In a lot of ways the Celtics are trying to do the single hardest thing in the NBA, which is build on two separate timelines. Building on an older timeline involves acquiring vets via fre agency or trade, using draft picks to pick up supporting pieces, filling out the roster with the MLE, BAE, and minimums then maximizing your playing time decisions to win. Building for the future usually involves taking toxic assets to get draft picks, being bad to imprve your own draft picks, drafting high upside guys, clearing the roster to give them maximum playing time and supplementing with just a couple vets for culture reasons. The Celtics are, and have been trying to do a blend of both.
The problem with that is you lose a little from both approaches. Brown and Tatum haven't gotten the shots or playmaking responsibilities they might have had they been drafted to a worse team on account of the Celtics having veterans like Hayward and Irving. This may have effected their development, or it may have lowered their perceived value around the league. The Celtics have wasted draft picks on guys like Yabu since they had a full and deep roster including vets like Morris so they reach for draft and stash guys. On the same token after selecting their young guys they have been reluctant to go al in on the present with guys like Kawhi, Paul Geeorge ect.
And now, with Kyrie gone, they've elected to sign a guy who rally doesn't move the needle all that much in terms of a championship in Kemba Walker all so they can be a little better now maybe at the expense of less shots for Brown and or tatum. Does al this mean we are a treadmill team? I dont really know. But I do wonder if they would have just been better off staying on the tanking route a season or longer, letting their young guys developing, and gong form their rather than signing all these 20-30 ranked NBA players like hayward, Horford and Kemba.
you're really discounting the fact that Kemba chose Boston over 29 other teams because he wants to win. If we still tanked 1 or more years, would any free agents want to come in the future who "want to win?" the winning culture got us horford, Hayward, and Kemba to come. Tanking wouldn't have done that
Okay, but I could counter by saying that the level of free agent you are referencing doesn't really matter. Those guys have a total of two all NBA third Teams between the three of them, they arent winning you a title. And maxing them out makes it harder to get the true superstar who can. Then they take opportunities away from young guys which artificially suppresses their value. The strategy was get those guys and make the team look good so when we get the superstar he stays, my counter argument is getting those guys makes it harder to get the superstar in the first place.
They’re All Stars no matter how much you want to downplay it shows that star players do want to play in Boston if they can get in a position to win.
It shows that guys who don't move the needle will play in Boston if their incumbent team doesn't offer them their full max and/or their old coach is employed here. And that wasn't the issue. The question was asked, if we tanked another year would these guys have come. Given the circumstances I'd say ya, they would have. As long as we were trending up we didn't need to make the playoffs as a 40-42 team and get steam rolled by Clevland to get Al Horford, Hayward or Kemba. And furthermore, if we hadn't gotten those guys then so what? Would we be materially worse off if Horford or hayward hadn't signed?
Just jumping in here to offer my two cents, I kind of agree with parts of both arguments.
Getting Kemba was a coup, no doubt. Honestly, it's quite confusing. You can't tell me the Lakers wouldn't have gladly had him as their backup plan after Kawhi. Also, he's from the Bronx and the Knicks would have signed him regardless of their rebuilding plan.
My best guess is, he wasn't comfortable waiting for Kawhi to make up his mind and took the sure thing, second best option. If Kawhi had accepted, the Clippers already having SGA and Lou Williams aren't as great a fit. It's also very possible that, as an East coaster, living in LA wasn't necessarily a big positive in his book. In terms of the actual Knicks team it's pretty clear they didn't have enough talent.
Regardless, he's undoubtedly a star and it's still an accomplishment to get him. Where I will take the other side is, this team would definitely not be irrelevant without him, or tanking, or whatever term you want to use. The Celtics have always been making the playoffs with much lesser talent on the roster since Stevens took charge. As talented as he is, I don't believe that Kemba being here necessarily makes it that much certain that we are able to make a big move in the future.
We've seen teams this offseason do the cap space and young assets on cheap or rookie deals method. Now, if you want to argue that that only worked because the teams happened to be located in big cities like LA and NYC, maybe you'd have a point. But I don't think that all things being equal, our team would not have been just as desirable in terms of the talent already here.
You just can't predict things these days because star players are making plans on their own. I don't know if Kemba is that type of player, not all stars are. For example, Lillard came out recently and said "I'm not a team-up sort of guy." There were many moments in the last few years where it seemed like the Blazers had hit a ceiling and he could have asked out and nobody would have really blamed him. Derrick Rose is another one, he famously refused to make a recruiting phone call to Carmelo on behalf of Chicago. His attitude was like, "come here if you want to come here, but I'm not going to kiss your ass and beg you. I'm the top dog and I want to beat you, not team-up with you."
I'm sure players around the league respect Kemba and would love to play with him, but whether they would go out of their way to try and maneuver themselves here, we don't know. I do think Kyrie, in terms of the respect factor especially is one of those players that other stars hold in very high esteem. Yes, Durant has business interests in New York, but let's say both NYC teams were not an option and Kyrie had gotten along better with Stevens and the young players. Durant could have been convinced to come here. We don't know if Kemba has those kinds of relationships, nor do we know if he is more hands-on in terms of recruiting or just one of those guys who only becomes involved when the GM asks him to. Considering how long he endured some god-awful Charlotte teams, I would wager he's more of the latter.
Anyway, I'd rather have Kemba than not because we can always deal him if things don't work out. I'm just not optimistic there is another move out there for a star big man, which is what this team really needs to be a contender. If we can't be a contender, Hayward and Kemba don't really have any use in being here. Before you say "well it doesn't hurt to have a guy on the roster," that's not entirely true. Cap space doesn't get injured. Guys on short-term, moveable deals might get injured, but it doesn't matter since they're essentially trade fodder anyway. Also, minutes and experience that goes to stars could have been given to developing young players.
Basically, the argument is we could have just continued to be in the same situation as when Horford or Hayward signed - be a scrappy, promising young team that makes the playoffs and has a relatively flexible cap to add stars before Tatum and Brown's deals are up. Only, instead of signing B-level stars, we get two A-levels, or at least an A and a B. I don't think that's so farfetched.
Topic: Concerned that the Celtics seem determined to stay on the treadmill (Read 8765 times)