick.

I believe that a five-year plan, especially if heavily reliant on the draft, is more likely to lead to a perpetually mediocre team than a perpetual contender by the end of five years.

None of this is how I'd like it to be.  I prefer long-term player/team relationships and less money grubbing.  And the Easter Bunny and the Tooth Fairy.  But the realities of the situation seem to be trending to the need to build teams almost surreptitiously, before the players wake up to the fact that they probably can get much more money elsewhere.

Excuse me.  I have to go and chat with myself now.

Sam