Author Topic: Is there a reason we typically avoid adding veteran help?  (Read 5184 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Is there a reason we typically avoid adding veteran help?
« on: February 24, 2020, 09:47:19 PM »

Offline jade88

  • Brad Stevens
  • Posts: 221
  • Tommy Points: 20
I've noticed for years now that Danny avoids going after veteran bench players, almost like the plague or something.

Every team in the league looks to add some veteran scoring, defense, or whatever may have you. Just not us.

Our bench is so young, it's scary. I'm afraid that we just won't have enough, even if the stars play out of their minds. Do we really need 3-4 rookies on a contending team? Clippers and Lakers aren't doing that, neither is Houston or Milwaukee.

Why are ok with riding with what we have?

Re: Is there a reason we typically avoid adding veteran help?
« Reply #1 on: February 24, 2020, 10:48:24 PM »

Offline Fafnir

  • Bill Russell
  • ******************************
  • Posts: 30859
  • Tommy Points: 1327
He consistently added veteran help to KG/Pierce/Rondo/Allen teams.

He added IT3 to the team and they made playoff run in 2014-2015. Adding veteran help to a "tanking" team that ended up being not so terrible

The next year 2015-2016 he didn't add anyone

2016-2017 didn't add anyone

2017-2018 added Greg Monroe

2018-2019 didn't add anyone

2019-2020 hasn't added anyone yet

He's pretty consistent in saying that buy out guys don't add much. So I think its a combination of the really good buyout cases not wanting to go to Boston because they aren't top line contenders and can't offer a big role. Then the less guys aren't good enough for Danny to cut anyone on the roster for.

Last year in particular the C's were so dang deep no buyout guy would have gotten on the court. This year that's not true, but I think they're scarred from last season and don't want to disturb the locker room for a "Trey Burke" level player.

Re: Is there a reason we typically avoid adding veteran help?
« Reply #2 on: February 24, 2020, 10:53:02 PM »

Online ozgod

  • JoJo White
  • ****************
  • Posts: 16788
  • Tommy Points: 1362
I'm guessing it's because the right kind of veterans (i.e. not the ones that will just sit on the bench like an 11th man) are usually not available for the right price.

I think the vet that everyone wants to find is someone who is a) cheap; b) will be happy with variable minutes as an 8th man type; c) doesn't have higher ambitions or goals to max their contract and get shots and time; d) won't rock the boat from a locker room point of view; and e) can actually contribute i.e. score when needed whether it's playing 5 min or 25.

I would love to find a Lou Williams or even a JJ Redick type veteran...but those ones tend to cost money.

I feel like the reason our bench has been so maligned is because we've been injured most of the year, so some bench players have been starting and some of our rookies (like rookies) have shown they can't just come in and be microwave scorers, they need to play their way into the game which their lack of minutes won't allow. Also because last year we had a strong bench on paper (with Jaylen and Gordon coming off the bench) but nobody was happy with their role.
Any odd typos are because I suck at typing on an iPhone :D

Re: Is there a reason we typically avoid adding veteran help?
« Reply #3 on: February 24, 2020, 11:06:00 PM »

Offline Roy H.

  • Forums Manager
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 58554
  • Tommy Points: -25636
  • Bo Knows: Joe Don't Know Diddley
Buyout guys tend to be very hit or miss.

But, I do wonder why we didn’t add vets instead of Poirier and Green.  I understand that he was hoping for a Theis-like impact with Poirier, but reliable, cheap vets would really be useful right now.


I'M THE SILVERBACK GORILLA IN THIS MOTHER——— AND DON'T NONE OF YA'LL EVER FORGET IT!@ 34 minutes

Re: Is there a reason we typically avoid adding veteran help?
« Reply #4 on: February 25, 2020, 05:23:40 AM »

Offline RodyTur10

  • Jim Loscutoff
  • **
  • Posts: 2757
  • Tommy Points: 291
  • Always offline from 9pm till 3am
I've noticed for years now that Danny avoids going after veteran bench players, almost like the plague or something.

Every team in the league looks to add some veteran scoring, defense, or whatever may have you. Just not us.

Our bench is so young, it's scary. I'm afraid that we just won't have enough, even if the stars play out of their minds. Do we really need 3-4 rookies on a contending team? Clippers and Lakers aren't doing that, neither is Houston or Milwaukee.

Why are ok with riding with what we have?

You're absolutely right. This team has shown to be competitive with just everybody. Apart from the Bucks they don't need to fear any team. However they are not going to win the NBA title this year, unless they get really lucky.

The lack of experience is going to cost them 50/50 games (like last game in LA). Even though rookies as Langford and G.Williams have surprisingly well adjusted defensively to the NBA, they aren't going to be a big factor against elite competition.

If the Boston Celtics would've been serious about contending this season they should've made moves at the trade deadline. I find it a missed opportunity because you can rave about the promising future that lays ahead of us and that we shouldn't burn assets for short term success, the future is also uncertain.

A lot can happen. What if Walker gets seriously injured, loses his athletism and becomes a liability on court and financial wise? Or if Hayward leaves us because some team offers him a max contract?

I'm pleasantly surprised by the level the Celtics have played this year and I think they're right there. Of course the Bucks would be favorites, but are we just going to wait until there's not an elite team around (after the Warriors, now the Bucks)?

We didn't need to shake up the whole roster to make significant improvements for our bench. With all our assets (draft picks, rookies) we could have easily gotten some reliable veteran role players that can be trusted in the playoffs without damaging our future or creating locker room issues.

Right now we have 6 players (Walker, Tatum, Brown, Hayward, Theis, Smart) that can be trusted with heavy minutes. Then you have Wanamaker and Kanter who will (hopefully) just play some short stints. Everybody else is just a liability on either defense or offense. Rob Williams is the wildcard, and we will need him, but I'm not expecting too much after being out for months.

My expectation is that we'll finish 3rd in the conference, win our first playoff series (against Indiana?) and then play a very enjoyable series against the Raptors which we'll lose in 6 or 7.

Re: Is there a reason we typically avoid adding veteran help?
« Reply #5 on: February 25, 2020, 05:50:09 AM »

Offline Celtics4ever

  • NCE
  • Johnny Most
  • ********************
  • Posts: 20000
  • Tommy Points: 1323
Cost

Ainge's love of his picks

Re: Is there a reason we typically avoid adding veteran help?
« Reply #6 on: February 25, 2020, 06:55:32 AM »

Offline Fierce1

  • NGT
  • Jim Loscutoff
  • **
  • Posts: 2630
  • Tommy Points: 121
Maybe because Ainge knows Tatum and the rest of the starters will play 40 minutes per game in the playoffs.

None of the Celtic starters are 30 years old or older.

So who needs a bench when the starters can play 40 minutes per game!

Re: Is there a reason we typically avoid adding veteran help?
« Reply #7 on: February 25, 2020, 07:01:08 AM »

Offline NKY fan

  • Bailey Howell
  • **
  • Posts: 2349
  • Tommy Points: 106
Cost

Ainge's love of his picks
Celtics4ever,
I agree with you a lot more often lately lol. One thing that that may support Ainge's unwillingness to trade picks is that:
Stevens is able to consistently turn mediocre prospects like Grant Williams and Rozier to overachievers and contributors.

Re: Is there a reason we typically avoid adding veteran help?
« Reply #8 on: February 25, 2020, 08:04:50 AM »

Offline Fafnir

  • Bill Russell
  • ******************************
  • Posts: 30859
  • Tommy Points: 1327
Buyout guys tend to be very hit or miss.

But, I do wonder why we didn’t add vets instead of Poirier and Green.  I understand that he was hoping for a Theis-like impact with Poirier, but reliable, cheap vets would really be useful right now.
I think most of the good buyout guys are looking for rotation minutes or rings.

Guys can get both with either LA team, or the absolute best shot at a ring in Milwaukee (we know the C's and Kemba were pursuing Marvin Williams hard)

So this year the C's probably needed to trade for help, and clearly Dannny didn't want to ship out firsts for lower end roleplayers. The only guy they made an offer that included firsts that we know of was Bertans and he was apparently not on the market in the end.

Re: Is there a reason we typically avoid adding veteran help?
« Reply #9 on: February 25, 2020, 09:30:40 AM »

Offline timpiker

  • Don Chaney
  • *
  • Posts: 1696
  • Tommy Points: 112
Don't forget the Joe Johnson trade.

Re: Is there a reason we typically avoid adding veteran help?
« Reply #10 on: February 25, 2020, 09:34:26 AM »

Offline Donoghus

  • Global Moderator
  • Bill Russell
  • ******************************
  • Posts: 30939
  • Tommy Points: 1607
  • What a Pub Should Be
Don't forget the Joe Johnson trade.

That was the Wallace regime.


2010 CB Historical Draft - Best Overall Team

Re: Is there a reason we typically avoid adding veteran help?
« Reply #11 on: February 25, 2020, 12:22:49 PM »

Offline nyceltsfan

  • Jrue Holiday
  • Posts: 383
  • Tommy Points: 31
I hope I get this list right, but in the last big 3 era, didn't Ainge bring in the following midseason:

Mikki Moore
Ryan Hollins
Stephon Marbury
Nate Robinson
PJ Brown

Re: Is there a reason we typically avoid adding veteran help?
« Reply #12 on: February 25, 2020, 12:24:27 PM »

Offline PhoSita

  • NCE
  • Robert Parish
  • *********************
  • Posts: 21835
  • Tommy Points: 2182
Because they rarely make a difference.
You’ll have to excuse my lengthiness—the reason I dread writing letters is because I am so apt to get to slinging wisdom & forget to let up. Thus much precious time is lost.
- Mark Twain

Re: Is there a reason we typically avoid adding veteran help?
« Reply #13 on: February 25, 2020, 12:30:12 PM »

Offline fairweatherfan

  • Johnny Most
  • ********************
  • Posts: 20738
  • Tommy Points: 2365
  • Be the posts you wish to see in the world.
I hope I get this list right, but in the last big 3 era, didn't Ainge bring in the following midseason:

Mikki Moore
Ryan Hollins
Stephon Marbury
Nate Robinson
PJ Brown

Sam Cassell
Troy Murphy
Michael Finley

also note PJ came out of retirement, wasn't a buyout guy.

Re: Is there a reason we typically avoid adding veteran help?
« Reply #14 on: February 25, 2020, 12:35:52 PM »

Offline nyceltsfan

  • Jrue Holiday
  • Posts: 383
  • Tommy Points: 31
I hope I get this list right, but in the last big 3 era, didn't Ainge bring in the following midseason:

Mikki Moore
Ryan Hollins
Stephon Marbury
Nate Robinson
PJ Brown


Sam Cassell
Troy Murphy
Michael Finley

also note PJ came out of retirement, wasn't a buyout guy.

That's true.  I guess the difference is that the Big 3 teams were well tested veterans who have played with a lot of different teammates over the years, which may make it easier for them to assimilate, while the current crop of players is young and still building their chemistry.  We saw last year what a mix of the old and new got us and it did not end well.  Ainge must feel that the chemistry is best left the way it is right now.  (Although, I would love to get the King of the Fourth back for nostalgic reasons!)