What fans are actually saying when they express disappointment this offseason

[celticsclay]

I've been saying for a while that Boston needs to picks a direction and go with it.  That direction is either trying to build a contender and winning now or trying to build a contender for the future.  I just don't see this current path as sustainable and believe it will ultimately end up sabotaging whatever direction Boston ultimately chooses.  Boston is hoarding assets that could be used to build a real contender (George, Butler, Cousins, etc.).  At the same time, if the goal is to win a title around Brown and now Tatum and the future picks, then you hurt that goal by not allowing those players to get as many minutes as they can handle and by not acquiring future assets for the veterans.  We are already starting to see this come to fruition in trade of Bradley.  Had Bradley been moved earlier, he likely would have gotten more than Morris back in return (the trade also cost Boston a 2nd round pick).  Those problems will only multiply as more players contracts expire and more young players are added to the team.  The current salary structure just isn't sustainable for a team that isn't a realistic contender.

We're a contender right now if IT is healthy.

No we are not.  Boston would likely finish 5th in the West and no matter what the regular season records are, will be a fairly heavy underdog to a healthy Cavs team in the East.

A lot of people disagree with this. Vegas projects as for the same amount of wins as them this year. It is possible that they would be slight favorites but you got to stop saying this Cleveland being a word better stuff like it is fact. It is just your opinion and your opinion has refused to acknowledge Jame's age or the age of half their team

[gouki88]

I've been saying for a while that Boston needs to picks a direction and go with it.  That direction is either trying to build a contender and winning now or trying to build a contender for the future.  I just don't see this current path as sustainable and believe it will ultimately end up sabotaging whatever direction Boston ultimately chooses.  Boston is hoarding assets that could be used to build a real contender (George, Butler, Cousins, etc.).  At the same time, if the goal is to win a title around Brown and now Tatum and the future picks, then you hurt that goal by not allowing those players to get as many minutes as they can handle and by not acquiring future assets for the veterans.  We are already starting to see this come to fruition in trade of Bradley.  Had Bradley been moved earlier, he likely would have gotten more than Morris back in return (the trade also cost Boston a 2nd round pick).  Those problems will only multiply as more players contracts expire and more young players are added to the team.  The current salary structure just isn't sustainable for a team that isn't a realistic contender.

We're a contender right now if IT is healthy.

No we are not.  Boston would likely finish 5th in the West and no matter what the regular season records are, will be a fairly heavy underdog to a healthy Cavs team in the East.

A lot of people disagree with this. Vegas projects as for the same amount of wins as them this year. It is possible that they would be slight favorites but you got to stop saying this Cleveland being a word better stuff like it is fact. It is just your opinion and your opinion has refused to acknowledge Jame's age or the age of half their team

This whole "Cleveland is a tier above" stuff is incredibly tiresome.

[PickNRoll]

The Celtics are in the most enviable position of any team in the league, IMO, and that includes GSW.

I didn't say the Celtics are a better team.  I think the organization is in the most enviable position [over the next 3-10 years].  Warriors are staring down a potential $200M repeater luxury tax in a couple years to keep this roster together.  Just TAX.  Durant played 27, 72, and 62 games the past 3 years.  Iguodala is on the books for 17M through 2020.  He turns 34 this year.  A LOT can go wrong with this dynasty.

[celticsclay]

I've been saying for a while that Boston needs to picks a direction and go with it.  That direction is either trying to build a contender and winning now or trying to build a contender for the future.  I just don't see this current path as sustainable and believe it will ultimately end up sabotaging whatever direction Boston ultimately chooses.  Boston is hoarding assets that could be used to build a real contender (George, Butler, Cousins, etc.).  At the same time, if the goal is to win a title around Brown and now Tatum and the future picks, then you hurt that goal by not allowing those players to get as many minutes as they can handle and by not acquiring future assets for the veterans.  We are already starting to see this come to fruition in trade of Bradley.  Had Bradley been moved earlier, he likely would have gotten more than Morris back in return (the trade also cost Boston a 2nd round pick).  Those problems will only multiply as more players contracts expire and more young players are added to the team.  The current salary structure just isn't sustainable for a team that isn't a realistic contender.

We're a contender right now if IT is healthy.

No we are not.  Boston would likely finish 5th in the West and no matter what the regular season records are, will be a fairly heavy underdog to a healthy Cavs team in the East.

A lot of people disagree with this. Vegas projects as for the same amount of wins as them this year. It is possible that they would be slight favorites but you got to stop saying this Cleveland being a word better stuff like it is fact. It is just your opinion and your opinion has refused to acknowledge Jame's age or the age of half their team

This whole "Cleveland is a tier above" stuff is incredibly tiresome.

It's bizarre cause it is so lazy. We have enough data to know that players decline when they are 33. It is also common sense that players become train wrecks over night when they are 36, 37 and 38. The cavs just keep bringing back the same aincent core and adding new younger players. Meanwhile players that are good prospects improve dramatically between 22-25 and we have smart and brown in this range, to say nothing of Tatum being a solid role player as a rookie

[Moranis]

I've been saying for a while that Boston needs to picks a direction and go with it.  That direction is either trying to build a contender and winning now or trying to build a contender for the future.  I just don't see this current path as sustainable and believe it will ultimately end up sabotaging whatever direction Boston ultimately chooses.  Boston is hoarding assets that could be used to build a real contender (George, Butler, Cousins, etc.).  At the same time, if the goal is to win a title around Brown and now Tatum and the future picks, then you hurt that goal by not allowing those players to get as many minutes as they can handle and by not acquiring future assets for the veterans.  We are already starting to see this come to fruition in trade of Bradley.  Had Bradley been moved earlier, he likely would have gotten more than Morris back in return (the trade also cost Boston a 2nd round pick).  Those problems will only multiply as more players contracts expire and more young players are added to the team.  The current salary structure just isn't sustainable for a team that isn't a realistic contender.

We're a contender right now if IT is healthy.

No we are not.  Boston would likely finish 5th in the West and no matter what the regular season records are, will be a fairly heavy underdog to a healthy Cavs team in the East.

Why does Vegas rate them 3/4th overall to win it all?

Vegas odds have nothing to do with which team is better.  They have to do with all sorts of factors.  I mean take a team like Oklahoma City or Minnesota.  Their first round is likely against the other, the second round is against the Warriors, the WCF would like be Houston or San Antonio and then the Finals would likely be against the Cavs.  There is almost no way the Thunder or the Wolves would win all 4 of those match-ups.  The Celtics on the other hand should cruise into the ECF to face the Cavs and then would have whatever team comes out of the West.  That is a much more manageable road, but it certainly doesn't mean in a vacuum that Boston is better than the Wolves or Thunder (might be, might not be). 

[nickagneta]

To me, you have to do what's best for the team overall, including making money. The George trade, which I would have made by offering Crowder, Smart and the Laker's pick whether we got Hayward or not, was something you have to do. George is arguably a top 10 player in this league. When you have a chance to get a player like that for so little you have to do it. Then next year you convince him to stay. 4 stars on this team with Brown, Baynes, Tatum, Rozier, Theis, Zizic and a couple of ring chasing vets on mins would have been a force.

That said I see why Ainge didn't include the LA pick in trade talks and didn't go for Pritchard's commit now or I am going elsewhere move. PG in the end could just have been a one year rental and Smart, Crowder and the LA pick is a lot to guve up for a rental. So in the end, I am tremendously happy with the offseason, even more so if the LA pick gets us a #2 or #3 pick in next year's draft.

[celticsclay]

I've been saying for a while that Boston needs to picks a direction and go with it.  That direction is either trying to build a contender and winning now or trying to build a contender for the future.  I just don't see this current path as sustainable and believe it will ultimately end up sabotaging whatever direction Boston ultimately chooses.  Boston is hoarding assets that could be used to build a real contender (George, Butler, Cousins, etc.).  At the same time, if the goal is to win a title around Brown and now Tatum and the future picks, then you hurt that goal by not allowing those players to get as many minutes as they can handle and by not acquiring future assets for the veterans.  We are already starting to see this come to fruition in trade of Bradley.  Had Bradley been moved earlier, he likely would have gotten more than Morris back in return (the trade also cost Boston a 2nd round pick).  Those problems will only multiply as more players contracts expire and more young players are added to the team.  The current salary structure just isn't sustainable for a team that isn't a realistic contender.

We're a contender right now if IT is healthy.

No we are not.  Boston would likely finish 5th in the West and no matter what the regular season records are, will be a fairly heavy underdog to a healthy Cavs team in the East.

Why does Vegas rate them 3/4th overall to win it all?

Vegas odds have nothing to do with which team is better.  They have to do with all sorts of factors.  I mean take a team like Oklahoma City or Minnesota.  Their first round is likely against the other, the second round is against the Warriors, the WCF would like be Houston or San Antonio and then the Finals would likely be against the Cavs.  There is almost no way the Thunder or the Wolves would win all 4 of those match-ups.  The Celtics on the other hand should cruise into the ECF to face the Cavs and then would have whatever team comes out of the West.  That is a much more manageable road, but it certainly doesn't mean in a vacuum that Boston is better than the Wolves or Thunder (might be, might not be).

Moranis you are in way over your head and know nothing about Vegas lines. I've talked to you enough on here to know that so don't take this little
Charade any further

[mobilija]

I've been saying for a while that Boston needs to picks a direction and go with it.  That direction is either trying to build a contender and winning now or trying to build a contender for the future.  I just don't see this current path as sustainable and believe it will ultimately end up sabotaging whatever direction Boston ultimately chooses.  Boston is hoarding assets that could be used to build a real contender (George, Butler, Cousins, etc.).  At the same time, if the goal is to win a title around Brown and now Tatum and the future picks, then you hurt that goal by not allowing those players to get as many minutes as they can handle and by not acquiring future assets for the veterans.  We are already starting to see this come to fruition in trade of Bradley.  Had Bradley been moved earlier, he likely would have gotten more than Morris back in return (the trade also cost Boston a 2nd round pick).  Those problems will only multiply as more players contracts expire and more young players are added to the team.  The current salary structure just isn't sustainable for a team that isn't a realistic contender.

We're a contender right now if IT is healthy.

No we are not.  Boston would likely finish 5th in the West and no matter what the regular season records are, will be a fairly heavy underdog to a healthy Cavs team in the East.

Why does Vegas rate them 3/4th overall to win it all?

Vegas odds have nothing to do with which team is better.  They have to do with all sorts of factors.  I mean take a team like Oklahoma City or Minnesota.  Their first round is likely against the other, the second round is against the Warriors, the WCF would like be Houston or San Antonio and then the Finals would likely be against the Cavs.  There is almost no way the Thunder or the Wolves would win all 4 of those match-ups.  The Celtics on the other hand should cruise into the ECF to face the Cavs and then would have whatever team comes out of the West.  That is a much more manageable road, but it certainly doesn't mean in a vacuum that Boston is better than the Wolves or Thunder (might be, might not be).

So you are saying that we get through the east and the aging Cavs we only have to beat 1 western team for the championship! Vegas and I like those odds (and so do you, you just don't realize it).
ANYTHING IS POSSIBLE!

[Moranis]

I've been saying for a while that Boston needs to picks a direction and go with it.  That direction is either trying to build a contender and winning now or trying to build a contender for the future.  I just don't see this current path as sustainable and believe it will ultimately end up sabotaging whatever direction Boston ultimately chooses.  Boston is hoarding assets that could be used to build a real contender (George, Butler, Cousins, etc.).  At the same time, if the goal is to win a title around Brown and now Tatum and the future picks, then you hurt that goal by not allowing those players to get as many minutes as they can handle and by not acquiring future assets for the veterans.  We are already starting to see this come to fruition in trade of Bradley.  Had Bradley been moved earlier, he likely would have gotten more than Morris back in return (the trade also cost Boston a 2nd round pick).  Those problems will only multiply as more players contracts expire and more young players are added to the team.  The current salary structure just isn't sustainable for a team that isn't a realistic contender.

We're a contender right now if IT is healthy.

No we are not.  Boston would likely finish 5th in the West and no matter what the regular season records are, will be a fairly heavy underdog to a healthy Cavs team in the East.

Why does Vegas rate them 3/4th overall to win it all?

Vegas odds have nothing to do with which team is better.  They have to do with all sorts of factors.  I mean take a team like Oklahoma City or Minnesota.  Their first round is likely against the other, the second round is against the Warriors, the WCF would like be Houston or San Antonio and then the Finals would likely be against the Cavs.  There is almost no way the Thunder or the Wolves would win all 4 of those match-ups.  The Celtics on the other hand should cruise into the ECF to face the Cavs and then would have whatever team comes out of the West.  That is a much more manageable road, but it certainly doesn't mean in a vacuum that Boston is better than the Wolves or Thunder (might be, might not be).

Moranis you are in way over your head and know nothing about Vegas lines. I've talked to you enough on here to know that so don't take this little
Charade any further

Vegas lines are designed to get an equal number of bets on either side of the line and obviously account for conference, opponents, etc. 

Put it this way, do you really think Boston is better than San Antonio or Houston? 

[mobilija]

I've been saying for a while that Boston needs to picks a direction and go with it.  That direction is either trying to build a contender and winning now or trying to build a contender for the future.  I just don't see this current path as sustainable and believe it will ultimately end up sabotaging whatever direction Boston ultimately chooses.  Boston is hoarding assets that could be used to build a real contender (George, Butler, Cousins, etc.).  At the same time, if the goal is to win a title around Brown and now Tatum and the future picks, then you hurt that goal by not allowing those players to get as many minutes as they can handle and by not acquiring future assets for the veterans.  We are already starting to see this come to fruition in trade of Bradley.  Had Bradley been moved earlier, he likely would have gotten more than Morris back in return (the trade also cost Boston a 2nd round pick).  Those problems will only multiply as more players contracts expire and more young players are added to the team.  The current salary structure just isn't sustainable for a team that isn't a realistic contender.

We're a contender right now if IT is healthy.

No we are not.  Boston would likely finish 5th in the West and no matter what the regular season records are, will be a fairly heavy underdog to a healthy Cavs team in the East.

Why does Vegas rate them 3/4th overall to win it all?

Vegas odds have nothing to do with which team is better.  They have to do with all sorts of factors.  I mean take a team like Oklahoma City or Minnesota.  Their first round is likely against the other, the second round is against the Warriors, the WCF would like be Houston or San Antonio and then the Finals would likely be against the Cavs.  There is almost no way the Thunder or the Wolves would win all 4 of those match-ups.  The Celtics on the other hand should cruise into the ECF to face the Cavs and then would have whatever team comes out of the West.  That is a much more manageable road, but it certainly doesn't mean in a vacuum that Boston is better than the Wolves or Thunder (might be, might not be).

Moranis you are in way over your head and know nothing about Vegas lines. I've talked to you enough on here to know that so don't take this little
Charade any further

Vegas lines are designed to get an equal number of bets on either side of the line and obviously account for conference, opponents, etc. 

Put it this way, do you really think Boston is better than San Antonio or Houston?

You're confused buddy. We're taliking about being a contender and the chance or likelihood of winning a championship. That's what the vegas line is about, the whole enchilada. Not a team by team ranking.

[Moranis]

I've been saying for a while that Boston needs to picks a direction and go with it.  That direction is either trying to build a contender and winning now or trying to build a contender for the future.  I just don't see this current path as sustainable and believe it will ultimately end up sabotaging whatever direction Boston ultimately chooses.  Boston is hoarding assets that could be used to build a real contender (George, Butler, Cousins, etc.).  At the same time, if the goal is to win a title around Brown and now Tatum and the future picks, then you hurt that goal by not allowing those players to get as many minutes as they can handle and by not acquiring future assets for the veterans.  We are already starting to see this come to fruition in trade of Bradley.  Had Bradley been moved earlier, he likely would have gotten more than Morris back in return (the trade also cost Boston a 2nd round pick).  Those problems will only multiply as more players contracts expire and more young players are added to the team.  The current salary structure just isn't sustainable for a team that isn't a realistic contender.

We're a contender right now if IT is healthy.

No we are not.  Boston would likely finish 5th in the West and no matter what the regular season records are, will be a fairly heavy underdog to a healthy Cavs team in the East.

Why does Vegas rate them 3/4th overall to win it all?

Vegas odds have nothing to do with which team is better.  They have to do with all sorts of factors.  I mean take a team like Oklahoma City or Minnesota.  Their first round is likely against the other, the second round is against the Warriors, the WCF would like be Houston or San Antonio and then the Finals would likely be against the Cavs.  There is almost no way the Thunder or the Wolves would win all 4 of those match-ups.  The Celtics on the other hand should cruise into the ECF to face the Cavs and then would have whatever team comes out of the West.  That is a much more manageable road, but it certainly doesn't mean in a vacuum that Boston is better than the Wolves or Thunder (might be, might not be).

Moranis you are in way over your head and know nothing about Vegas lines. I've talked to you enough on here to know that so don't take this little
Charade any further

Vegas lines are designed to get an equal number of bets on either side of the line and obviously account for conference, opponents, etc. 

Put it this way, do you really think Boston is better than San Antonio or Houston?

You're confused buddy. We're taliking about being a contender and the chance or likelihood of winning a championship. That's what the vegas line is about, the whole enchilada. Not a team by team ranking.

I'm not confused at all.  I answered the question on why Boston's odds were the 3rd or 4th best, and yet why I don't believe they are a real contender.  A team that will be a significant underdog in 2 playoff series (assuming health), is not a real contender. 

For the record, this year I believe there are 4 real contenders - Golden State, San Antonio, Houston, and Cleveland.  I'd put Boston in the same general class as Oklahoma City and Minnesota i.e. teams that might be able to pull 1 major upset, but not 2 (which is what it would take for those 3 teams). 

[mobilija]

To me, you have to do what's best for the team overall, including making money. The George trade, which I would have made by offering Crowder, Smart and the Laker's pick whether we got Hayward or not, was something you have to do. George is arguably a top 10 player in this league. When you have a chance to get a player like that for so little you have to do it. Then next year you convince him to stay. 4 stars on this team with Brown, Baynes, Tatum, Rozier, Theis, Zizic and a couple of ring chasing vets on mins would have been a force.

That said I see why Ainge didn't include the LA pick in trade talks and didn't go for Pritchard's commit now or I am going elsewhere move. PG in the end could just have been a one year rental and Smart, Crowder and the LA pick is a lot to guve up for a rental. So in the end, I am tremendously happy with the offseason, even more so if the LA pick gets us a #2 or #3 pick in next year's draft.

You're so darn reasonable. I should just skip all the other posts and just read yours....
TP for you today and I'm sure many others to follow.

[celticsclay]

I've been saying for a while that Boston needs to picks a direction and go with it.  That direction is either trying to build a contender and winning now or trying to build a contender for the future.  I just don't see this current path as sustainable and believe it will ultimately end up sabotaging whatever direction Boston ultimately chooses.  Boston is hoarding assets that could be used to build a real contender (George, Butler, Cousins, etc.).  At the same time, if the goal is to win a title around Brown and now Tatum and the future picks, then you hurt that goal by not allowing those players to get as many minutes as they can handle and by not acquiring future assets for the veterans.  We are already starting to see this come to fruition in trade of Bradley.  Had Bradley been moved earlier, he likely would have gotten more than Morris back in return (the trade also cost Boston a 2nd round pick).  Those problems will only multiply as more players contracts expire and more young players are added to the team.  The current salary structure just isn't sustainable for a team that isn't a realistic contender.

We're a contender right now if IT is healthy.

No we are not.  Boston would likely finish 5th in the West and no matter what the regular season records are, will be a fairly heavy underdog to a healthy Cavs team in the East.

Why does Vegas rate them 3/4th overall to win it all?

Vegas odds have nothing to do with which team is better.  They have to do with all sorts of factors.  I mean take a team like Oklahoma City or Minnesota.  Their first round is likely against the other, the second round is against the Warriors, the WCF would like be Houston or San Antonio and then the Finals would likely be against the Cavs.  There is almost no way the Thunder or the Wolves would win all 4 of those match-ups.  The Celtics on the other hand should cruise into the ECF to face the Cavs and then would have whatever team comes out of the West.  That is a much more manageable road, but it certainly doesn't mean in a vacuum that Boston is better than the Wolves or Thunder (might be, might not be).

Moranis you are in way over your head and know nothing about Vegas lines. I've talked to you enough on here to know that so don't take this little
Charade any further

Vegas lines are designed to get an equal number of bets on either side of the line and obviously account for conference, opponents, etc. 

Put it this way, do you really think Boston is better than San Antonio or Houston?

If you really want me to educate you on lines and how they work and what they are for upcoming seasons I will. Houston is pegged for 2 more wins than Boston right now. Spurs have not been released on the sites I trust yet. With the loss of dedmon, Parker missing most of the season and possibly having an injured gay for part of the first half I predict they will be lower than the Celtics by a game. I will update you when it is announced. The cavs are projected for the same exact wins as the Celtics. A lot can and will change before the next playoffs but if it happened in a vacuum Cleveland would be dogs to the Celtics if the Celtics had home court and there were no late season injuries. This agenda you have pushed that the cavs are a significant level above the Celtics is not something that the extremely smart people paid millions of dollars currently believe and I trust them a lot more than you.

[Moranis]

I've been saying for a while that Boston needs to picks a direction and go with it.  That direction is either trying to build a contender and winning now or trying to build a contender for the future.  I just don't see this current path as sustainable and believe it will ultimately end up sabotaging whatever direction Boston ultimately chooses.  Boston is hoarding assets that could be used to build a real contender (George, Butler, Cousins, etc.).  At the same time, if the goal is to win a title around Brown and now Tatum and the future picks, then you hurt that goal by not allowing those players to get as many minutes as they can handle and by not acquiring future assets for the veterans.  We are already starting to see this come to fruition in trade of Bradley.  Had Bradley been moved earlier, he likely would have gotten more than Morris back in return (the trade also cost Boston a 2nd round pick).  Those problems will only multiply as more players contracts expire and more young players are added to the team.  The current salary structure just isn't sustainable for a team that isn't a realistic contender.

We're a contender right now if IT is healthy.

No we are not.  Boston would likely finish 5th in the West and no matter what the regular season records are, will be a fairly heavy underdog to a healthy Cavs team in the East.

Why does Vegas rate them 3/4th overall to win it all?

Vegas odds have nothing to do with which team is better.  They have to do with all sorts of factors.  I mean take a team like Oklahoma City or Minnesota.  Their first round is likely against the other, the second round is against the Warriors, the WCF would like be Houston or San Antonio and then the Finals would likely be against the Cavs.  There is almost no way the Thunder or the Wolves would win all 4 of those match-ups.  The Celtics on the other hand should cruise into the ECF to face the Cavs and then would have whatever team comes out of the West.  That is a much more manageable road, but it certainly doesn't mean in a vacuum that Boston is better than the Wolves or Thunder (might be, might not be).

Moranis you are in way over your head and know nothing about Vegas lines. I've talked to you enough on here to know that so don't take this little
Charade any further

Vegas lines are designed to get an equal number of bets on either side of the line and obviously account for conference, opponents, etc. 

Put it this way, do you really think Boston is better than San Antonio or Houston?

If you really want me to educate you on lines and how they work and what they are for upcoming seasons I will. Houston is pegged for 2 more wins than Boston right now. Spurs have not been released on the sites I trust yet. With the loss of dedmon, Parker missing most of the season and possibly having an injured gay for part of the first half I predict they will be lower than the Celtics by a game. I will update you when it is announced. The cavs are projected for the same exact wins as the Celtics. A lot can and will change before the next playoffs but if it happened in a vacuum Cleveland would be dogs to the Celtics if the Celtics had home court and there were no late season injuries. This agenda you have pushed that the cavs are a significant level above the Celtics is not something that the extremely smart people paid millions of dollars currently believe and I trust them a lot more than you.

Cleveland has the 2nd best championship odds at +500 (GS is -170).  Boston, after Hayward, is +750 with the 3rd best odds, ahead of both Houston and San Antonio which are +1000.  http://heavy.com/sports/2017/07/nba-championship-odds-2018-gordon-hayward-celtics-cavaliers-warriors/

+- for total wins is not the same thing as championship odds, and championship odds are not the same thing as which team is better.

So I ask again, is Boston better than Houston and San Antonio?

[celticsclay]

I've been saying for a while that Boston needs to picks a direction and go with it.  That direction is either trying to build a contender and winning now or trying to build a contender for the future.  I just don't see this current path as sustainable and believe it will ultimately end up sabotaging whatever direction Boston ultimately chooses.  Boston is hoarding assets that could be used to build a real contender (George, Butler, Cousins, etc.).  At the same time, if the goal is to win a title around Brown and now Tatum and the future picks, then you hurt that goal by not allowing those players to get as many minutes as they can handle and by not acquiring future assets for the veterans.  We are already starting to see this come to fruition in trade of Bradley.  Had Bradley been moved earlier, he likely would have gotten more than Morris back in return (the trade also cost Boston a 2nd round pick).  Those problems will only multiply as more players contracts expire and more young players are added to the team.  The current salary structure just isn't sustainable for a team that isn't a realistic contender.

We're a contender right now if IT is healthy.

No we are not.  Boston would likely finish 5th in the West and no matter what the regular season records are, will be a fairly heavy underdog to a healthy Cavs team in the East.

Why does Vegas rate them 3/4th overall to win it all?

Vegas odds have nothing to do with which team is better.  They have to do with all sorts of factors.  I mean take a team like Oklahoma City or Minnesota.  Their first round is likely against the other, the second round is against the Warriors, the WCF would like be Houston or San Antonio and then the Finals would likely be against the Cavs.  There is almost no way the Thunder or the Wolves would win all 4 of those match-ups.  The Celtics on the other hand should cruise into the ECF to face the Cavs and then would have whatever team comes out of the West.  That is a much more manageable road, but it certainly doesn't mean in a vacuum that Boston is better than the Wolves or Thunder (might be, might not be).

Moranis you are in way over your head and know nothing about Vegas lines. I've talked to you enough on here to know that so don't take this little
Charade any further

Vegas lines are designed to get an equal number of bets on either side of the line and obviously account for conference, opponents, etc. 

Put it this way, do you really think Boston is better than San Antonio or Houston?

If you really want me to educate you on lines and how they work and what they are for upcoming seasons I will. Houston is pegged for 2 more wins than Boston right now. Spurs have not been released on the sites I trust yet. With the loss of dedmon, Parker missing most of the season and possibly having an injured gay for part of the first half I predict they will be lower than the Celtics by a game. I will update you when it is announced. The cavs are projected for the same exact wins as the Celtics. A lot can and will change before the next playoffs but if it happened in a vacuum Cleveland would be dogs to the Celtics if the Celtics had home court and there were no late season injuries. This agenda you have pushed that the cavs are a significant level above the Celtics is not something that the extremely smart people paid millions of dollars currently believe and I trust them a lot more than you.

Cleveland has the 2nd best championship odds at +500 (GS is -170).  Boston, after Hayward, is +750 with the 3rd best odds, ahead of both Houston and San Antonio which are +1000.  http://heavy.com/sports/2017/07/nba-championship-odds-2018-gordon-hayward-celtics-cavaliers-warriors/

+- for total wins is not the same thing as championship odds, and championship odds are not the same thing as which team is better.

So I ask again, is Boston better than Houston and San Antonio?

As of right now they are better than Spurs. Houston is impossible to answer cause they have a new team. Probably won't be something we can answer till we see how much Chris Paul helps them. You inadvertently made my point with your post though. Plus +500 odds and +750 odds to win the championship is not a significant difference. If both teams don't make any moves they would cross paths at some point in the season. This is the opposite of the Boston "would be a heavy underdog" statement you made earlier. Thank you for taking my side. PS I really hope you never bet moranis. If you do pm me before hand