Poll: How far do we go?

[vinnie]

Bunch of role players? Oh man. What does that even mean? We have KG and Pierce in our team still, what more do you need than a "bunch of role players"?

A bunch of quality role players + Garnett and Pierce could be a 50 win caliber team.

If in a well-balanced roster.

Which I think this is, but apparently most disagree, and our roster is not even finished yet.

I will ask you the same question. Are they going 28-9 the rest of the way to get to 50 wins?

Don't care, and don't know what this question tries to explore.

You said you agreed that this roster is a 50-win team. Right now they are 22-23 with 37 games left, so would have to go 28-9 the rest of the way to get to 50 wins.

I didn't put thought into the winning speculation, I was agreeing with the well-balanced aspect he mentioned.

A 50-win projection is only applicable if you're starting the season today... not take the current record, and then speculate the type of run we have to go on now to get there.

Got it.

[Who]

Bunch of role players? Oh man. What does that even mean? We have KG and Pierce in our team still, what more do you need than a "bunch of role players"?

A bunch of quality role players + Garnett and Pierce in a well balanced roster could be a 50 win caliber team.

So they have 22 wins now. and they have 37 games left. Are you suggesting they can go 28-9 the rest of the way?

No, it means I think the roster has grossly under-performed so far this season.

And also that I think they have enough talent left on the roster to play at an above .500 clip the rest of the way without Rondo and Sullinger. Not at 50 win pace until they fix that big man issue (very important) and maybe make a small lateral move in the backcourt (not sure if that is necessary or not).

Frontcourt = one player shy of proper big man rotation
Backcourt = not sure it's well balanced enough offensively.

[Mr October]

I think the Cs will slip past Milwaukee into that number 7 slot, upset the Knicks, and then fall to the Bulls/Hawks in round 2.

[BudweiserCeltic]

Bunch of role players? Oh man. What does that even mean? We have KG and Pierce in our team still, what more do you need than a "bunch of role players"?

A bunch of quality role players + Garnett and Pierce in a well balanced roster could be a 50 win caliber team.

So they have 22 wins now. and they have 37 games left. Are you suggesting they can go 28-9 the rest of the way?

No, it means I think the roster has grossly under-performed so far this season.

And also that I think they have enough talent left on the roster to play at an above .500 clip the rest of the way without Rondo and Sullinger. Not at 50 win pace until they fix that big man issue (very important) and maybe make a small lateral move in the backcourt (not sure if that is necessary or not).

Frontcourt = one player shy of proper big man rotation
Backcourt = not sure it's well balanced enough offensively.

Reading your posts for the past week, I can tell you're very conflicted with how our team will perform.

I see your analysis over and over, and it projects to me that this team is a good team, which may need a couple of simple tweaks to really perform as it should.

Then I see you rallying behind the "blow it up" effort on other posts.

Don't know what to make of it.

[snively]

Bunch of role players? Oh man. What does that even mean? We have KG and Pierce in our team still, what more do you need than a "bunch of role players"?

A bunch of quality role players + Garnett and Pierce could be a 50 win caliber team.

If in a well-balanced roster.

Which I think this is, but apparently most disagree, and our roster is not even finished yet.

I think this group would be closer to 42-45 wins.  Very good but not quite elite defensively (too weak on the boards, not enough defensive quality in the frontcourt besides KG), and skilled but impotent offensively - too reliant on 3 perimeter oriented old guys (KG, PP, JET) to generate looks for a group of mediocre efficiency role players (Lee, Bass, Green, Bradley).

[vinnie]

Bunch of role players? Oh man. What does that even mean? We have KG and Pierce in our team still, what more do you need than a "bunch of role players"?

A bunch of quality role players + Garnett and Pierce could be a 50 win caliber team.

If in a well-balanced roster.

Which I think this is, but apparently most disagree, and our roster is not even finished yet.

I think this group would be closer to 42-45 wins.  Very good but not quite elite defensively (too weak on the boards, not enough defensive quality in the frontcourt besides KG), and skilled but impotent offensively - too reliant on 3 perimeter oriented old guys (KG, PP, JET) to generate looks for a group of mediocre efficiency role players (Lee, Bass, Green, Bradley).

I agree, but might raise it a bit to a 46-win team if this roster started and finished the season together.

[snively]

Bunch of role players? Oh man. What does that even mean? We have KG and Pierce in our team still, what more do you need than a "bunch of role players"?

A bunch of quality role players + Garnett and Pierce in a well balanced roster could be a 50 win caliber team.

So they have 22 wins now. and they have 37 games left. Are you suggesting they can go 28-9 the rest of the way?

No, it means I think the roster has grossly under-performed so far this season.

And also that I think they have enough talent left on the roster to play at an above .500 clip the rest of the way without Rondo and Sullinger. Not at 50 win pace until they fix that big man issue (very important) and maybe make a small lateral move in the backcourt (not sure if that is necessary or not).

Frontcourt = one player shy of proper big man rotation
Backcourt = not sure it's well balanced enough offensively.

Reading your posts for the past week, I can tell you're very conflicted with how our team will perform.

I see your analysis over and over, and it projects to me that this team is a good team, which may need a couple of simple tweaks to really perform as it should.

Then I see you rallying behind the "blow it up" effort on other posts.

Don't know what to make of it.

Because a good team (i.e. 50 win team) with no shot at beating the great teams and no future (i.e. a core of 35+year old stars, minimal flexibility to add pieces to make the leap to great team) is better off going into asset accumulation mode.

[More Banners]

Bunch of role players? Oh man. What does that even mean? We have KG and Pierce in our team still, what more do you need than a "bunch of role players"?

A bunch of quality role players + Garnett and Pierce could be a 50 win caliber team.

If in a well-balanced roster.

Which I think this is, but apparently most disagree, and our roster is not even finished yet.

I think this group would be closer to 42-45 wins.  Very good but not quite elite defensively (too weak on the boards, not enough defensive quality in the frontcourt besides KG), and skilled but impotent offensively - too reliant on 3 perimeter oriented old guys (KG, PP, JET) to generate looks for a group of mediocre efficiency role players (Lee, Bass, Green, Bradley).

I agree, but might raise it a bit to a 46-win team if this roster started and finished the season together.

IMO, we're one big away, as we were before.

With Rondo out, we have 4 guards:  2 offensive, 2 defensive.  It should make matching up easy enough, even for Doc.

KG is, as always, the main cog.  Pair him with Gortat and we might have the best frontline since before McHale broke his foot.  No joke.

Hence, Rondo for Gortat plus (I like Dragic and a #1) and we win another title.  I threw that out there a while back to mixed reviews...

[Who]

Bunch of role players? Oh man. What does that even mean? We have KG and Pierce in our team still, what more do you need than a "bunch of role players"?

A bunch of quality role players + Garnett and Pierce in a well balanced roster could be a 50 win caliber team.

So they have 22 wins now. and they have 37 games left. Are you suggesting they can go 28-9 the rest of the way?

No, it means I think the roster has grossly under-performed so far this season.

And also that I think they have enough talent left on the roster to play at an above .500 clip the rest of the way without Rondo and Sullinger. Not at 50 win pace until they fix that big man issue (very important) and maybe make a small lateral move in the backcourt (not sure if that is necessary or not).

Frontcourt = one player shy of proper big man rotation
Backcourt = not sure it's well balanced enough offensively.

Reading your posts for the past week, I can tell you're very conflicted with how our team will perform.

I see your analysis over and over, and it projects to me that this team is a good team, which may need a couple of simple tweaks to really perform as it should.

Then I see you rallying behind the "blow it up" effort on other posts.

Don't know what to make of it.

I am not conflicted. I believe three things:

(1) This is a good solid playoff caliber team even without Rondo

(2) This team is not good enough to compete for a title. It's a one and done or a two and done playoff squad. They do not have enough talent without Rondo to win an NBA title. I did think they had a shot with Rondo.

(3) I am not confident enough in this team's ability to compete for a title next year to keep the core together for another year.

So I say, it's time to move on. Start preparing for the future.

[Who]

Because a good team (i.e. 50 win team) with no shot at beating the great teams and no future (i.e. a core of 35+year old stars, minimal flexibility to add pieces to make the leap to great team) is better off going into asset accumulation mode.

Exactly. That is what I am trying to say.