Danny wants to rebuild and win but it doesnt work that way

[Donoghus]

Not overpaying bench players equals rebuild mode?

[tenn_smoothie]

The Celtics aren't going to be built like any other team has been built in the last 15-20 yrs because the model they have now is the same as the Celtics of the 80's. A BIG 3, dominant starting 5, and relatively weak bench that plays better than they look on paper because of the lighter load they have to carry.

Wrong ........

the 80's Big 3 won titles when they had a very good bench (81, 84 and especially 86) and lost in the playoffs when the bench was injured ('85, '87) or non-existent ('88 on).

1987 is a perfect example of what you are describing when the starting 5 was the best in basketball and would often end games by the 3d quarter ........... the wear & tear of all that playing time + the lack of a healthy bench cost them the repeat title because they were so beat to hell by the time they crawled into the finals.

[jdub1660]

Nachbar can shoot, be he has no defense. So adding him wouldn't solve all of our problems. The C's won a championship b/c we had soo many versatile players. We need matt barnes or mo evans, we need house and tony allen to sign for less, and darius miles to sign for the minimum. we could have a team like..

PG - Rondo, House
SG - Ray Allen, Tony Allen, Giddens
SF - Pierce, Evans/Barnes, Walker, Darius Miles
PF - KG, Powe, BBD
C - Perkins, O'Bryant

At times the Celtics did play small against certain teams to keep up, where KG went up to Center, then you could have one of our SFs to move to PF between Miles and barnes.

[ChainSmokingLikeDino]

Our starters are all still here and our bench are almost all gone. We have so far supplemented those lost on free agent via rookies(giddens, walker, patrick obryant, pruitt) and still have back at least powe and big baby

I dont know if danny is underestimating how important bench players are or if he feels they are interchanable year in and in our while the big three are here but it is an uncomforting situation right now

without our bench last year(and current bench players) i predict this year 10 to 15 games less wins(also consider the fact the east got alot tougher and the big three aging one more year), alot tougher chance to repeat(i dont like the idea facing a lakers team with a healthy bynum this time and with us having no posey)

I dont understand what danny truly wants to do. If he wants to make this celtics team a dynasty , its better to give up your young talent for vets, sign guys like posey(make up the luxury tax in the playoffs) or trade one or two of the big three or all of them and rebuild new. You never saw the spurs in the early 2000s do this nor detroit. Even the bulls always had proven vets in their journey to winning 6 in 8 years.

I think danny wants too many things and in the end it might backfire. I hope not, but he will be walking down an unfarmiliar road for a just winning it championship team

agree, agree, and agree again. you cannot win titles and be in rebuilding mode at the same time. i'm afraid this is more of the Danny micro-manage-make-a-transaction-sign-and-lose-players-every-other-month management style that was going on the previous few years that was burying the franchise. at least Doc learned from his mistakes.

How is not overpaying for Posey, a move that limits the moves The Celtics can, that limits their ability to sign the valued veteran players discussed above, mean that the team is rebuilding?
Posey got offered more money than he was probably worth. Danny realized that he would be overpaying for a bench player, that this would limit the team to be able to pull a similar sign a PJ or, get this, sign Posey like they did last offseason. That is not rebuilding. That is being logical in relation to the realities of a league with a salary cap.

Also, all the endless trade Ray threads, most of which are absurd, and which is not going to happen, are much more a move towards rebuilding.

[Jon]

It really depends on what you believe.  On one hand Ainge says "We were unwilling to go four years. We have to manage the business and manage the future and the present" and on the other he says "We have a lot of money tied up in the Big Three, and we felt like we’d be stuck if we went to the fourth year with him. We wouldn’t have any flexibility."  In both quotes he talks about the future, but only in the first does he discuss how it affects the present.  So I wouldn't so much say he's overly focused on rebuilding through young players now, instead I'd say he might be a little bit over focused on the future. 

But then again, that's even subject to debate.  What exactly is the plan?  Is it to only ride the Big Three until Ray Allen's contract is up or does Ainge plan on keeping this going afterwards?  While it's easy to dismiss Ray staying around for more than 2 years, remember Ainge wanted the 40-year-old Reggie Miller to come back last year.  And Reggie and Ray are pretty similar players. 

So is the plan to keep them around?  I don't know.  Maybe that's why he wanted flexibility.  Still, risking a deep bench this offseason worries me.  Right now the C's are sitting on top of the basketball world.  Weakening this team to any degree seems like a wise move.  No matter what Danny's plan is 3-4 years down the road, it is very risky business.

Let Ray's contract expire and try to sign a big free agent?  Might work, but there might not be any good free agents available or the ones who are might not want to come here. 

Trade Ray's expiring contract?  Only works if someone's willing, and you never know how much teams are going to be willing to give up.

Re-sign Ray and let the Big Thre have a few more years?  Might work out, but any one of them could get a career ending injury at any time.  Every year that passes increases the chances of that happening or some sort of decline. 

At this point, all I can say is that I hope Ainge puts as much as possible into repeating next year.  Our window certainly extends to next year, but how much longer is up to debate. 

[billysan]

I agree that we need to add a few 'key' pieces to the bench. Losing Posey and House are not the biggest issues in my mind. I think losing PJ Brown is going to be bigger. An experienced big is a huge asset, no amount of youth or athleticism will compensate for his savvy and BBIQ.

Keep in mind that we have not been able to make a serious offer or sign anyone of consequence using our mid level money because of on-goning Posey negotiations. That can all rapidly change now.

I like Walter Herrman better than Nachbar. I think either one will fit in though as a bench player and really contribute offensively. I am not too worried about defense form their roles, I think our team defense will help them out just like it has House and Ray Allen.

[Cooldude5t5]

Posey averaged 7 pts a game lets come to back to reality. As long as the key players are kept in place the team will be fine. Look at the Jordan Bulls. John Paxson became Steve Kerr, B.L Armstrong was replaced by Toni Kukoc, Horace Grant was replaced by Rodman. My point being that Posey was very important to the 07/08 celtics and Danny will find someone else to replace his production. Role players are very easy to replace the Jordan, Pippen, KG, Pierce, Allen not as easy. Everyone needs to come down.

[Cman]

My solution:
House
Barnes/Evans/Snyder (roughly in that order)
Skinner

[CoachCowens]

The Celtics aren't going to be built like any other team has been built in the last 15-20 yrs because the model they have now is the same as the Celtics of the 80's. A BIG 3, dominant starting 5, and relatively weak bench that plays better than they look on paper because of the lighter load they have to carry.

Wrong ........

the 80's Big 3 won titles when they had a very good bench (81, 84 and especially 86) and lost in the playoffs when the bench was injured ('85, '87) or non-existent ('88 on).

1987 is a perfect example of what you are describing when the starting 5 was the best in basketball and would often end games by the 3d quarter ........... the wear & tear of all that playing time + the lack of a healthy bench cost them the repeat title because they were so beat to hell by the time they crawled into the finals.

I get your point but I believe 87 was also the year that Mchale broke a bone in his foot and was hobbled throughout the playoffs.

[rondofan1255]

My solution:
House
Barnes/Evans/Snyder (roughly in that order)
Skinner

For me:

Pargo/ House

Bonzi

No Big man signing until midseason.

[wdleehi]

My choice


MLE Arroyo/Thomas

min:  Ross and Nachbar


Walker goes to Europe



Rondo   Arroyo    Pruitt
Ray     Ross      Giddens
Pierce  Nachbar   Scali
KG      Powe      Davis
Perk    Thomas    O Bryant

[12417]

Wrong ........

the 80's Big 3 won titles when they had a very good bench (81, 84 and especially 86) and lost in the playoffs when the bench was injured ('85, '87) or non-existent ('88 on).

1987 is a perfect example of what you are describing when the starting 5 was the best in basketball and would often end games by the 3d quarter ........... the wear & tear of all that playing time + the lack of a healthy bench cost them the repeat title because they were so beat to hell by the time they crawled into the finals.

80-81 Celtics:
Starters:                     Bench:
Bird                          McHale (32 starts)
Archibald                     Henderson
Maxwell                       Robey
Ford                          ML Carr
Parish

McHale great 6th man Henderson, Robey and Carr? Great Bench?

83-84 Celtics:
Starters:                                      Bench:
Bird                                           McHale (10 GS, 4th Mins plyd)
Parish                                         Ainge (16.2 mins/per)
DJ                                             Buckner (15.8 mins/per)
Maxwell                                        Wedman (11 mins/per)
Henderson (78 GS, 6th in Mins played)

McHale now getting more mins than Max and Henderson, otherwise Ainge, Buckner and Wedman, great? plz

85-86 Celtics:
Starters:                                       Bench:
Bird                                            Sichting
McHale                                          Wedman (19 starts, 33yrs old)
Parish                                          Walton (19 mins/per)
DJ                                              
Ainge

Walton 6th man, outside of him where is this especially great bench?

86-87 Celtics, had Sichting, Fred Roberts, Greg Kite and Darren Daye the injured Walton who was 'the bench' crippled this team.

Point being, today's free agents are going to make for a better bench than what was in the 80's. When you have a BIG 3 salary-wise your team is necessarily built top-heavy and the bench is gravy. Powe and Big Baby are already a better bench than what the original BIG 3 had behind them.

[Bankshot]

What about the Spurs?  They rebuilt and still won. 

But they kept their most important bench player (Horry), who I equate with Posey's importance.

[D Dub]

My choice


MLE Arroyo/Thomas

min:  Ross and Nachbar


Walker goes to Europe



Rondo   Arroyo    Pruitt
Ray     Ross      Giddens
Pierce  Nachbar   Scali
KG      Powe      Davis
Perk    Thomas    O Bryant

I like your thinking here, but I would be concerned that we would no longer have the shooters to spread the floor.  Arroyo is a solid pure point, but he doesn't strike me as a great 3pt shooter (not sure of his stats though...)

I would prefer bringing back House as our backup point.  I thought he played really well all year at that spot, only having problems against Lindsey Hunter (as most do - he is one of the best on-ball defenders of the generation).

Also, do you think we can really get Kurt Thomas for a portion of the MLE?  that would be a steal...

[billysan]

Wrong ........

the 80's Big 3 won titles when they had a very good bench (81, 84 and especially 86) and lost in the playoffs when the bench was injured ('85, '87) or non-existent ('88 on).

1987 is a perfect example of what you are describing when the starting 5 was the best in basketball and would often end games by the 3d quarter ........... the wear & tear of all that playing time + the lack of a healthy bench cost them the repeat title because they were so beat to hell by the time they crawled into the finals.

80-81 Celtics:
Starters:                     Bench:
Bird                          McHale (32 starts)
Archibald                     Henderson
Maxwell                       Robey
Ford                          ML Carr
Parish

McHale great 6th man Henderson, Robey and Carr? Great Bench?

83-84 Celtics:
Starters:                                      Bench:
Bird                                           McHale (10 GS, 4th Mins plyd)
Parish                                         Ainge (16.2 mins/per)
DJ                                             Buckner (15.8 mins/per)
Maxwell                                        Wedman (11 mins/per)
Henderson (78 GS, 6th in Mins played)

McHale now getting more mins than Max and Henderson, otherwise Ainge, Buckner and Wedman, great? plz

85-86 Celtics:
Starters:                                       Bench:
Bird                                            Sichting
McHale                                          Wedman (19 starts, 33yrs old)
Parish                                          Walton (19 mins/per)
DJ                                              
Ainge

Walton 6th man, outside of him where is this especially great bench?

86-87 Celtics, had Sichting, Fred Roberts, Greg Kite and Darren Daye the injured Walton who was 'the bench' crippled this team.

Point being, today's free agents are going to make for a better bench than what was in the 80's. When you have a BIG 3 salary-wise your team is necessarily built top-heavy and the bench is gravy. Powe and Big Baby are already a better bench than what the original BIG 3 had behind them.

True, and most college players stayed in school for four years. First round draft picks rarely saw minutes on playoff caliber teams until their second season. There was no zone defense allowed. Different game in a lot of respects.

I always felt Bird and McHale had their careers shortened by excessive minutes. Walton was a cripple when we got him and lived on painkillers IMO. Playing in pain never did anything but hurt the whole team in the long run. Again, just my opinion.

I disagree that Powe and Davis get off the bench for more minutes then, than they do now (last season). We will never know the truth of that, though it is an interesting debate.