Can we please not use terms like "placeholder" and "bridge team" when talking about this team? Sounds incredibly spoiled and entitled.
I know we don't hang banners for ECFs, but the team is competitive and fun to root for, right now.
Life is what happens to you while you are busy making other plans.
I think it's possible that this group -- i.e. Thomas, Bradley, Crowder, Horford -- is only going to be together for a few seasons, even if they are beloved and win a good number of games during that time.
That would justify calling them a "bridge" team, without it necessarily being a slight.
It's still unnecessarily disrespectful to the guys in green busting their behinds right now. It's just the wrong mindset.
We're not biding our time until "the real rebuild" begins, we're doing something many people on this blog were very concerned about back when we traded KG and Pierce: we're building a winning culture.
And even if you don't believe in this whole culture thing, there are also very real, tangible benefits: a far better negotiating position when dealing with other teams, for example. Regardless of how you feel about Al Horford, we were able to add him without giving up any assets, besides cap space, precisely because we are building something, right now.
I know we fans want to make sense of what's happening, and for the sake of discussion we're using these terms to better grasp which of the multitude of possibilities is closest to "the truth", not because we mean any disrespect, but terms like these specifically have a clearly negative connotation.
Again, just a matter of respect, in my opinion.