Bulpett Nails it

[mctyson]

You can only have your cake and eat too for so long before you cause more harm than good to either path.  The time is quickly approaching where Boston needs to take a clear direction and make the moves necessary for that path.

I don't see why this is applicable when Golden State is a recent example of a team that was able to win a championship by developing its own talent without needing to "make the moves necessary for that path" which I assume means trading draft picks and/or young players away.

This year's Spurs are another example of a team that is considered a contender without making any major trade, relying on player development and signing veteran talent via free agency.

I don't understand why it is necessary to "make moves" for the sake of doing so because some fans believe in an unwritten rule that rookies and young players cannot supplement a veteran core to become a contending team.

I also don't understand where it is written that young players don't benefit from being around veteran teams that make deep playoff runs, and instead would be better off on losing teams where they can get more minutes.  Again, I will cite the Spurs here.

[Moranis]

The Spurs are a terrible example because they have 3 main rotation players they drafted. Leonard who played 24 mpg as a rookie, Parker who played almost 30 mpg as a rookie, and Ginobili who was a rookie at 25 after years of pro ball and still played 21 mpg as a rookie.  The rest of the main rotation came over as free agents or through trades.  The Spurs actually prove the rule on young players needing minutes to develop.

Curry and Thompson also had heavy mpg as rookies. Iggy and Durant, heavy minutes as rookies.  Livingston actually set his career high in mpg as a rookie before injuries derailed his career.  Green was brought along slowly.  How exactly does Golden State show the value of no playing time again?

[MBunge]

The Spurs are a terrible example because they have 3 main rotation players they drafted. Leonard who played 24 mpg as a rookie, Parker who played almost 30 mpg as a rookie, and Ginobili who was a rookie at 25 after years of pro ball and still played 21 mpg as a rookie.  The rest of the main rotation came over as free agents or through trades.  The Spurs actually prove the rule on young players needing minutes to develop.

Curry and Thompson also had heavy mpg as rookies. Iggy and Durant, heavy minutes as rookies.  Livingston actually set his career high in mpg as a rookie before injuries derailed his career.  Green was brought along slowly.  How exactly does Golden State show the value of no playing time again?

Of course young players need time to develop.  But Curry, Thompson and Durant all got minutes on terrible teams to start off, and who did Philly trade so Iggy could play?  You are building an army of straw men.

1.  Because of the lottery system, better players usually get drafted by the worst teams.
2.  Since those teams suck, those talented rookies tend to get all the playing time they can handle because there are no good veterans standing in their way.
3.  That does not mean, however, that there is a connection between loads of minutes as a rookie and becoming a good player in the NBA.  There are plenty of counter examples, like Avery getting 5 minutes a game his first season.

Mike

[Granath]

Of course young players need time to develop.  But Curry, Thompson and Durant all got minutes on terrible teams to start off, and who did Philly trade so Iggy could play?  You are building an army of straw men.

1.  Because of the lottery system, better players usually get drafted by the worst teams.
2.  Since those teams suck, those talented rookies tend to get all the playing time they can handle because there are no good veterans standing in their way.
3.  That does not mean, however, that there is a connection between loads of minutes as a rookie and becoming a good player in the NBA.  There are plenty of counter examples, like Avery getting 5 minutes a game his first season.

That's a good post Mike but it will likely fall on deaf ears. Moranis' pattern of thinking seems to be that there is only one way to glory in the NBA and that is to tank hard for an extended period of time, get a whole bunch of rookies, play them major minutes and pray. It makes no difference that many NBA Champions in recent years did not follow that pattern. Thus artifical roadblocks are created because of the perception that's there's only one way to proceed.

For instance, look a just a couple of posts above. The objection is raised that trading players under reasonable contracts is somehow difficult or impossible. Yet Celtics fans should know that any contract can be traded. After all, we took on one of the very worst contracts in the history of the NBA in Gerald Wallace. If a contract that bad can be moved (yes, the Nets had to pay us for that), any deal can be moved and a good player under a reasonable deal is always going to be a movable asset. But that possibility is discounted because it doesn't fall in neatly with the Tank and Pray method of rebuilding.

[Moranis]

You guys are dense. I'm advocating picking a direction not tanking.  The team certainly can go in the other direction and trade the assets for players that better fit the timeline of the current starters and go for a title.  In fact I'd have no.issue at all trading either Brooklyn pick. I proposed many trades doing just that on this board.

That is the point  I've been making. You can only try to do both things for so long until you harm both potential paths. 

[slamtheking]

You guys are dense. I'm advocating picking a direction not tanking.  The team certainly can go in the other direction and trade the assets for players that better fit the timeline of the current starters and go for a title. 

That is the point  I've been making. You can only try to do both things for so long until you harm both potential paths. 

and what harm is occurring?  none that I can see.  This is a self-made desire to blow it up which you've been very clear is your position in the multitude of threads posted here over the years.

C's have been adding experienced talent for a couple of years and have been adding (and will continue to add) top draft prospects to develop and hopefully takeover the drive to contender status.  C's are positioned to add a top FA this offseason as well as a top 4 pick in a year with 4 top prospects in the draft. 

Next year they'll add another top pick thanks to the Nets (as well as another first rounder from their own pick) and still be in a position to either make a trade for a top player or just continue to build with improving younger players (free agency is a less-likely option due to upcoming contracts for IT, AB and Marcus that offseason).

[Granath]

You guys are dense. I'm advocating picking a direction not tanking.  The team certainly can go in the other direction and trade the assets for players that better fit the timeline of the current starters and go for a title. 

That is the point  I've been making. You can only try to do both things for so long until you harm both potential paths.

Except you've failed to prove that point. You've tried bringing up salaries and playing time. Both have been thoroughly and convincingly refuted.

How many times do I need to repeat this? Never in the history of the NBA has a 50 win team had consecutive top 5 lottery picks. Not only do the Cs have that, they will likely have 3 in a row (plus other #1s from other teams the next couple of years). That is an unprecedented opportunity and with that the Celtics are not bound by the typical constraints that NBA teams face. Most teams have to pick one direction or another because they don't have the assets & the talent at the same time. So either they're making a run or they're in full rebuilding mode. 50 win teams don't have top 5 picks. Top lottery teams don't have the talent to get 50 wins. Teams don't have the luxury of being both. We do. We can compete now and restock with even better prospects for later.

Going all in is going to create a 3-4 year window right now to compete then it's over. Dedicating to the tank would get a helluva lot of assets for later but then you lose veteran leadership, the expectation of winning, the desire of FAs to join the team and you delay the window opening for 3-5 years if it ever does. Or you hold to the middle ground, continue to get better and you have what should be a decent sized window for a decade or more. I don't see where there's a substantial risk of a middle ground.

[spikelovetheCelts]

The instant gratification folks aren't going to like that. 

I think Bulpett is spot-on and I think its become more & more apparent since last summer that they're trying to set themselves up in "have your cake & eat it too" mode wherein they can be very competitive now & set themselves up for even greater future success without much sacrifice to either.

And he is younger too. DA Nailed his 2017 picks!!!
And do it on the cheap.

I'll say this for Ainge: He's set up a team for greatness - Milwaukee.

I'm sure they are thrilled with Ainge's talent evaluation - Greek Freak, who some analysts project as the transcendent NBA star of the next five years; can't believe it's not Jaylen Brown. LOL - Brogsdon. I bet they can't wait to see who he whiffs on this year.

last I checked there Skippy, Brown's having a better rookie season than Dunn who was your preferred pick this year.

[Moranis]

You guys are dense. I'm advocating picking a direction not tanking.  The team certainly can go in the other direction and trade the assets for players that better fit the timeline of the current starters and go for a title. 

That is the point  I've been making. You can only try to do both things for so long until you harm both potential paths.

Except you've failed to prove that point. You've tried bringing up salaries and playing time. Both have been thoroughly and convincingly refuted.

How many times do I need to repeat this? Never in the history of the NBA has a 50 win team had consecutive top 5 lottery picks. Not only do the Cs have that, they will likely have 3 in a row (plus other #1s from other teams the next couple of years). That is an unprecedented opportunity and with that the Celtics are not bound by the typical constraints that NBA teams face. Most teams have to pick one direction or another because they don't have the assets & the talent at the same time. So either they're making a run or they're in full rebuilding mode. 50 win teams don't have top 5 picks. Top lottery teams don't have the talent to get 50 wins. Teams don't have the luxury of being both. We do. We can compete now and restock with even better prospects for later.

Going all in is going to create a 3-4 year window right now to compete then it's over. Dedicating to the tank would get a helluva lot of assets for later but then you lose veteran leadership, the expectation of winning, the desire of FAs to join the team and you delay the window opening for 3-5 years if it ever does. Or you hold to the middle ground, continue to get better and you have what should be a decent sized window for a decade or more. I don't see where there's a substantial risk of a middle ground.

Depends on who you acquire on how long the window is.  I mean Butler, Griffin, George, Cousins (not available anymore), Hayward, etc. are all in their mid-20's.  You'd certainly expect more than 3 years from that group, especially joining Thomas, Bradley, Crowder, etc. who are also in that age range.  Let's you sign Hayward as a free agent, how exactly do you get that team to be a real legit contender without moving some of the young assets to acquire that other guy that gets you over the hump?  And if you aren't willing to move the young players/draft picks, then what exactly are you doing?  Just floating along as a 50 win team without any real shot at winning, unless the young guys hit.  Of course if your title hopes hinge on the young guys hitting, then why wouldn't you maximize those odds, but creating playing time, getting more bites at the apple, etc. 

My ideal somewhat realistic summer, would be signing Griffin as a free agent, then moving Brown, Smart, Bradley, Boston 2018 1st for Butler (I don't think you need to include a BKN pick with that package), re-signing Johnson (at a reasonable rate and short term), and then adding a veteran big and wings for depth on the bench.

So I'd go into next year with

PG - Thomas, Fultz/Ball, Jackson
SG - Butler, Vet, Rozier
SF - Crowder, Vet, Jerekbo
PF - Griffin, Johnson, Yabusele
C - Horford, Vet, Zizic

That team would have a real shot if it was healthy entering the playoffs and also alleviates a lot of the long term salary issues (by getting rid of KO, Brown, Smart, and Bradley for basically just Griffin, Butler, and some short term low dollar vets).

Those are the type of moves I'd like to see.  Roster upgrades/consolidation by using not just the cap space but some of the young assets (i.e. Brown and Smart). 

I'd rather the team just go for it now because there are no guarantees on young players (or does that only count when you are discussing Philly and not Boston).  I was very disappointed Cousins wasn't acquired (especially at the final price) because I thought he could have given Boston an actual real advantage against all of the main contenders.  I couldn't believe Boston didn't go for Noel, again helping alleviate a real weak point of the team, especially at his final price.  How much different does this team look if it would have added Cousins and Noel for Brown, Rozier, and some future 1st's.  Even someone like PJ Tucker would have helped a great deal. 

You guys are letting Ainge off the hook because of "future assets", but Boston doing nothing at the deadline was a travesty and this basic status quo of trying to win and rebuild at the same time won't work much longer.  You have to pick a direction and go with it.

[tazzmaniac]

You guys are dense. I'm advocating picking a direction not tanking.  The team certainly can go in the other direction and trade the assets for players that better fit the timeline of the current starters and go for a title. 

That is the point  I've been making. You can only try to do both things for so long until you harm both potential paths.

Except you've failed to prove that point. You've tried bringing up salaries and playing time. Both have been thoroughly and convincingly refuted.

How many times do I need to repeat this? Never in the history of the NBA has a 50 win team had consecutive top 5 lottery picks. Not only do the Cs have that, they will likely have 3 in a row (plus other #1s from other teams the next couple of years). That is an unprecedented opportunity and with that the Celtics are not bound by the typical constraints that NBA teams face. Most teams have to pick one direction or another because they don't have the assets & the talent at the same time. So either they're making a run or they're in full rebuilding mode. 50 win teams don't have top 5 picks. Top lottery teams don't have the talent to get 50 wins. Teams don't have the luxury of being both. We do. We can compete now and restock with even better prospects for later.

Going all in is going to create a 3-4 year window right now to compete then it's over. Dedicating to the tank would get a helluva lot of assets for later but then you lose veteran leadership, the expectation of winning, the desire of FAs to join the team and you delay the window opening for 3-5 years if it ever does. Or you hold to the middle ground, continue to get better and you have what should be a decent sized window for a decade or more. I don't see where there's a substantial risk of a middle ground.

Depends on who you acquire on how long the window is.  I mean Butler, Griffin, George, Cousins (not available anymore), Hayward, etc. are all in their mid-20's.  You'd certainly expect more than 3 years from that group, especially joining Thomas, Bradley, Crowder, etc. who are also in that age range.  Let's you sign Hayward as a free agent, how exactly do you get that team to be a real legit contender without moving some of the young assets to acquire that other guy that gets you over the hump?  And if you aren't willing to move the young players/draft picks, then what exactly are you doing?  Just floating along as a 50 win team without any real shot at winning, unless the young guys hit.  Of course if your title hopes hinge on the young guys hitting, then why wouldn't you maximize those odds, but creating playing time, getting more bites at the apple, etc. 

My ideal somewhat realistic summer, would be signing Griffin as a free agent, then moving Brown, Smart, Bradley, Boston 2018 1st for Butler (I don't think you need to include a BKN pick with that package), re-signing Johnson (at a reasonable rate and short term), and then adding a veteran big and wings for depth on the bench.

So I'd go into next year with

PG - Thomas, Fultz/Ball, Jackson
SG - Butler, Vet, Rozier
SF - Crowder, Vet, Jerekbo
PF - Griffin, Johnson, Yabusele
C - Horford, Vet, Zizic

That team would have a real shot if it was healthy entering the playoffs and also alleviates a lot of the long term salary issues (by getting rid of KO, Brown, Smart, and Bradley for basically just Griffin, Butler, and some short term low dollar vets).

Those are the type of moves I'd like to see.  Roster upgrades/consolidation by using not just the cap space but some of the young assets (i.e. Brown and Smart). 

I'd rather the team just go for it now because there are no guarantees on young players (or does that only count when you are discussing Philly and not Boston).  I was very disappointed Cousins wasn't acquired (especially at the final price) because I thought he could have given Boston an actual real advantage against all of the main contenders.  I couldn't believe Boston didn't go for Noel, again helping alleviate a real weak point of the team, especially at his final price.  How much different does this team look if it would have added Cousins and Noel for Brown, Rozier, and some future 1st's.  Even someone like PJ Tucker would have helped a great deal. 

You guys are letting Ainge off the hook because of "future assets", but Boston doing nothing at the deadline was a travesty and this basic status quo of trying to win and rebuild at the same time won't work much longer.  You have to pick a direction and go with it.

Brown, Smart, Bradley, Boston 2018 1st isn't going to get us Butler.  Bradley and Smart are both getting paid after next season whereas Butler has 2 more seasons so the Bulls would be worse off financially.  Brown hasn't shown much star potential.  Smart is a role player.  Bradley is a nice starter but not a difference maker.  The Boston 2018 pick isn't worth much.   

[Fireworks_Boom!]

How is the even a debate? It's just reality. The path has already been chosen. We are spoiled.

• Ainge & Management has created a team who can seriously compete for a championship NOW.
• Ainge & Management have stockpiled young developing players to develop on this team, NBDL and in Europe.
• Ainge & Management have stockpiled lottery picks (Brooklyn '17 & '18, Memphis unprotected in 2021 but likely mid 1st in 2019).

I mean can it get any better? No other team in the league can boast what we can...it's not even debatable.

[Moranis]

You guys are dense. I'm advocating picking a direction not tanking.  The team certainly can go in the other direction and trade the assets for players that better fit the timeline of the current starters and go for a title. 

That is the point  I've been making. You can only try to do both things for so long until you harm both potential paths.

Except you've failed to prove that point. You've tried bringing up salaries and playing time. Both have been thoroughly and convincingly refuted.

How many times do I need to repeat this? Never in the history of the NBA has a 50 win team had consecutive top 5 lottery picks. Not only do the Cs have that, they will likely have 3 in a row (plus other #1s from other teams the next couple of years). That is an unprecedented opportunity and with that the Celtics are not bound by the typical constraints that NBA teams face. Most teams have to pick one direction or another because they don't have the assets & the talent at the same time. So either they're making a run or they're in full rebuilding mode. 50 win teams don't have top 5 picks. Top lottery teams don't have the talent to get 50 wins. Teams don't have the luxury of being both. We do. We can compete now and restock with even better prospects for later.

Going all in is going to create a 3-4 year window right now to compete then it's over. Dedicating to the tank would get a helluva lot of assets for later but then you lose veteran leadership, the expectation of winning, the desire of FAs to join the team and you delay the window opening for 3-5 years if it ever does. Or you hold to the middle ground, continue to get better and you have what should be a decent sized window for a decade or more. I don't see where there's a substantial risk of a middle ground.

Depends on who you acquire on how long the window is.  I mean Butler, Griffin, George, Cousins (not available anymore), Hayward, etc. are all in their mid-20's.  You'd certainly expect more than 3 years from that group, especially joining Thomas, Bradley, Crowder, etc. who are also in that age range.  Let's you sign Hayward as a free agent, how exactly do you get that team to be a real legit contender without moving some of the young assets to acquire that other guy that gets you over the hump?  And if you aren't willing to move the young players/draft picks, then what exactly are you doing?  Just floating along as a 50 win team without any real shot at winning, unless the young guys hit.  Of course if your title hopes hinge on the young guys hitting, then why wouldn't you maximize those odds, but creating playing time, getting more bites at the apple, etc. 

My ideal somewhat realistic summer, would be signing Griffin as a free agent, then moving Brown, Smart, Bradley, Boston 2018 1st for Butler (I don't think you need to include a BKN pick with that package), re-signing Johnson (at a reasonable rate and short term), and then adding a veteran big and wings for depth on the bench.

So I'd go into next year with

PG - Thomas, Fultz/Ball, Jackson
SG - Butler, Vet, Rozier
SF - Crowder, Vet, Jerekbo
PF - Griffin, Johnson, Yabusele
C - Horford, Vet, Zizic

That team would have a real shot if it was healthy entering the playoffs and also alleviates a lot of the long term salary issues (by getting rid of KO, Brown, Smart, and Bradley for basically just Griffin, Butler, and some short term low dollar vets).

Those are the type of moves I'd like to see.  Roster upgrades/consolidation by using not just the cap space but some of the young assets (i.e. Brown and Smart). 

I'd rather the team just go for it now because there are no guarantees on young players (or does that only count when you are discussing Philly and not Boston).  I was very disappointed Cousins wasn't acquired (especially at the final price) because I thought he could have given Boston an actual real advantage against all of the main contenders.  I couldn't believe Boston didn't go for Noel, again helping alleviate a real weak point of the team, especially at his final price.  How much different does this team look if it would have added Cousins and Noel for Brown, Rozier, and some future 1st's.  Even someone like PJ Tucker would have helped a great deal. 

You guys are letting Ainge off the hook because of "future assets", but Boston doing nothing at the deadline was a travesty and this basic status quo of trying to win and rebuild at the same time won't work much longer.  You have to pick a direction and go with it.

Brown, Smart, Bradley, Boston 2018 1st isn't going to get us Butler.  Bradley and Smart are both getting paid after next season whereas Butler has 2 more seasons so the Bulls would be worse off financially.  Brown hasn't shown much star potential.  Smart is a role player.  Bradley is a nice starter but not a difference maker.  The Boston 2018 pick isn't worth much.

Except that was basically the package (plus Crowder and minus the pick) that the Bulls wanted for Butler at the last draft that Ainge rejected.  Bulls likely would have taken Dunn not Brown at 3, but Brown has already shown to be better than Dunn.  Given it is now later and the Bulls are apparently sold on moving Butler, they won't get a better package than that for Butler.  Again I don't do that trade in a vacuum, it is contingent on signing Griffin first (probably do it if I sign Hayward as well), but I think it is a fairly reasonable trade for Butler. 

[footey]

You guys are dense. I'm advocating picking a direction not tanking.  The team certainly can go in the other direction and trade the assets for players that better fit the timeline of the current starters and go for a title. 

That is the point  I've been making. You can only try to do both things for so long until you harm both potential paths.

Except you've failed to prove that point. You've tried bringing up salaries and playing time. Both have been thoroughly and convincingly refuted.

How many times do I need to repeat this? Never in the history of the NBA has a 50 win team had consecutive top 5 lottery picks. Not only do the Cs have that, they will likely have 3 in a row (plus other #1s from other teams the next couple of years). That is an unprecedented opportunity and with that the Celtics are not bound by the typical constraints that NBA teams face. Most teams have to pick one direction or another because they don't have the assets & the talent at the same time. So either they're making a run or they're in full rebuilding mode. 50 win teams don't have top 5 picks. Top lottery teams don't have the talent to get 50 wins. Teams don't have the luxury of being both. We do. We can compete now and restock with even better prospects for later.

Going all in is going to create a 3-4 year window right now to compete then it's over. Dedicating to the tank would get a helluva lot of assets for later but then you lose veteran leadership, the expectation of winning, the desire of FAs to join the team and you delay the window opening for 3-5 years if it ever does. Or you hold to the middle ground, continue to get better and you have what should be a decent sized window for a decade or more. I don't see where there's a substantial risk of a middle ground.

Depends on who you acquire on how long the window is.  I mean Butler, Griffin, George, Cousins (not available anymore), Hayward, etc. are all in their mid-20's.  You'd certainly expect more than 3 years from that group, especially joining Thomas, Bradley, Crowder, etc. who are also in that age range.  Let's you sign Hayward as a free agent, how exactly do you get that team to be a real legit contender without moving some of the young assets to acquire that other guy that gets you over the hump?  And if you aren't willing to move the young players/draft picks, then what exactly are you doing?  Just floating along as a 50 win team without any real shot at winning, unless the young guys hit.  Of course if your title hopes hinge on the young guys hitting, then why wouldn't you maximize those odds, but creating playing time, getting more bites at the apple, etc. 

My ideal somewhat realistic summer, would be signing Griffin as a free agent, then moving Brown, Smart, Bradley, Boston 2018 1st for Butler (I don't think you need to include a BKN pick with that package), re-signing Johnson (at a reasonable rate and short term), and then adding a veteran big and wings for depth on the bench.

So I'd go into next year with

PG - Thomas, Fultz/Ball, Jackson
SG - Butler, Vet, Rozier
SF - Crowder, Vet, Jerekbo
PF - Griffin, Johnson, Yabusele
C - Horford, Vet, Zizic

That team would have a real shot if it was healthy entering the playoffs and also alleviates a lot of the long term salary issues (by getting rid of KO, Brown, Smart, and Bradley for basically just Griffin, Butler, and some short term low dollar vets).

Those are the type of moves I'd like to see.  Roster upgrades/consolidation by using not just the cap space but some of the young assets (i.e. Brown and Smart). 

I'd rather the team just go for it now because there are no guarantees on young players (or does that only count when you are discussing Philly and not Boston).  I was very disappointed Cousins wasn't acquired (especially at the final price) because I thought he could have given Boston an actual real advantage against all of the main contenders.  I couldn't believe Boston didn't go for Noel, again helping alleviate a real weak point of the team, especially at his final price.  How much different does this team look if it would have added Cousins and Noel for Brown, Rozier, and some future 1st's.  Even someone like PJ Tucker would have helped a great deal. 

You guys are letting Ainge off the hook because of "future assets", but Boston doing nothing at the deadline was a travesty and this basic status quo of trying to win and rebuild at the same time won't work much longer.  You have to pick a direction and go with it.

Brown, Smart, Bradley, Boston 2018 1st isn't going to get us Butler.  Bradley and Smart are both getting paid after next season whereas Butler has 2 more seasons so the Bulls would be worse off financially.  Brown hasn't shown much star potential.  Smart is a role player.  Bradley is a nice starter but not a difference maker.  The Boston 2018 pick isn't worth much.

Except that was basically the package (plus Crowder and minus the pick) that the Bulls wanted for Butler at the last draft that Ainge rejected.  Bulls likely would have taken Dunn not Brown at 3, but Brown has already shown to be better than Dunn.  Given it is now later and the Bulls are apparently sold on moving Butler, they won't get a better package than that for Butler.  Again I don't do that trade in a vacuum, it is contingent on signing Griffin first (probably do it if I sign Hayward as well), but I think it is a fairly reasonable trade for Butler.

I don't know who to chastise more, Moranis for proposing to give way too much for Butler, or Tazz to suggest it isn't enough. Both of you are way off.

[Fireworks_Boom!]

I have changed my opinion (I was previously supportive of trading our assets for PG13) and would rather we hang onto picks, sign a FA (Hayward or Griffin) and continue to rise to the top. Boston is now a destination for targets. How could it not be given our ability to compete?

I get the notion that we have a window (with impending contracts to Bradley, Thomas et al). But we have established redundancies on this current roster, and our future lottery picks enable us to create redundancies where they don't exist (i.e. Fultz replaces Thomas).

Next year could be:

PG: Isaiah Thomas/Markelle Fultz
SG: Avery Bradley/Marcus Smart/Terry Rozier
SF: Gordon Hayward/Jaylen Brown
PF: Jae Crowder/Guerschon Yabusele
C: Al Horford/Kelly Olynyk/Ante Zizic

That team has serious depth...

[Granath]

I mean Butler, Griffin, George, Cousins (not available anymore), Hayward, etc. are all in their mid-20's.  You'd certainly expect more than 3 years from that group, especially joining Thomas, Bradley, Crowder, etc. who are also in that age range.  Let's you sign Hayward as a free agent, how exactly do you get that team to be a real legit contender without moving some of the young assets to acquire that other guy that gets you over the hump?  And if you aren't willing to move the young players/draft picks, then what exactly are you doing?  Just floating along as a 50 win team without any real shot at winning, unless the young guys hit.  Of course if your title hopes hinge on the young guys hitting, then why wouldn't you maximize those odds, but creating playing time, getting more bites at the apple, etc. 

If you don't think a 53 win team who signs Hayward is a "real legitimate contender" then why sign Hayward? Below you describe that you want a win now scenario. But if the team is two NBA All-Stars away from being a true competitor then there really shouldn't be a win now scenario. That's a rebuild scenario (which I don't believe is happening). So all you're doing with the paragraph above is contradicting your own desires below.

Nor is this team floating along. We're likely to wind up with 53 or so wins. That's an improvement of 5 from the year before. That was an improvement of 8 from the year before. That was an improvement of 15 the year before. There's a trend line here and it's not just "floating along". The math isn't that hard. When you make comments like that then any legitimate points you're trying to make are lost.

My ideal somewhat realistic summer, would be signing Griffin as a free agent, then moving Brown, Smart, Bradley, Boston 2018 1st for Butler (I don't think you need to include a BKN pick with that package), re-signing Johnson (at a reasonable rate and short term), and then adding a veteran big and wings for depth on the bench.

So I'd go into next year with

PG - Thomas, Fultz/Ball, Jackson
SG - Butler, Vet, Rozier
SF - Crowder, Vet, Jerekbo
PF - Griffin, Johnson, Yabusele
C - Horford, Vet, Zizic

That team would have a real shot if it was healthy entering the playoffs and also alleviates a lot of the long term salary issues (by getting rid of KO, Brown, Smart, and Bradley for basically just Griffin, Butler, and some short term low dollar vets).

Since Griffin has maybe a 20% chance of arriving in Boston, do you have a plan for a more likely scenario? Or are all of your hopes based on a plan that has a 1 in 5 chance of succeeding. Because if we want to play the odds, Brown has about a 50/50 chance of being an All Star (historical #3 pick) and if we get the #1 this year those odds are about 70% on that player. That's a 35% combined chance of adding two young All Stars to the team as home-grown, long-term and cheaper players.

Heck, I could describe my ideal offseason would be acquiring KD and KAT but that doesn't mean it's likely to happen.

Moreover, you're talking out of both sides of your mouth. Just a handful of posts ago you complained about cap space. How are you going to pay Horford (max), Griffin (max), Thomas (near max), Bradley (due for a massive raise), Butler ($20m, due for max in two years) plus these vets? That's why your window is quite limited. It's a lot easier to control the price of a RFA 3 or 4 years from now than the price of veterans who are UFAs within the next two years. For instance, when it's time to renew Brown, Horford's contract is going off the books. Whose contracts are going off the books to sign your guys?

Those are the type of moves I'd like to see.  Roster upgrades/consolidation by using not just the cap space but some of the young assets (i.e. Brown and Smart). 

I'd rather the team just go for it now because there are no guarantees on young players (or does that only count when you are discussing Philly and not Boston).  I was very disappointed Cousins wasn't acquired (especially at the final price) because I thought he could have given Boston an actual real advantage against all of the main contenders.  I couldn't believe Boston didn't go for Noel, again helping alleviate a real weak point of the team, especially at his final price.  How much different does this team look if it would have added Cousins and Noel for Brown, Rozier, and some future 1st's.  Even someone like PJ Tucker would have helped a great deal. 

You want to acquire someone. We get it. How much different does this team look? Quite a bit different. Noel sits on the bench because the front two spots are taken by Cousins and Horford. The team has no depth at SF. And GS is still favored to win the NBA Championship. That historically great team in GS is the massive roadblock you seem to fail to take into account. 

I was one who was actually in favor of looking at Cousins. I thought he'd be a nice addition. But Danny and Brad decided not to do it. There's a reason for that even if we don't understand it. I bet if Cleveland and GS weren't as strong Ainge might have made this deal. He's already shown a willingness to do that. But the situation today - both on the Cs and in the NBA - are quite different than they were back in the summer of 2007. Ainge is smart enough to realize that. Sometimes the best move you make is the one you didn't.

You guys are letting Ainge off the hook because of "future assets", but Boston doing nothing at the deadline was a travesty and this basic status quo of trying to win and rebuild at the same time won't work much longer.  You have to pick a direction and go with it.

No, it wasn't a travesty. It was upsetting to those who are impatient. It's the same old discussion I've been hearing for the last two years. It was a travesty this year. It was a disaster last offseason. It was a disappointment the trading deadline before that. Blah blah blah. Meanwhile the team keeps winning more each year.

You again use words like "rebuild" without knowing what they mean. 50 win teams aren't rebuilding. If anything the Celtics are reloading - back-filling very good players now with more highly touted guys later. There's a difference. Every time you say rebuild, you just defeat your own argument.

Nor is Ainge on any hook. The Celtics are currently #1 in the ECF and have the best chance in the lottery. What more could someone reasonably ask for not even 3 years removed from a 25 win season?