Ainge says Red Kept the Big Three too Long

[BballTim]

Why would Portland trade Roy and Aldridge for a couple of years of KG, especially when it leaves them with little talent to surround him with?  Deng + KG isn't going to come close to a championship.

Also, Kirilenko still has a bad contract, and has cracked under pressure in the past.  That particular part of the trade, I'd pass on.

I think Ainge's "trade the Big Three" philosophy is flawed.  It's unlikely that trading any of the Big Three would have increased the Celts chances at a championship, even if it would have delayed the rebuilding process for awhile.  The team did the right thing by keeping its core together as long as possible; they pretty much stayed in legit title contention until Larry retired, which is as good as they could have done had they traded one of them.

Of course, it's interesting to see how this philosophy is playing out with this team.  The team passed on Posey, because of how it might have impacted financial flexibility in four years.  The team signed POB and kept two rookies on the roster, despite them not making contributions to this year's team. 

The question is, does it make sense to worry about four years from now, or should you maximize your opportunity to win in the future?  I'm of the latter mindset:  since we have three elite players who are approaching the end of their primes, you need to do everything in your power to win now.  You don't worry about down the road, and you don't worry about trading them away.

Which is precisely the vexing element of Danny's general inaction and lack of success this summer.

It makes NO sense whatsoever to make the deals that were made in the summer of 2007 - especially moving Jefferson - to revert back to pinching pennies a summer later. You bought three or four years of a championship window, now maximize it. Danny thus far failed to maximize anything last summer.

And Nick, this is where we disagree. No competent 5, no shooter, no title. And no Eastern Conference title, either.

  I don't think it's written in stone that Danny's not going to trade Ray for someone younger and lengthen our window. If he does then we're better off not having Posey's salary weighing us down.

but that's not the window Danny was working for....he offered Pose a three year deal at the full MLE (or close to it)...

plus, how is it better to not have Pose's salary on the books in 09-10? Why wouldn't you actaully still want Pose on your team next year regardless of what you did with Ray? Is Pose gonna totally lose his game next year?

  Ainge offered Posey a 2 year deal and then increased it to 3 years in an attempt to sign him. I guess he was willing to pay him for 1 year when he wasn't going to be worth it but not 2 years. You have to draw the line somewhere.

[winsomme]

The 2nd unit looks as weak as it does because of the style in which Doc coaches, with little mixing and matching of starters and bench players. This will not be the case in the playoffs. Our bench last year wasn't particularly good either even with Posey in there. I also find it interesting when people talk about spreading the floor with him in the 4 spot, when by enlarge people around here hated Doc using Posey as the 4 (and our lack of height in the bench would mean that Posey at the 4 would be even worse this year up to this point).

Eddie, Powe and Posey were very effective last year....the addition of PJ only made it that much better.

plus, the criticisms of small ball were totally undressed after we basically won game 4 of the Finals because of it...had we lost that game, who knows how that series would have gone..

[BballTim]

More importantly, if no good deal for Ray Allen presents itself, Ainge will have the cap space for a blue chip free agent in 2010. That would not have been the case has the team kept Posey.

Actually, and Roy discussed this at length in his "Salary Cap:FAQ's" thread. Apparently they will have only slightly over the MLE avaiable at best in 2010 according to Roy's calculations.

   Maybe if he can't get anything decent for Ray he extends him for 1 year at a high salary. There's a decent chance that there will be at least 1 good deal on the market in the next 2 years...

[BballTim]

The 2nd unit looks as weak as it does because of the style in which Doc coaches, with little mixing and matching of starters and bench players. This will not be the case in the playoffs. Our bench last year wasn't particularly good either even with Posey in there. I also find it interesting when people talk about spreading the floor with him in the 4 spot, when by enlarge people around here hated Doc using Posey as the 4 (and our lack of height in the bench would mean that Posey at the 4 would be even worse this year up to this point).

Eddie, Powe and Posey were very effective last year....the addition of PJ only made it that much better.

plus, the criticisms of small ball were totally undressed after we basically won game 4 of the Finals because of it...had we lost that game, who knows how that series would have gone..

  One game doesn't undress the criticisms of small ball any more than one good game from Tony Allen undresses the claims that we should have signed Posey.

[winsomme]

Why would Portland trade Roy and Aldridge for a couple of years of KG, especially when it leaves them with little talent to surround him with?  Deng + KG isn't going to come close to a championship.

Also, Kirilenko still has a bad contract, and has cracked under pressure in the past.  That particular part of the trade, I'd pass on.

I think Ainge's "trade the Big Three" philosophy is flawed.  It's unlikely that trading any of the Big Three would have increased the Celts chances at a championship, even if it would have delayed the rebuilding process for awhile.  The team did the right thing by keeping its core together as long as possible; they pretty much stayed in legit title contention until Larry retired, which is as good as they could have done had they traded one of them.

Of course, it's interesting to see how this philosophy is playing out with this team.  The team passed on Posey, because of how it might have impacted financial flexibility in four years.  The team signed POB and kept two rookies on the roster, despite them not making contributions to this year's team. 

The question is, does it make sense to worry about four years from now, or should you maximize your opportunity to win in the future?  I'm of the latter mindset:  since we have three elite players who are approaching the end of their primes, you need to do everything in your power to win now.  You don't worry about down the road, and you don't worry about trading them away.

Which is precisely the vexing element of Danny's general inaction and lack of success this summer.

It makes NO sense whatsoever to make the deals that were made in the summer of 2007 - especially moving Jefferson - to revert back to pinching pennies a summer later. You bought three or four years of a championship window, now maximize it. Danny thus far failed to maximize anything last summer.

And Nick, this is where we disagree. No competent 5, no shooter, no title. And no Eastern Conference title, either.

  I don't think it's written in stone that Danny's not going to trade Ray for someone younger and lengthen our window. If he does then we're better off not having Posey's salary weighing us down.

but that's not the window Danny was working for....he offered Pose a three year deal at the full MLE (or close to it)...

plus, how is it better to not have Pose's salary on the books in 09-10? Why wouldn't you actaully still want Pose on your team next year regardless of what you did with Ray? Is Pose gonna totally lose his game next year?

  Ainge offered Posey a 2 year deal and then increased it to 3 years in an attempt to sign him. I guess he was willing to pay him for 1 year when he wasn't going to be worth it but not 2 years. You have to draw the line somewhere.

we actually don't even know for sure that DA wouldn't have gone to 4 if given the chance to match. there's a difference between analyzing the market for a player and actually thinking that player isn't worth it. you can like a player and still not want to pay him more than his market value.

but the point i was making was in reference to having Pose on the books when deciding what to do with Ray. and i still don't see how having Pose around would adversely affect that decision process.

[winsomme]

The 2nd unit looks as weak as it does because of the style in which Doc coaches, with little mixing and matching of starters and bench players. This will not be the case in the playoffs. Our bench last year wasn't particularly good either even with Posey in there. I also find it interesting when people talk about spreading the floor with him in the 4 spot, when by enlarge people around here hated Doc using Posey as the 4 (and our lack of height in the bench would mean that Posey at the 4 would be even worse this year up to this point).

Eddie, Powe and Posey were very effective last year....the addition of PJ only made it that much better.

plus, the criticisms of small ball were totally undressed after we basically won game 4 of the Finals because of it...had we lost that game, who knows how that series would have gone..

  One game doesn't undress the criticisms of small ball any more than one good game from Tony Allen undresses the claims that we should have signed Posey.

IMO it does given the magnitude of the game. many believed the lineup useless. clearly not useless.

[BudweiserCeltic]

I disagree here as well - a lot.

What's been wildly exaggerated is the lack of value to this team of a player who's very good - admittedly not great - at a variety of skills: shooting, defense, rebounding, court intelligence, work ethic, etc. This board as a whole just doesn't grasp the value of versatility on a bench - and apparently neither does Ainge.

I could agree to an extent with the value of adding young talent if Ainge had added any. But beyond Rondo, to insinuate there's anything else young with star potential on this roster is a wild exaggeration in and of itself.

And Rondo himself isn't going to get there until he puts in the work to develop a shot.

I agree here. Ainge filled his bench with projects and one dimensional players this off season and no versatility.

If Doc needs outside shooting he has Eddie, but he gives you little else.
If Doc needs slashing he has Tony, but he gives you little else. And before everyone goes off about him be a defensive specialist/stopper, remember, two coaches have publicly critcized his defense saying it wasn't nearly as good as some have perceived.
If he wants height he has POB but he gives you little else, very little.

Someone said that even if he had signed Posey would that have allieviated the problems at backup center and backup PG. No it wouldn't have. But he didn't sign Posey and the holes at Backup center and backup PG haven't still haven't been addressed and now we have a hole at back up SF.

Lastly, CoachBo, the reason I think the Celtics still stand as good of a chance as any to win it all has to do with pure, unadulterated luck. There is just no way that Danny could have envisioned Rondo going from where he was to near All-Star status in one off season nor could he have counted on Perk taking the leap in his development that he did given the fact that Perk couldn't do anything basketball related all summer due to shoulder surgery. He got lucky. [dang] lucky. So because of the extraordinary jump that Perk and Rondo have had, the C's can make up for the fact that Ainge bungled the off season and a player like Powe can take a step backward in his development.

The problem in our lineup has rarely come from the SF spot. It seems that way as of late because Tony (capable of playing 3 positions, how's that for versatility?) has been injured, but throughout the year not having a legit SF has not really hurt us at all.

I'm quite aware that the PG and C needs haven't been addressed YET. The difference, again, we still have financials to fill them. If Danny fails to improve this team, then sure have at him, but we're at the halfway point of the season and Ainge is not out of options. And we still haven't seen what Cassell can bring to this team (even if I think his signing was a mistake it might end up being a brilliant move).

The 2nd unit looks as weak as it does because of the style in which Doc coaches, with little mixing and matching of starters and bench players. This will not be the case in the playoffs. Our bench last year wasn't particularly good either even with Posey in there. I also find it interesting when people talk about spreading the floor with him in the 4 spot, when by enlarge people around here hated Doc using Posey as the 4 (and our lack of height in the bench would mean that Posey at the 4 would be even worse this year up to this point).

There was definitely a hue and cry around here against "Small Ball" last year which almost always had Posey at the 4. But in reality, until PJ came aboard, did Doc have any choice? he had a terribly small sized bench with just about everyone undersized for their position except Posey at the 3.

As for Tony's versatility, he might be able to play three positions but he plays 2 of them horribly. Not sure that exampleworks for your discussion.

The Tony comment was meant to show that Ainge does value versatility, and when you're financially strapped with a depleted bench, he had to sign people capable of playing multiple positions (Pruitt, Cassell, Tony, Eddie, Davis, and Scalabrine are examples of this from the bench). So as flawed as Tony is in some positions, his versatility does add value.

As for small ball, I don't blame Doc for using the lineup because of what you said. But the PJ Brown situation doesn't really apply at the moment for us because the current state of our bench doesn't have that PJ Brown person that will allow Posey to stick to playing SF. So my point is, that up to this point in the season, the contribution of Posey and how it would've improved our team up to this point would've been quite marginal and the results of us winning games would've been very minimal.

The problem with our bench is not in the SF spot, as thin as it is, and that's where Posey is at his best. So I can't comprehend some people making Posey the savior he's being made out to be. Piece, Ray, and Tony have been doing quite a good job at filling the position throughout the season. It's not there where we are losing games.

Ainge had strong interests in Posey, and he offered a great contract for him, so that Ainge didn't value him as CoachBo loves to believe is completely false and shows lack of care for the truth and facts.

The 2nd unit looks as weak as it does because of the style in which Doc coaches, with little mixing and matching of starters and bench players. This will not be the case in the playoffs. Our bench last year wasn't particularly good either even with Posey in there. I also find it interesting when people talk about spreading the floor with him in the 4 spot, when by enlarge people around here hated Doc using Posey as the 4 (and our lack of height in the bench would mean that Posey at the 4 would be even worse this year up to this point).

Eddie, Powe and Posey were very effective last year....the addition of PJ only made it that much better.

plus, the criticisms of small ball were totally undressed after we basically won game 4 of the Finals because of it...had we lost that game, who knows how that series would have gone..

They were good in spots. Our second unit suffered quite a lot. Posey and House at times bailed us out with their 3point shooting, but it's also true that our offense sucked through periods of time because we only had shooters on the floor, not scorers.

[nickagneta]

The 2nd unit looks as weak as it does because of the style in which Doc coaches, with little mixing and matching of starters and bench players. This will not be the case in the playoffs. Our bench last year wasn't particularly good either even with Posey in there. I also find it interesting when people talk about spreading the floor with him in the 4 spot, when by enlarge people around here hated Doc using Posey as the 4 (and our lack of height in the bench would mean that Posey at the 4 would be even worse this year up to this point).

Eddie, Powe and Posey were very effective last year....the addition of PJ only made it that much better.

plus, the criticisms of small ball were totally undressed after we basically won game 4 of the Finals because of it...had we lost that game, who knows how that series would have gone..

  One game doesn't undress the criticisms of small ball any more than one good game from Tony Allen undresses the claims that we should have signed Posey.

IMO it does given the magnitude of the game. many believed the lineup useless. clearly not useless.

Gotta agree with Budweiser. That game it worked and some others but in so many other games that lineup almost gave away so many leads that it could have cost us the hoe court advantage is Doc didn't put the starters in late to maintain the win. Besides, Danny and Doc both admitted in a much publicized interview that the small ball lineup was awfully ineffective.

Bud, I understand what you are saying. I think Danny does value versatility. I just don't think the players he brought in this off season were very versatile. Also, I think you are right about Posey returning. I don't think he would have effected that big of a change in this team that it would have changed their record all that much. This team is very efficient when playing a standard sized lineup. A versitile big that could play both C and PF and be effective would have effected this team much more than the addition of Posey.

[BballTim]

Why would Portland trade Roy and Aldridge for a couple of years of KG, especially when it leaves them with little talent to surround him with?  Deng + KG isn't going to come close to a championship.

Also, Kirilenko still has a bad contract, and has cracked under pressure in the past.  That particular part of the trade, I'd pass on.

I think Ainge's "trade the Big Three" philosophy is flawed.  It's unlikely that trading any of the Big Three would have increased the Celts chances at a championship, even if it would have delayed the rebuilding process for awhile.  The team did the right thing by keeping its core together as long as possible; they pretty much stayed in legit title contention until Larry retired, which is as good as they could have done had they traded one of them.

Of course, it's interesting to see how this philosophy is playing out with this team.  The team passed on Posey, because of how it might have impacted financial flexibility in four years.  The team signed POB and kept two rookies on the roster, despite them not making contributions to this year's team. 

The question is, does it make sense to worry about four years from now, or should you maximize your opportunity to win in the future?  I'm of the latter mindset:  since we have three elite players who are approaching the end of their primes, you need to do everything in your power to win now.  You don't worry about down the road, and you don't worry about trading them away.

Which is precisely the vexing element of Danny's general inaction and lack of success this summer.

It makes NO sense whatsoever to make the deals that were made in the summer of 2007 - especially moving Jefferson - to revert back to pinching pennies a summer later. You bought three or four years of a championship window, now maximize it. Danny thus far failed to maximize anything last summer.

And Nick, this is where we disagree. No competent 5, no shooter, no title. And no Eastern Conference title, either.

  I don't think it's written in stone that Danny's not going to trade Ray for someone younger and lengthen our window. If he does then we're better off not having Posey's salary weighing us down.

but that's not the window Danny was working for....he offered Pose a three year deal at the full MLE (or close to it)...

plus, how is it better to not have Pose's salary on the books in 09-10? Why wouldn't you actaully still want Pose on your team next year regardless of what you did with Ray? Is Pose gonna totally lose his game next year?

  Ainge offered Posey a 2 year deal and then increased it to 3 years in an attempt to sign him. I guess he was willing to pay him for 1 year when he wasn't going to be worth it but not 2 years. You have to draw the line somewhere.

we actually don't even know for sure that DA wouldn't have gone to 4 if given the chance to match. there's a difference between analyzing the market for a player and actually thinking that player isn't worth it. you can like a player and still not want to pay him more than his market value.

but the point i was making was in reference to having Pose on the books when deciding what to do with Ray. and i still don't see how having Pose around would adversely affect that decision process.

  Do we know for sure that he wasn't given a chance to match? Danny said that the offered him a third year even though he didn't think Posey would be worth the money at the time. Should he have given Posey a 4th year when he didn't think he'd be worth the money in year 3? f we don't break up the team then including luxury tax that's about $50M over 4 years for a 32 year old bench player. That's a lot of cash to throw away.

[BballTim]

The 2nd unit looks as weak as it does because of the style in which Doc coaches, with little mixing and matching of starters and bench players. This will not be the case in the playoffs. Our bench last year wasn't particularly good either even with Posey in there. I also find it interesting when people talk about spreading the floor with him in the 4 spot, when by enlarge people around here hated Doc using Posey as the 4 (and our lack of height in the bench would mean that Posey at the 4 would be even worse this year up to this point).

Eddie, Powe and Posey were very effective last year....the addition of PJ only made it that much better.

plus, the criticisms of small ball were totally undressed after we basically won game 4 of the Finals because of it...had we lost that game, who knows how that series would have gone..

  One game doesn't undress the criticisms of small ball any more than one good game from Tony Allen undresses the claims that we should have signed Posey.

IMO it does given the magnitude of the game. many believed the lineup useless. clearly not useless.

  I think the general consensus was more "that's usually a bad lineup for us" as opposed to "that lineup won't work under any circumstances". Again, it was only one game, and doesn't outweigh a year's worth of evidence that it wasn't among our better lineups.

[BudweiserCeltic]

The 2nd unit looks as weak as it does because of the style in which Doc coaches, with little mixing and matching of starters and bench players. This will not be the case in the playoffs. Our bench last year wasn't particularly good either even with Posey in there. I also find it interesting when people talk about spreading the floor with him in the 4 spot, when by enlarge people around here hated Doc using Posey as the 4 (and our lack of height in the bench would mean that Posey at the 4 would be even worse this year up to this point).

Eddie, Powe and Posey were very effective last year....the addition of PJ only made it that much better.

plus, the criticisms of small ball were totally undressed after we basically won game 4 of the Finals because of it...had we lost that game, who knows how that series would have gone..

  One game doesn't undress the criticisms of small ball any more than one good game from Tony Allen undresses the claims that we should have signed Posey.

IMO it does given the magnitude of the game. many believed the lineup useless. clearly not useless.

Gotta agree with Budweiser. That game it worked and some others but in so many other games that lineup almost gave away so many leads that it could have cost us the hoe court advantage is Doc didn't put the starters in late to maintain the win. Besides, Danny and Doc both admitted in a much publicized interview that the small ball lineup was awfully ineffective.

Bud, I understand what you are saying. I think Danny does value versatility. I just don't think the players he brought in this off season were very versatile. Also, I think you are right about Posey returning. I don't think he would have effected that big of a change in this team that it would have changed their record all that much. This team is very efficient when playing a standard sized lineup. A versitile big that could play both C and PF and be effective would have effected this team much more than the addition of Posey.

You also get what you pay for, so there also has to be a consideration with our financial position and the amount we can offer around to fill the various positions we needed. Very few people are willing to put the moves in the correct context. Tony and House wouldn't have been in our price range otherwise. Tony and House came quite cheap in my opinion in a contract that was length-friendly. Maybe this year we won't really maximize with the lack of Posey, but maybe these two moves will allow us to maximize next year and the next one (with our financial situation, and that's well within our window for a championship). It's all speculation at this point from both sides of the argument. I simply can't stand premature conclusions that ignore facts, consequences, the context, and the circumstances of why moves were made the way they did.

[Jon]

The most important thing to do is to win as many championships as possible in the window that is allotted to the C's.  Quite frankly, it's probably a pipe dream to think that we could trade someone like Ray Allen for some young talent and that that young talent would ever help the remaining members of the Big Three to win a title.  In all likelihood it would must make the inevitable decline after the Big Three retire less painful.  But who cares?  There really isn't a big difference between losing 50 games and winning 50 games if you don't have a legit shot at winning a title (think of the Walker/Pierce teams of 5+ years ago). 

It's easy for Ainge to sit here now and say that they should have broken up the Big Three.  But quite frankly, their health always kept things in question.  In '86 they're arguably the greatest team of all time.  Over the next 3-4 years Bird and McHale get hit with injuries.  It's hard to blame Red for wanting to see what would happen if they ever got healthy. 

What worries me more is that if Ainge really feels that Red kept the Big Three too long, it means one of two scary things.

1) He thinks that winning a title is easy and that you can just trade the parts of a contender away for new parts that will automatically become contending parts in 5 years.  That is certainly not the case.  There are plenty of teams that have been stockpiling young talent for years to no avail (think the Bulls and Clippers) and there's been tons of teams over the years that have built their teams up from the bottom the right way (think Portland in the '90s and Utah through the mid '90s until today) and still don't win a title. 

2) The scary thing might be that he'd be OK with some sort of Utah Jazz like scenario where the team is perpetually good, but never wins a title.  I personally don't think that's the case, but you gotta wonder if that's more financially sound of a plan that rising up for a few good years and then having some bad ones. 

Overall, what it comes down to is that the C's throughout history have been extraordinarily fortunate.  We can't count on that happening again.  Ainge needs to maximize the championships this team can win now and worry about the future when it happens. 

[BudweiserCeltic]

You guys also have to consider that The Big Three were all suffering from injuries that affected their play to quite an extent.

[winsomme]

  Do we know for sure that he wasn't given a chance to match? Danny said that the offered him a third year even though he didn't think Posey would be worth the money at the time. Should he have given Posey a 4th year when he didn't think he'd be worth the money in year 3? f we don't break up the team then including luxury tax that's about $50M over 4 years for a 32 year old bench player. That's a lot of cash to throw away.

no, we don't know for sure...that's my point. but regardless of who we sign when we are over the luxury cap it doubles...not just Posey.

plus your assertion that Pose's contract is throwing money away is based on what exactly. how exactly would his whole contract be throwing money away? who's to say that he won't be playing the same way he is now 2 or 3 years from now?

and wasn't your point that Pose's contract would be holding us back somehow in deciding what to do with Ray next season?

[winsomme]

The 2nd unit looks as weak as it does because of the style in which Doc coaches, with little mixing and matching of starters and bench players. This will not be the case in the playoffs. Our bench last year wasn't particularly good either even with Posey in there. I also find it interesting when people talk about spreading the floor with him in the 4 spot, when by enlarge people around here hated Doc using Posey as the 4 (and our lack of height in the bench would mean that Posey at the 4 would be even worse this year up to this point).

Eddie, Powe and Posey were very effective last year....the addition of PJ only made it that much better.

plus, the criticisms of small ball were totally undressed after we basically won game 4 of the Finals because of it...had we lost that game, who knows how that series would have gone..

  One game doesn't undress the criticisms of small ball any more than one good game from Tony Allen undresses the claims that we should have signed Posey.

IMO it does given the magnitude of the game. many believed the lineup useless. clearly not useless.

  I think the general consensus was more "that's usually a bad lineup for us" as opposed to "that lineup won't work under any circumstances". Again, it was only one game, and doesn't outweigh a year's worth of evidence that it wasn't among our better lineups.

well it was one REALLY important game and i think we are also missing it this year too....

and a shooting wing is what i am hearing is a spot that they are looking to fill.