When does the "window" end?

[Toine43]

I'm going to keep this brief for an op because I need some sleep, but hopefully I'll wake up tomorrow to some good responses.

It was acknowledged by everyone when we first traded for Garnett that the Celtics would have a brief window to win championships while the the Big Three were still in or close to their primes. Now, you may think that when the Big Three age, our core of young players will be ready to step up and keep us competing at a high level. But that aspect of our so-called window aside, when do you think our window with the Big Three will expire? Will Ray be Ray until the end of next year. When will Pierce officially become too slow and have too many knee problems to operate as a number 1 scoring option? KG may be able to last 3 or 4 more years after this one performing at his peak level, no? And when you're done making your prediciton about how long these guys will last, consider the type of role you think they'll potentially play as aging vets on a team anchored by Rondo, Perk, and who knows who else. 

[Rondo_is_better]

I'm going to keep this brief for an op because I need some sleep, but hopefully I'll wake up tomorrow to some good responses.

It was acknowledged by everyone when we first traded for Garnett that the Celtics would have a brief window to win championships while the the Big Three were still in or close to their primes. Now, you may think that when the Big Three age, our core of young players will be ready to step up and keep us competing at a high level. But that aspect of our so-called window aside, when do you think our window with the Big Three will expire? Will Ray be Ray until the end of next year. When will Pierce officially become too slow and have too many knee problems to operate as a number 1 scoring option? KG may be able to last 3 or 4 more years after this one performing at his peak level, no? And when you're done making your prediciton about how long these guys will last, consider the type of role you think they'll potentially play as aging vets on a team anchored by Rondo, Perk, and who knows who else. 

If Danny manages this team properly we can extend our run as an eite team for another 10-15 years. Rondo will become the third best point guard in the league in the near future. Within two years, to be sure. Perk is also a very solid center, who, at least for now, comes to us as a bargain. As long as we resign Rajon and Perk, we will have filled the two most imporant positions on the floor-- center and point guard-- with an all star and a borderline all-star center (I'm speaking of their status as players down the road, obviously).

Ray Allen is great-- I think he's the best shooter of all time, and is a complete class act, but he's 33, so he can't have too much longer to operate as an elite player. As much as it pains me to say, I think the smart move is to let Ray come off the books, and fill his slot with some younger talent. That keeps us contending for the next 4-5 years. Then, the moves down the raod will have to be predicated upon how well KG and Pierce hold up. I expect KG to be a great player until he retires-- seriously-- I just don't see him becoming ineffective at any point. He could play until he was 40. Paul could easily remain an elite scorer until he was 36, and then, maybe, move to the bench. But more likely he retires at around 37 or 38 when he is just starting to really lose his mojo, and we keep him in the starting lineup because, well, he's **** Paul Pierce, career Celtic, and winner of (hopefully) multiple championships.

Then when Pierce retires, KG is at the tail end of his career,  Rondo and Perk are in their prime, and that younger talent who replaced Ray Allen is firmly into the latter stages of his career, we use the money from Paul coming off the books to try and reload again.

There is no replacement for KG that I can see on the foreseeable horizon, so by the time he retires, I think we can expect some regression, but nonetheless, I think that its perfectly realistic to assume that with proper management by Danny, Wyc and Co., the Celtics can win 45+ games for the next 10-15 years.


Here's to 2018 discussions of the 5 titles that Boston has accrued since 2007-2008.

Doesn't that sound reasonable? Maybe even plausible? It totally does, doesn't it? Wow,I suddenly feel great about our future as a franchise.

[xmuscularghandix]

I'm going to keep this brief for an op because I need some sleep, but hopefully I'll wake up tomorrow to some good responses.

It was acknowledged by everyone when we first traded for Garnett that the Celtics would have a brief window to win championships while the the Big Three were still in or close to their primes. Now, you may think that when the Big Three age, our core of young players will be ready to step up and keep us competing at a high level. But that aspect of our so-called window aside, when do you think our window with the Big Three will expire? Will Ray be Ray until the end of next year. When will Pierce officially become too slow and have too many knee problems to operate as a number 1 scoring option? KG may be able to last 3 or 4 more years after this one performing at his peak level, no? And when you're done making your prediciton about how long these guys will last, consider the type of role you think they'll potentially play as aging vets on a team anchored by Rondo, Perk, and who knows who else. 

If Danny manages this team properly we can extend our run as an eite team for another 10-15 years. Rondo will become the third best point guard in the league in the near future. Within two years, to be sure. Perk is also a very solid center, who, at least for now, comes to us as a bargain. As long as we resign Rajon and Perk, we will have filled the two most imporant positions on the floor-- center and point guard-- with an all star and a borderline all-star center (I'm speaking of their status as players down the road, obviously).

Ray Allen is great-- I think he's the best shooter of all time, and is a complete class act, but he's 33, so he can't have too much longer to operate as an elite player. As much as it pains me to say, I think the smart move is to let Ray come off the books, and fill his slot with some younger talent. That keeps us contending for the next 4-5 years. Then, the moves down the raod will have to be predicated upon how well KG and Pierce hold up. I expect KG to be a great player until he retires-- seriously-- I just don't see him becoming ineffective at any point. He could play until he was 40. Paul could easily remain an elite scorer until he was 36, and then, maybe, move to the bench. But more likely he retires at around 37 or 38 when he is just starting to really lose his mojo, and we keep him in the starting lineup because, well, he's **** Paul Pierce, career Celtic, and winner of (hopefully) multiple championships.

Then when Pierce retires, KG is at the tail end of his career,  Rondo and Perk are in their prime, and that younger talent who replaced Ray Allen is firmly into the latter stages of his career, we use the money from Paul coming off the books to try and reload again.

There is no replacement for KG that I can see on the foreseeable horizon, so by the time he retires, I think we can expect some regression, but nonetheless, I think that its perfectly realistic to assume that with proper management by Danny, Wyc and Co., the Celtics can win 45+ games for the next 10-15 years.


Here's to 2018 discussions of the 5 titles that Boston has accrued since 2007-2008.

Doesn't that sound reasonable? Maybe even plausible? It totally does, doesn't it? Wow,I suddenly feel great about our future as a franchise.

this is a very good plan, but i think your going the wrong direction with Ray Allen. If you look at the way Red did it you'll see one common thing.... high draft picks.

in 1979/80 we lost the Eastern Conference Semifinals, and had the number 1 pick in the draft, red traded this pick to the Warriors for the 3rd pick (McHale), and Robert Parish (who at the time was considered to be an underacheiver)

in 1985/86 we won the Championship, and had the 2nd pick in the draft (len bias) which we aquired from Seattle for Gerald Henderson a season prior.

[Rondo_is_better]

I'm going to keep this brief for an op because I need some sleep, but hopefully I'll wake up tomorrow to some good responses.

It was acknowledged by everyone when we first traded for Garnett that the Celtics would have a brief window to win championships while the the Big Three were still in or close to their primes. Now, you may think that when the Big Three age, our core of young players will be ready to step up and keep us competing at a high level. But that aspect of our so-called window aside, when do you think our window with the Big Three will expire? Will Ray be Ray until the end of next year. When will Pierce officially become too slow and have too many knee problems to operate as a number 1 scoring option? KG may be able to last 3 or 4 more years after this one performing at his peak level, no? And when you're done making your prediciton about how long these guys will last, consider the type of role you think they'll potentially play as aging vets on a team anchored by Rondo, Perk, and who knows who else. 

If Danny manages this team properly we can extend our run as an eite team for another 10-15 years. Rondo will become the third best point guard in the league in the near future. Within two years, to be sure. Perk is also a very solid center, who, at least for now, comes to us as a bargain. As long as we resign Rajon and Perk, we will have filled the two most imporant positions on the floor-- center and point guard-- with an all star and a borderline all-star center (I'm speaking of their status as players down the road, obviously).

Ray Allen is great-- I think he's the best shooter of all time, and is a complete class act, but he's 33, so he can't have too much longer to operate as an elite player. As much as it pains me to say, I think the smart move is to let Ray come off the books, and fill his slot with some younger talent. That keeps us contending for the next 4-5 years. Then, the moves down the raod will have to be predicated upon how well KG and Pierce hold up. I expect KG to be a great player until he retires-- seriously-- I just don't see him becoming ineffective at any point. He could play until he was 40. Paul could easily remain an elite scorer until he was 36, and then, maybe, move to the bench. But more likely he retires at around 37 or 38 when he is just starting to really lose his mojo, and we keep him in the starting lineup because, well, he's **** Paul Pierce, career Celtic, and winner of (hopefully) multiple championships.

Then when Pierce retires, KG is at the tail end of his career,  Rondo and Perk are in their prime, and that younger talent who replaced Ray Allen is firmly into the latter stages of his career, we use the money from Paul coming off the books to try and reload again.

There is no replacement for KG that I can see on the foreseeable horizon, so by the time he retires, I think we can expect some regression, but nonetheless, I think that its perfectly realistic to assume that with proper management by Danny, Wyc and Co., the Celtics can win 45+ games for the next 10-15 years.


Here's to 2018 discussions of the 5 titles that Boston has accrued since 2007-2008.

Doesn't that sound reasonable? Maybe even plausible? It totally does, doesn't it? Wow,I suddenly feel great about our future as a franchise.

this is a very good plan, but i think your going the wrong direction with Ray Allen. If you look at the way Red did it you'll see one common thing.... high draft picks.

in 1979/80 we lost the Eastern Conference Semifinals, and had the number 1 pick in the draft, red traded this pick to the Warriors for the 3rd pick (McHale), and Robert Parish (who at the time was considered to be an underacheiver)

in 1985/86 we won the Championship, and had the 2nd pick in the draft (len bias) which we aquired from Seattle for Gerald Henderson a season prior.

So your saying you want to trade Ray for a high draft pick? You know what, I think I agree with you. There is no guarantee that there will be premier FA talent on the market when Ray comes off the  books, and even if there is, there's no guarantee that that elite player will sign with us. We should look to replicate what Red did in '85/'86 and trade him for a high draft pick and some solid bench players. But if that doesn't work, I definitely think we should let Ray come off the books-- as much as I admire the guy and respect his game-- we'll need to reload. TP for your improvement on my plan. 

[TatteredOnMySleeve]

as a contender with this unit it probably ends after next year

[xmuscularghandix]

I'm going to keep this brief for an op because I need some sleep, but hopefully I'll wake up tomorrow to some good responses.

It was acknowledged by everyone when we first traded for Garnett that the Celtics would have a brief window to win championships while the the Big Three were still in or close to their primes. Now, you may think that when the Big Three age, our core of young players will be ready to step up and keep us competing at a high level. But that aspect of our so-called window aside, when do you think our window with the Big Three will expire? Will Ray be Ray until the end of next year. When will Pierce officially become too slow and have too many knee problems to operate as a number 1 scoring option? KG may be able to last 3 or 4 more years after this one performing at his peak level, no? And when you're done making your prediciton about how long these guys will last, consider the type of role you think they'll potentially play as aging vets on a team anchored by Rondo, Perk, and who knows who else. 

If Danny manages this team properly we can extend our run as an eite team for another 10-15 years. Rondo will become the third best point guard in the league in the near future. Within two years, to be sure. Perk is also a very solid center, who, at least for now, comes to us as a bargain. As long as we resign Rajon and Perk, we will have filled the two most imporant positions on the floor-- center and point guard-- with an all star and a borderline all-star center (I'm speaking of their status as players down the road, obviously).

Ray Allen is great-- I think he's the best shooter of all time, and is a complete class act, but he's 33, so he can't have too much longer to operate as an elite player. As much as it pains me to say, I think the smart move is to let Ray come off the books, and fill his slot with some younger talent. That keeps us contending for the next 4-5 years. Then, the moves down the raod will have to be predicated upon how well KG and Pierce hold up. I expect KG to be a great player until he retires-- seriously-- I just don't see him becoming ineffective at any point. He could play until he was 40. Paul could easily remain an elite scorer until he was 36, and then, maybe, move to the bench. But more likely he retires at around 37 or 38 when he is just starting to really lose his mojo, and we keep him in the starting lineup because, well, he's **** Paul Pierce, career Celtic, and winner of (hopefully) multiple championships.

Then when Pierce retires, KG is at the tail end of his career,  Rondo and Perk are in their prime, and that younger talent who replaced Ray Allen is firmly into the latter stages of his career, we use the money from Paul coming off the books to try and reload again.

There is no replacement for KG that I can see on the foreseeable horizon, so by the time he retires, I think we can expect some regression, but nonetheless, I think that its perfectly realistic to assume that with proper management by Danny, Wyc and Co., the Celtics can win 45+ games for the next 10-15 years.


Here's to 2018 discussions of the 5 titles that Boston has accrued since 2007-2008.

Doesn't that sound reasonable? Maybe even plausible? It totally does, doesn't it? Wow,I suddenly feel great about our future as a franchise.

this is a very good plan, but i think your going the wrong direction with Ray Allen. If you look at the way Red did it you'll see one common thing.... high draft picks.

in 1979/80 we lost the Eastern Conference Semifinals, and had the number 1 pick in the draft, red traded this pick to the Warriors for the 3rd pick (McHale), and Robert Parish (who at the time was considered to be an underacheiver)

in 1985/86 we won the Championship, and had the 2nd pick in the draft (len bias) which we aquired from Seattle for Gerald Henderson a season prior.

So your saying you want to trade Ray for a high draft pick? You know what, I think I agree with you. There is no guarantee that there will be premier FA talent on the market when Ray comes off the  books, and even if there is, there's no guarantee that that elite player will sign with us. We should look to replicate what Red did in '85/'86 and trade him for a high draft pick and some solid bench players. But if that doesn't work, I definitely think we should let Ray come off the books-- as much as I admire the guy and respect his game-- we'll need to reload. TP for your improvement on my plan. 

some TP love for you as well.

I think that danny will do just this, he's quoted as saying that he think the original big 3 stayed for too long. which i see as forshadowing the way this may end, and i hate it to end this way becuase i love Ray so much. But its not gonna be Paul Pierce cause he's the captain of this team, and its Not gonna be KG becuase he's the energy, but Ray (as you said) is the oldest.

BTW Bird/McHale/Parish only overstayed their welcome becuase Red's plan backfired. His plan was for Len Bias to take over as the leader of the team so that the old Big 3 could decrease minutes, stay rested for the playoffs, and prolong their careers. The best bench players are the crafty veterans who were once the dominant forces of the league. 

[guava_wrench]

Extending a window for 10-15 doesn't require good management. It requires truckloads of luck. It requires drafting Tim Duncan.

I am far more concerned with winning another championship. If we replay the 80s, simple changes in chance could have meant more titles (Bias living, no McHale foot injury). Off course it is easy to say "we should have done it differently" after the fact. But different might not have been any better. Perhaps how it was done was actually the best alternative.

If we traded the 80s guys and still fell apart, the reaction would now be "don't break apart a championship nucleus". Or maybe we could have started trading in 85.

Regarding Ray Allen - why not sign him cheap? There are plenty of roster spots. Don't forget, young talent where we draft means mediocre talent. FA young talent means guys like POB, or overpaying restricted FAs. Having a ton of mediocre young talent can be tough. Powe and BBD weren't good enough to lock into big extensions, so we don't know if either will stay in town for next season. We have no idea who will backup the 4 or the 5 next season! POB and Scal are the only guys guaranteed to be around! The 3 isn't much better at the moment with TA (and Scal at times).

My main point is we cut bait on young talent that isn't panning out before refusing to sign Ray to a cheap contract. Ray could end up a bargain veteran. KG accepted a decreasing contract extension to come here and end up the 3rd highest paid player. Ray has also made a lot of money and might be okay with a home team discount.

[Chris]

Extending a window for 10-15 doesn't require good management. It requires truckloads of luck. It requires drafting Tim Duncan.

You are right, it is about luck, but it also is about putting yourself in the right position to get "lucky".  You can be the luckiest GM in the world, but if you do not manage your teams cap and assets well, then it simply won't matter.

I do agree that the way to rebuild is not by hanging on to mediocre young talent.  You need to be able to recognize the diamonds in the rough, and let the other ones go.

Honestly, I think Danny has done a good job of putting this team in a position to remain good for a long time.  He has managed the Cap well, and is set to be a player in the FA and trade market, right as the end of the current "window" arrives.  This doesn't mean he will be able to "reload", because that relies on a lot of things he can't control.  But he will be in a position where it could happen.

[xmuscularghandix]

Extending a window for 10-15 doesn't require good management. It requires truckloads of luck. It requires drafting Tim Duncan.

I am far more concerned with winning another championship. If we replay the 80s, simple changes in chance could have meant more titles (Bias living, no McHale foot injury). Off course it is easy to say "we should have done it differently" after the fact. But different might not have been any better. Perhaps how it was done was actually the best alternative.

If we traded the 80s guys and still fell apart, the reaction would now be "don't break apart a championship nucleus". Or maybe we could have started trading in 85.

Regarding Ray Allen - why not sign him cheap? There are plenty of roster spots. Don't forget, young talent where we draft means mediocre talent. FA young talent means guys like POB, or overpaying restricted FAs. Having a ton of mediocre young talent can be tough. Powe and BBD weren't good enough to lock into big extensions, so we don't know if either will stay in town for next season. We have no idea who will backup the 4 or the 5 next season! POB and Scal are the only guys guaranteed to be around! The 3 isn't much better at the moment with TA (and Scal at times).

My main point is we cut bait on young talent that isn't panning out before refusing to sign Ray to a cheap contract. Ray could end up a bargain veteran. KG accepted a decreasing contract extension to come here and end up the 3rd highest paid player. Ray has also made a lot of money and might be okay with a home team discount.

the problem wasn't even IN the 80's. Russell leaves then theres some off seasons, Havlicek same, Big 3 the same... the only diference is that instead of building up draft picks through trades we gave away draft picks in trades. instead of having a team of homegrown talent, we got impatient and traded away good players. Its like Patino was playing NBA2k9, everytime he got bored he'd trade away the future.


in 97 we had 3 rookies out of that year's first round. Chauncey Billups (3rd), Ron Mercer (6), John Thomas (25). Guess how many of those players were on the team a year later? thats right ZERO. Talk about player development.

ok. so now we have Kenny anderson, Zan Tabak, and Popeye Jones. A quality starting PG, a 4 year veteran role player, and a well traveled crappy power forward.

this then continues the next season when only kenny anderson popeye remain (not for long though). meaning that we traded 2 first round pics for 1 guy and 2 rental players. So what does he do next? he trades the other 1st round pick Ron Mercer, Dwayne schintzius (crap player), and Popeye Jones for us to get Eric Williams (7pts 2rbs that season) Danny Fortson (a SF who went high in the 97 draft, kindof like the one we traded except this ones not as good), Eric Washington (a guard from the second round) and a conditional first round draft pick. the only good part of these trades is that pick, but its not becuase our '99 pick  was already traded in a deal.

in the past we had gotten good players in some of the most lopsided deals in NBA history:

1st Overall pick for Kevin McHale (3rd overall) and Robert Parish fresh off his second year in the league

Rick Robey straight up for Dennis Johnson


thats what stopped THAT window.

[CoachBo]

It may have ended in June, if this bench isn't upgraded.

[crownsy]

It may have ended in June, if this bench isn't upgraded.

remember last year around this time when everyone was saying the bench would be our downfall and that we needed to add length and experiance?

yea, me too, how did that work out?

[JBcat]

I'm going to keep this brief for an op because I need some sleep, but hopefully I'll wake up tomorrow to some good responses.

It was acknowledged by everyone when we first traded for Garnett that the Celtics would have a brief window to win championships while the the Big Three were still in or close to their primes. Now, you may think that when the Big Three age, our core of young players will be ready to step up and keep us competing at a high level. But that aspect of our so-called window aside, when do you think our window with the Big Three will expire? Will Ray be Ray until the end of next year. When will Pierce officially become too slow and have too many knee problems to operate as a number 1 scoring option? KG may be able to last 3 or 4 more years after this one performing at his peak level, no? And when you're done making your prediciton about how long these guys will last, consider the type of role you think they'll potentially play as aging vets on a team anchored by Rondo, Perk, and who knows who else. 

If Danny manages this team properly we can extend our run as an eite team for another 10-15 years. Rondo will become the third best point guard in the league in the near future. Within two years, to be sure. Perk is also a very solid center, who, at least for now, comes to us as a bargain. As long as we resign Rajon and Perk, we will have filled the two most imporant positions on the floor-- center and point guard-- with an all star and a borderline all-star center (I'm speaking of their status as players down the road, obviously).

Ray Allen is great-- I think he's the best shooter of all time, and is a complete class act, but he's 33, so he can't have too much longer to operate as an elite player. As much as it pains me to say, I think the smart move is to let Ray come off the books, and fill his slot with some younger talent. That keeps us contending for the next 4-5 years. Then, the moves down the raod will have to be predicated upon how well KG and Pierce hold up. I expect KG to be a great player until he retires-- seriously-- I just don't see him becoming ineffective at any point. He could play until he was 40. Paul could easily remain an elite scorer until he was 36, and then, maybe, move to the bench. But more likely he retires at around 37 or 38 when he is just starting to really lose his mojo, and we keep him in the starting lineup because, well, he's **** Paul Pierce, career Celtic, and winner of (hopefully) multiple championships.

Then when Pierce retires, KG is at the tail end of his career,  Rondo and Perk are in their prime, and that younger talent who replaced Ray Allen is firmly into the latter stages of his career, we use the money from Paul coming off the books to try and reload again.

There is no replacement for KG that I can see on the foreseeable horizon, so by the time he retires, I think we can expect some regression, but nonetheless, I think that its perfectly realistic to assume that with proper management by Danny, Wyc and Co., the Celtics can win 45+ games for the next 10-15 years.


Here's to 2018 discussions of the 5 titles that Boston has accrued since 2007-2008.

Doesn't that sound reasonable? Maybe even plausible? It totally does, doesn't it? Wow,I suddenly feel great about our future as a franchise.

this is a very good plan, but i think your going the wrong direction with Ray Allen. If you look at the way Red did it you'll see one common thing.... high draft picks.

in 1979/80 we lost the Eastern Conference Semifinals, and had the number 1 pick in the draft, red traded this pick to the Warriors for the 3rd pick (McHale), and Robert Parish (who at the time was considered to be an underacheiver)

in 1985/86 we won the Championship, and had the 2nd pick in the draft (len bias) which we aquired from Seattle for Gerald Henderson a season prior.

So your saying you want to trade Ray for a high draft pick? You know what, I think I agree with you. There is no guarantee that there will be premier FA talent on the market when Ray comes off the  books, and even if there is, there's no guarantee that that elite player will sign with us. We should look to replicate what Red did in '85/'86 and trade him for a high draft pick and some solid bench players. But if that doesn't work, I definitely think we should let Ray come off the books-- as much as I admire the guy and respect his game-- we'll need to reload. TP for your improvement on my plan. 

some TP love for you as well.

I think that danny will do just this, he's quoted as saying that he think the original big 3 stayed for too long. which i see as forshadowing the way this may end, and i hate it to end this way becuase i love Ray so much. But its not gonna be Paul Pierce cause he's the captain of this team, and its Not gonna be KG becuase he's the energy, but Ray (as you said) is the oldest.

BTW Bird/McHale/Parish only overstayed their welcome becuase Red's plan backfired. His plan was for Len Bias to take over as the leader of the team so that the old Big 3 could decrease minutes, stay rested for the playoffs, and prolong their careers. The best bench players are the crafty veterans who were once the dominant forces of the league. 

I think the Len Bias analogy is a good one.   The Celtics I believe traded Gerald Heraldson for a future first rounder that turned out to Bias.   Danny has to figure out a way in the next 2 to 3 years to bring in a rising star to extend the run in a similar fashion.  He also needs to be smart whether it's deciding between Giddens or Walker and not have the team make another Kedrick Brown or Joe Johnson mistake again and give up the wrong guy. 

[Chris]

I think the Len Bias analogy is a good one.   The Celtics I believe traded Gerald Heraldson for a future first rounder that turned out to Bias.   Danny has to figure out a way in the next 2 to 3 years to bring in a rising star to extend the run in a similar fashion.  He also needs to be smart whether it's deciding between Giddens or Walker and not have the team make another Kedrick Brown or Joe Johnson mistake again and give up the wrong guy. 

Although I think they both have potential, lets not go crazy here.  Johnson and Brown were both much better prospects than Giddens and Walker.  Although you never know what could happen, I wouldn't expect either of them to be a major part of a rebuilding process, just like I wouldn't expect guys like Powe, Davis, or Pruitt to be.

[Casperian]

It may have ended in June, if this bench isn't upgraded.

remember last year around this time when everyone was saying the bench would be our downfall and that we needed to add length and experiance?

yea, me too, how did that work out?

Yeah, how did that work out?
IIRC, we signed PJ Brown, who was a crucial part in our Championship run, the same Championship run where we had to play 7 games against the Hawks and the Cavs.

I also remember the discussion in the off-season about a 4th year for Posey, and that we need a replacement for what he brings to the table. I also remember the thread about Tony Allen one year ago, where a lot of people said they do not want him back on the team, or at least only for cheap. They certainly didn´t want him to be our 6th man.

[JBcat]

I think the Len Bias analogy is a good one.   The Celtics I believe traded Gerald Heraldson for a future first rounder that turned out to Bias.   Danny has to figure out a way in the next 2 to 3 years to bring in a rising star to extend the run in a similar fashion.  He also needs to be smart whether it's deciding between Giddens or Walker and not have the team make another Kedrick Brown or Joe Johnson mistake again and give up the wrong guy. 

Although I think they both have potential, lets not go crazy here.  Johnson and Brown were both much better prospects than Giddens and Walker.  Although you never know what could happen, I wouldn't expect either of them to be a major part of a rebuilding process, just like I wouldn't expect guys like Powe, Davis, or Pruitt to be.

I wouldn't say much better prospects.  Granted they were drafted much higher but that was due to circumstances mostly not on the basketball court.   Walker was once projected to be a top 5 draft pick before all the injuries and before his latest one about a month before the draft many draft experts pegged him to be in top 20, 25.  If Giddens had a better reputation he might have been drafted higher and both came out in a deep draft proven by how well many rookies are playing this year and getting rotation minutes.  Conversely the 2001 draft that Johnson and Brown came out in was a weak one headlined by Kwame Brown drafted #1 overall.  The 4 guys taken ahead of Johnson and Brown in that draft were Shane Battier, Eddie Griffin, Desagana Diop, Rodney White, and Radmanovic drafted right after.  You could argue both players would have slipped a little in this year's draft and if Walker and Giddens were in the 2001 draft class maybe higher.  I don't think I'm too off base as many on this board think if Giddens or especially Walker reaches his full potential we will have a very good player on our hands.