RealGM

Homerclease wrote:

Parliament10 wrote:

Homerclease wrote:….which is what they did. So what are you complaining about?

Tone it down.
Your posts have been getting more hostile.

~ Parl

There is zero hostility in that post.

Parliament10 wrote:

Homerclease wrote:

Parliament10 wrote:Tone it down.
Your posts have been getting more hostile.

~ Parl

There is zero hostility in that post.

Feel free to PM me, if you want to discuss it.
Otherwise, follow the directions, and tone it down.

~ Parl

Hal14 wrote:

cl2117 wrote:

Gant wrote:

Read on Twitter

This gives me a ton more confidence in the move.

The biggest thing that puts me off on Springer is just the fact that he hasn't made enough of a jump to the NBA level, but if we've got multiple guys who've worked with him in Philly and vouch for him as a guy who could be a late bloomer, then I'm on board.

He certainly could be a late bloomer. Although it's his 3rd season in the league, he was was only 18 when he was drafted.

He's still just 21. We gave up on Nesmith and traded him when he was 22 - look how that turned out. Nesmith went to Indy and is balling out.

cl2117 wrote:

76ciology wrote:I come in peace.

Suggs plays like a point guard
Springer plays like a power forward

Springer is good value for a second rounder

So would you say a Marcus Smart comparison is apt?

It's been really interesting to see the pretty wide spectrum of opinion from 76ers fans on trading him. Seems like it swings from shock he had any value to major disappointment you didn't keep developing him.

76ciology wrote:

cl2117 wrote:

76ciology wrote:I come in peace.

Suggs plays like a point guard
Springer plays like a power forward

Springer is good value for a second rounder

So would you say a Marcus Smart comparison is apt?

It's been really interesting to see the pretty wide spectrum of opinion from 76ers fans on trading him. Seems like it swings from shock he had any value to major disappointment you didn't keep developing him.

I have a high level of respect for Marcus Smart, especially considering how many times the Celtics have defeated my team in the playoffs. I believe Smart possesses the IQ and passing ability of a star-caliber guard, in addition to being an elite defensive player. One notable similarity between Smart and Springer is their inability to create on offense. However, Smart has developed into a decent 3-point shooter over time, and there's potential for Springer to follow suit in the future, though ultimately it's up to fate.

A closer comparison for me would be Avery Bradley on offense, with both players excelling as lockdown defenders. However, I believe Springer is a better team defender, able to roam for steals and blocks.

It's important to note that my assessment is based on what I've observed from Springer so far.

zoyathedestroya wrote:If he isn't a total dud, it saves the Celtics development time/resources instead of drafting in the late 30s/early 40s. We need guys that can contribute in the next 2-3 years, not 4-6 years. Less years of control obviously but he's RFA in 2025.

Darth Celtic wrote:

76ciology wrote:

cl2117 wrote:So would you say a Marcus Smart comparison is apt?

It's been really interesting to see the pretty wide spectrum of opinion from 76ers fans on trading him. Seems like it swings from shock he had any value to major disappointment you didn't keep developing him.

I have a high level of respect for Marcus Smart, especially considering how many times the Celtics have defeated my team in the playoffs. I believe Smart possesses the IQ and passing ability of a star-caliber guard, in addition to being an elite defensive player. One notable similarity between Smart and Springer is their inability to create on offense. However, Smart has developed into a decent 3-point shooter over time, and there's potential for Springer to follow suit in the future, though ultimately it's up to fate.

A closer comparison for me would be Avery Bradley on offense, with both players excelling as lockdown defenders. However, I believe Springer is a better team defender, able to roam for steals and blocks.

It's important to note that my assessment is based on what I've observed from Springer so far.

I don't see the Bradley. He really was a mid to long two point shooter. We ran plays for him to get 14 ft jumpers which we know is terrible. He really did little driving and finishing at the rim. Was great on defense and the same size though.

zoyathedestroya wrote:

zoyathedestroya wrote:If he isn't a total dud, it saves the Celtics development time/resources instead of drafting in the late 30s/early 40s. We need guys that can contribute in the next 2-3 years, not 4-6 years. Less years of control obviously but he's RFA in 2025.

Read on Twitter

76ciology wrote:

zoyathedestroya wrote:

zoyathedestroya wrote:If he isn't a total dud, it saves the Celtics development time/resources instead of drafting in the late 30s/early 40s. We need guys that can contribute in the next 2-3 years, not 4-6 years. Less years of control obviously but he's RFA in 2025.

Read on Twitter

Yeah, value wise. Celts got really good value for Springer. Stevens also got a good eye for talent and understands basketball so I think he’s on to something

Hal14 wrote:Woah

Read on Twitter

The key words I see in that quote... "he can play in the playoffs"

zoyathedestroya wrote:

Read on Twitter

#44 was last worn by Timelord.

Curmudgeon wrote:Scalabrine, Maravich, Bing and of course Ainge wore #44.