People used to think you couldn't win with a score-first point guard, or without true inside offensive presence, or with two shoot first guards, or by playing small-ball. Then the Warriors won and their team success gave them 3 all-stars.
People used to think you need two great players to win a championship, but the Raptors only had one.
People used to think you could win with a space system focused on three point shooting, then the Spurs won.
I'm not saying the Cs are as good as the Warriors, Raptors, and Spurs. or there are direct comparisons to players. I'm just making the point that winning championship teams defy conventions in the team-building process all the time with success.
It seems to me the next great conventions that teams are trying to defy is to 1) get as big as possible in a flip of the small-ball era (the Raptors already arguably succeeded at that). Or 2) play a group of versatile players who can all do the same things and share the ball well.
Maybe Boston makes a trade eventually, but right now (and last year) it seemed like they were trying to defy convention by playing three small forwards together (and a big man in Al Horford who played like a small forward). There's plenty of blame to go around for why that failed, including the team-building done by Ainge. But I'm not sure they should give up on that yet.
Imagine a team that can attack you from every position on the court. Imagine a team where all the players can shoot, drive, pass, run the pick-and-roll, etc. Imagine a team that of guys that can regularly (not just occasionally) play defense successfully on ball, off ball, and inside.
That team is nasty. We've seen hints of it, or partially fulfillments of it with successful teams, but not the full iteration of that play style.
I think it's worth more time, especially if there is not a clear opportunity for advancement in roster construction where you are winning the trade.
What does this have to do with this thread? If their gameplan succeeds, we will have 3-4 all-stars.