At times, hard to stay positive over the off season moves

[BballTim]

This is a team with a limited number of years to contend if there aren't young upgrades and stars developed. I understand that. What I don't understand is trying to develop four of these guys all at the same time. Couldn't the rookies been a good place to start and then bring in guys like Ratliff and/or Matt Barnes and/or Mickael Pietrus and/or Bonzi Wells or just people with known and proven games for the other areas. If the rooks were to work out then next year start with another rook.

  I don't think those signings would have any effect on the negative posts. Ratliff is a constant injury concern and Barnes and Pietrus and Wells were all seen as unable to fill Posey's shoes.

  We've got our 5 starters and the bulk of the bench minutes will probably go to House, Allen, Powe, Davis and a few minutes for the rooks. That's not necessarily a disastrous bench. Not the best possible bench, but not awful.

[Evantime34]

I feel that it's easy to stay positive about off season moves for these reasons.
1. Gained 3 athletic wing men and a healthy Tony Allen, one of which should be able to fill the teams needs, possibly taking turns having big games to help the team, much in the same way Powe and Davis took turns having big games.
2. Team got younger. With all the hold overs from last years team getting playoff experience there is less need for a veteran with playoff experience, where last year one was desperately needed.
3. Still plenty of time to sign other players that fall through the cracks, or sign players during the season. People who are comparing are current roster to our playoff roster aren't being fair. We picked up two seasoned vets last year around March, we have plenty of time to do the same this year.
4. Dunks. If you like to see a good throw down then you have to like our bench. Miles, Giddens, Walker and Allen all can jam with authority.

[cordobes]

Good discussion, great posts from both sides. TP to Nick for starting it.

I think wdleehi's point above is absolutely correct.

With one individual "low risk, high reward" player, it's exactly that:  you're taking a gamble on a player, and if he doesn't work out, big deal.

With several "low risk, high reward" players, however, the *collective* risk is high, because if one or more of those players doesn't pan out, suddenly your roster is left with legitimate holes.

Yeps, this sums up my position. The truth is that the probability of the new guys being failures is a reason to be concerned. Players who are picked so late in the draft have more chances to be out of the NBA in 2 years than to be solid rotational players (and I've never heard that Giddens was being considered to be a lottery pick; Walker was considered one before college - like dozens of players that never make the NBA -, I saw him carefully in half-a-dozen of matches last season, when he was as healthy as he's now, and he's simply not lottery material; we still don't know if Pruitt is a NBA player). Tony Allen has never proved he can be good enough to be the 6th man on a contender. Miles would make history if he plays again. Lottery picks who don't get their contracts extentend generally aren't good enough to play in the NBA (and O'Bryant was never considered a sure thing, he carried a huge bust potential since the beggining). So, history is against us. One can say that we added "talent". Well, personally, I don't know. Maybe we did. Maybe not. I guess it depends on the definition of talent: some still say that Gerald Green has talent. But who cares? Fact is that none of these players have proved to be talented. Also, the problem is not that if "none of them" will be ready to contribute next May. That will be a really big problem. But, for example, if O'Bryant fails, we'll have a very big hole on our roster. Can we adress it during the season? Perhaps, but with someone better than Thomas, PJ Brown or Elson?

I predict Doc will be blamed if things don't work. But the fact is that most of our bench players haven't proved yet that they are NBA material, let alone good enough to be rotational players on a playoff run to win it all (I'm less worried about the reg. season). Also, besides the lack of experience, this roster has a glaring hole: not enough players who can shoot the rock from the outside. Teams without good outside shooters end up being teams whose offense is reduced to outside jump-shots.

I think that not re-signing Posey was the big mistake. He was much better than anyone else available and him alone would solve most of our bench problems during this title window.

[Bossco]

This thread reminds me of famous Boston basketball writer, Bob Ryan's infamous article in the Boston Globe last year after the trades for RA and KG. He stated simply that we should not get too excited because we were not going anywhere because we quite possibly had the worst bench in the NBA. Most of the NBA questioned our bench all year long. Remember coming into the finals the Lakers bench was being touted over ours?

No one knew what exactly was going to happen last year, and the same holds true this year. There are always question marks about every team's off season moves. What seems like a gamble sometimes turns out to be a real winner, and what seems like a no brainer can turn out to be a fiasco.

I stay positive because it is so exciting to see how everything will turn out. The unknown is what people are worried about. No one can truly predict the future so why not have an optimistic outlook?

Did any of us know for SURE that we were going to win #17 last year? Were we optimistic or were we like Bob Ryan and found reasons why we wouldn't.

We like to think that proven veterans are the answer to winning it all. If you ask me, the acquisition of Sam Cassell almost single-handedly torpedoed our chances to win the championship last year. Yes we knew what he could do, and he did have lots of experience, but how do you explain the coach saying that we don't want to take any "hero" shots during the game when Sam's whole game is based on just that? He "seemed" to be a good asset to add to the team at the time, but it didn't actually work out as planned - did it?

Building a team (and a bench)is not an exact science. There are many things that can happen. Injuries, chemistry issues, players who do not improve and do not live up to their potential, players who simply improve from the previous year's experience, players who have lost a step and aren't what they used to be, players who are perceived to be better because they have more experience, players who have bad reps but overcome them with their new team, players who have little experience but get the job done, players who step up (or not) when given increased PT, players who get much better much quicker than anticipated, etc... are all things that can happen and more.

DA is playing his hand - even he doesn't know how it will all turn out. We all had heart attacks from the results at the previous year's lottery didn't we? We ALL had plenty of reasons for "not being able to stay positive during that off season" - didn't we? Did Danny or any of us know that when the ping pong balls gave us the #5 pick that that was actually a good thing and that it would lead to a chain of events that ended with the raising of banner 17?

DA has made moves which none of us can truly know how they will all turn out. Why be negative?

Why not be optimistic?

I say that it will take A LOT for me to NOT be able to stay positive this off season and for the upcoming season.

The only thing to fear is fear itself!

P.S. I just wanted to make sure that I didn't just have a flash back to the 80's this past June - we did win the title - didn't we?

[Roy Hobbs]

The only thing to fear is fear itself!

I like the Michael Stipe quote better:  The only thing to fear is fearlessness.

[indeedproceed]

or maybe "Fearfully Fearing those without Fear Frightfully Frightens Fearsome Foes."

I can only do it twice. Anyone able to do it three times?

My favorite quote: "Who's gonna win? That's why we play the game."

[CoachBo]

Good discussion, great posts from both sides. TP to Nick for starting it.

I think wdleehi's point above is absolutely correct.

With one individual "low risk, high reward" player, it's exactly that:  you're taking a gamble on a player, and if he doesn't work out, big deal.

With several "low risk, high reward" players, however, the *collective* risk is high, because if one or more of those players doesn't pan out, suddenly your roster is left with legitimate holes.

Yeps, this sums up my position. The truth is that the probability of the new guys being failures is a reason to be concerned. Players who are picked so late in the draft have more chances to be out of the NBA in 2 years than to be solid rotational players (and I've never heard that Giddens was being considered to be a lottery pick; Walker was considered one before college - like dozens of players that never make the NBA -, I saw him carefully in half-a-dozen of matches last season, when he was as healthy as he's now, and he's simply not lottery material; we still don't know if Pruitt is a NBA player). Tony Allen has never proved he can be good enough to be the 6th man on a contender. Miles would make history if he plays again. Lottery picks who don't get their contracts extentend generally aren't good enough to play in the NBA (and O'Bryant was never considered a sure thing, he carried a huge bust potential since the beggining). So, history is against us. One can say that we added "talent". Well, personally, I don't know. Maybe we did. Maybe not. I guess it depends on the definition of talent: some still say that Gerald Green has talent. But who cares? Fact is that none of these players have proved to be talented. Also, the problem is not that if "none of them" will be ready to contribute next May. That will be a really big problem. But, for example, if O'Bryant fails, we'll have a very big hole on our roster. Can we adress it during the season? Perhaps, but with someone better than Thomas, PJ Brown or Elson?

I predict Doc will be blamed if things don't work. But the fact is that most of our bench players haven't proved yet that they are NBA material, let alone good enough to be rotational players on a playoff run to win it all (I'm less worried about the reg. season). Also, besides the lack of experience, this roster has a glaring hole: not enough players who can shoot the rock from the outside. Teams without good outside shooters end up being teams whose offense is reduced to outside jump-shots.

I think that not re-signing Posey was the big mistake. He was much better than anyone else available and him alone would solve most of our bench problems during this title window.

Yeps. Could not agree more and a TP for you. Right now, I wonder if one title was good enough for ownership.

[JR Giddens]

This post is wack the Celtics organization did the best job they could!

Tanking a 2010 or 2011 season just to sign Posey for 4 years would have been awful.

A lot of vets also went to Europe. With this new trend every bench in the NBA will have unproven players sooner or later!

[Roy Hobbs]

This post is wack the Celtics organization did the best job they could!

Tanking a 2010 or 2011 season just to sign Posey for 4 years would have been awful.

A lot of vets also went to Europe. With this new trend every bench in the NBA will have unproven players sooner or later!

1) By any stretch of the imagination, Posey's $7 million in 2011 wouldn't have "tanked" the season. 

2) We didn't lose any players to Europe.  Regardless of what happens sooner or later, the Celts have the bench they do because of choice, not necessity.

The team wasn't forced to go with a bench full of unproven / unhealthy / poor players.  They deliberately made that choice.  I find it to be a bit surprising, but we'll see how it turns out.

[TheRev72]

Our top 9 rotation players by the end of the year last year:

  - Starting five + House, Posey, Powe, and Brown.

Our (theoretical) top 9 rotation players going into camp this year:

  - Starting five + House, Allen, Powe, and Baby.


Baby replacing Brown is not a big deal, because he played that role for much of the regular season last year anyway.  I expect that he and Powe will both be improved this year, especially Baby who's gunning for a new contract.  I'll call the big man rotation generally a wash other than the fact that we do lose size without Brown.  The only way we improve significantly is if O'Bryant is good enough step in and replace either Powe or Baby (unlikely) or at least be good enough to come off the bench when the Celtics play a team that has significant size off the bench (the Pollard role - more likely).

Allen replacing Posey is the problematic part, and is the thing that appears to be driving most of the consternation with the Celtics' off-season.  Let's call a spade a spade here:  Allen was wildly inconsistent last year and did little to give us confidence that he can regain the form he showed in 2007, let alone replace Posey as a solid wing defender off the bench who can supply a little offense when needed.  His success in this role will be based on him getting extended minutes and finding some consistency in his game.  (I will say, however, that he was a physical force when he finally got minutes at the end of the Finals.  Hopefully that's a good sign.) 

With Allen in the mix, however, Ainge has lined up a couple of long-shots to take his place should he falter:  Miles and Giddens.  Walker is too green to be counted on and Scal... well, Scal is Scal.  He's more a mascot now than anything else. 

So the real issue for the bench is whether Allen or one of the "low cost/high risk" guys can step into the role of wing defender vacated by Posey.  If not, get ready for a shorter 8 man rotation with mostly House, Powe and Baby off the bench; frequent use of Rondo and House in the backcourt together; and long minutes for Pierce and Allen.

I agree with many posters that the improvement of young players can make up for the losses of Brown and Posey.  But it's key that the improvement be seen in a specific person - Tony Allen.  Otherwise, the Celtics are counting on either a guy with a bad knee or a rookie.  I think it's likely that at least one of these three will work out, and the bench, while constituted differently than last year, will be just as effective.

And I think the Celtics repeat, regardless. 

[cordobes]

This post is wack the Celtics organization did the best job they could!

Tanking a 2010 or 2011 season just to sign Posey for 4 years would have been awful.

A lot of vets also went to Europe. With this new trend every bench in the NBA will have unproven players sooner or later!

1) By any stretch of the imagination, Posey's $7 million in 2011 wouldn't have "tanked" the season. 

2) We didn't lose any players to Europe.  Regardless of what happens sooner or later, the Celts have the bench they do because of choice, not necessity.

The team wasn't forced to go with a bench full of unproven / unhealthy / poor players.  They deliberately made that choice.  I find it to be a bit surprising, but we'll see how it turns out.

Quoting Evelyn Waugh's Mr. Salter "Up to a point, Sir, up to a point...". I think Ainge made a mis-calculation on the Posey affair (otherwise, he would have moved on when Posey didn't accept the 3 years contract). We know that contracts have been offered to, at least, two veterans - Lue and Finley. It wouldn't suprise me if some other guys (Thomas, Elson...) also had offers from us. I think they tried to add some proven veterans but didn't offer them enough money, probably trusting that the "title appeal" would play a bigger role. And maybe the movement towards Europe had some effect, because it increased the demand on the FA market.

[bbc3341]

I think the C's will be even better this year than last, I think Posey was valuable, but we're not THAT valuable to lament to the extent that we are... I see a big year for Tony Allen and Rondo emerging as an All-Star level PG - the other guys that were brought in, I think we need to at least see a few games before we start throwing Ainge under the bus...

[2008CELTICS17]

We lost the 6th man. Most championship teams do not add that many players,or do they lose players. Do not be surprised if one of the rookies actually do a great job from the start. Miles is 26. I really think he will do a good job. We only lost one player. It's the Eastern confrence. I do know we need the best record again. For the homecourt.
Plus what if Paul Pierce is the best player in the NBA?

[no kidding]

Some are saying they'd rather have one over-the-hill, 'sure thing' veteran than several low-risk, high-payoff rookies and castoffs from other teams.  And I appreciate that. But keep in mind, if any of the rookies or the castoffs prove to be anything, it'll mean Ainge will have additional chips for future trades. You don't get that with someone like P.J. Brown, or even Posey.

For instance, Leon Powe and Glen Davis are fairly redundant. So great, they're both young and have shown something.  Ainge will probably trade one of them when the time's right. And it might take several chips to get another franchise player.

[CoachBo]

This post is wack the Celtics organization did the best job they could!

Tanking a 2010 or 2011 season just to sign Posey for 4 years would have been awful.

A lot of vets also went to Europe. With this new trend every bench in the NBA will have unproven players sooner or later!

1) By any stretch of the imagination, Posey's $7 million in 2011 wouldn't have "tanked" the season. 

2) We didn't lose any players to Europe.  Regardless of what happens sooner or later, the Celts have the bench they do because of choice, not necessity.

The team wasn't forced to go with a bench full of unproven / unhealthy / poor players.  They deliberately made that choice.  I find it to be a bit surprising, but we'll see how it turns out.

The size of Posey's contract is turning out to be this blog's offshore drilling canard. His contract is peanuts, by NBA standards.

I agree. I am surprised - and disheartened - by the Posey situation and the summer in general. I see increased minutes for Garnett, Pierce and Allen, which translates into injuries, fatigue and problems late in the year.