no the fear is that he doesn't move the needle enough in a positive direction, and that our team still sucks, but we're now more likely to overachieve to be a 7th seed punching bag.
You can make the argument that there's merit to signing someone like Greg Monroe if you do things this way -- aka the Milwaukee method -- but, uh, that's Greg Monroe and we can't surround him with a Jabari Parker, you know? Instead we have David Lee and Marcus Smart, and we continue to miss out on the assets to land someone with the potential to be a real game changer.
Here's what we all know:
a) All Celtics fans want the team's ultimate direction to be upward.
b) There are two basic ways of doing that: 1) gradual improvement, with maybe a sudden boost here or there from a key trade or FA signing; and 2) bottoming out and then (hopefully) skyrocketing to the top via using or trading high draft picks.
c) Danny has clearly chosen the former.
If Danny had wanted to tank, he would've done it. Last year's team turned out to be maybe a little better than Danny secretly hoped for, but he couldn't have been surprised—because if he'd wanted to tank, he would not have hired such a good motivator as Brad Stevens. And after that, he would not have made moves such as turning a TPE into Tyler Zeller and Isaiah Thomas. He would've let TPEs expire for nothing. He would've signed a bunch of old shlubs and D-Leaguers.
But since he didn't do those things, and instead did the things he did, it's clear he's going for gradual improvement while maintaining the ability to strike while the iron's hot (whenever it gets hot). I agree that waiting is sometimes hard—I've struggled with the process sometimes—but Danny's course of action is clear, and I think it would be helpful to pro-tankers to give up tanking hopes at this particular point in this particular rebuild. Maybe Danny will tank the next time around, but that's not how things worked out this time—if last season's mismatched collection of assets couldn't miss the playoffs and get a decent draft slot, then the tanking route has no shot this time around.
Given, then, that Danny is taking the gradual-improvement route, getting David Lee is a good move. He's way better than Gerald Wallace, and the combination of Lee and Amir Johnson is a clear upgrade to our frontcourt. I like Sully and KO, but they haven't blown off our doors so far, despite having plenty of opportunity to do so. Plus, Sully's had a lot of injury and weight issues, and Kelly has consistently shown an aversion to being aggressive. I'm all for developing young guys if they're worth developing—that is, if they're going to take advantage of their opportunities. At the very least, having guys like Lee and Johnson around is good motivation for the young guys to step up their game (though they should've already been sufficiently motivated), so if Sully and/or KO are still around at training camp, and neither appears to have made huge strides since last season, why would we want to keep them around any longer?
I don't think Ainge hired Stevens with the idea that the Celtics were going to be competitive two years into a six-year contract. I think he was hired because he was used to molding middling players into above-adequate performance. I assume that ownership feels the same way, because you don't hire a rookie head coach from the NCAA if you're trying for short-term NBA success, you hire a Lionel Hollins or a George Karl or a PJ Carlissimo or whatever.
Likewise, I think Ainge's attitude has been that he'll make any deal as long as he thinks its a good one. He's said as much re: Thomas and the Lee deal is in the same vein.
I'm not actually particularly pro tanking, by the way, and I think my post history speaks to that. What I am very against are empty-calorie players like Evan Turner and David Lee being the faces of the C's. They're like a less entertaining, less talented version of the Walker/Pierce Celtics from a decade-plus ago, and I don't see that approach as being particularly meaningful to the future of the franchise.
I very much agree with the bolded.
I'm sure you're right in saying Ainge probably didn't think the team would be competitive only 2 years into a 6-year deal. But if Ainge knew that Stevens was good at getting more-than-expected production out of middling players, that tells me that Ainge wasn't interested in tanking or anything like it. Maybe Ainge didn't expect as much team improvement as occurred last season, but I think he expected at least
some improvement.
And I think that's what David Lee brings—
some improvement. Maybe not a lot. But a net positive of some kind. Some people don't like that, either because he's not a drastic improvement that vaults us to contender status, or because he's not an alleged franchise savior like Towns or Wiggins. And that's fine; I understand that some people prefer other methods of rebuilding. I just hope that by now people would see the direction that Ainge has chosen, and that he's not going to change tactics midstream—he's going to keep making the team somewhat better than it was before, while still hoping to hit on that big deal should it ever materialize. And Lee fits that overall plan; having him instead of Gerald Wallace puts the team in a better position than it was in last week—talent-wise and asset-wise.
I don't want empty-calorie guys, either. Lee might be like that in some ways, but I don't think he (or guys like him) is Danny's end-game. Lee might play surprisingly well, and Danny might surprise us and actually keep Lee through this season and then even bring him back—or he might trade Lee at the deadline. Either way, this process is ongoing.
