Are we really rebuilding?

[kgainez]

With Bill Simmons suggesting the idea of flipping Bledsoe (if we were to get him) with Paul Pierce for Josh Smith, I have to wonder if the Celtics are even really rebuilding.

Because with a package of KG and Doc, we could get 3-4 fair players and a couple picks...and isn't it ALL about assets? But instead, we're going for two semi-recognizable household names in DeAndre Jordan and Eric Bledsoe.

Ok, and then there have been reports how Doc covets guys like J.J. Reddick and Jackie McMullan said that Millsap was Plan A for the Celtics. I think it's a lot to assume any and all of this gets done, but in an ideal world, how is this just a team for rebuilding? Oh! And then the whole Eric Gordon thing.

Isn't this team too good to really stink it up? What if Danny isn't necessarily rebuilding but retooling by giving Rondo the team he needs and making Rondo the main guy in charge...right?

We can speculate all day on what a team led by Rondo needs to look like...but by going for Youth and essentially getting rid of all the old guys, what if we're going more of "let's see what Rondo/youth can do as leader and go from there" type of thing...

Idk...just wondering. Would you be down with that? Just going full blown young guys?

[gpap]

Good point and I think you're right.

I think this has alot more to do with getting younger and more athletic and less with trying to intentionally become bad.

Remember that for all this talk of "tanking" to get a high pick in 2014, that this is also a business.

And putting a losing product on the court for a couple years means you turn people away.

At least if you "retool" and remain competitive as opposed to "rebuilding", you can remain relevant and get younger.

[Who]

It's looking like a partial rebuilding process (35-42 win teams, trading out old for young, gaining flexibility, looking to make a major move down the road) rather than a full blown rebuilding process (20-25 win teams, multiple top five picks).

Retooling rather than rebuilding. Or partial rebuild rather than fully blown rebuilding.

[Moranis]

It's looking like a partial rebuilding process (35-42 win teams, trading out old for young, gaining flexibility, looking to make a major move down the road) rather than a full blown rebuilding process (20-25 win teams, multiple top five picks).

Retooling rather than rebuilding. Or partial rebuild rather than fully blown rebuilding.

and that crap never works.

[gpap]

It's looking like a partial rebuilding process (35-42 win teams, trading out old for young, gaining flexibility, looking to make a major move down the road) rather than a full blown rebuilding process (20-25 win teams, multiple top five picks).

Retooling rather than rebuilding. Or partial rebuild rather than fully blown rebuilding.

Yup, it's sorta like having your cake and eating it too.

You "rebuild" but do it in a way where fans will still want to come to games and buy tickets.

I think right now what's going on in Boston with the resurgence of the Red Sox and Bruins and the Pats always being good, the last thing the Celts want to do is become bad and get significantly lost in the shuffle of the Boston sports scene.

[SHAQATTACK]

gathering  assets ,  getting younger,  reshaping the team for maybe another style of coaching 

not sure Celtics can rerun Rivers at this point

DA looking to rebuild the team top to bottom during 2014 ,  maybe trade for a decent pick in that draft.

not quite a tank,  but shuffle of assets.

I'm interested in who could be the coach.....please not Vinnie

[LarBrd33]

Asset acquisition mode.  Don't be surprised to see us flip Rondo for a package of draft picks.  We'll probably be trying to tank next year.   KG is the best per-minute player on this team.  Pierce is the best offensive player on this team.  This would be like stripping Duncan and Ginoboli off the Spurs and replacing them with bench players.  Why bother trying to win at that point?  It's tanking time.

[kgainez]

It's looking like a partial rebuilding process (35-42 win teams, trading out old for young, gaining flexibility, looking to make a major move down the road) rather than a full blown rebuilding process (20-25 win teams, multiple top five picks).

Retooling rather than rebuilding. Or partial rebuild rather than fully blown rebuilding.

and that crap never works.

how doesn't that work?
you win 35-42 games, you have to assume you're a player or two away from actually competing. One you could get in the draft or by trading away assets...
where as a 20-25 team...it's going to take a lot fo the bobcats to be competitors.

also with a 35-42 winning team, you have to also assume there will be a couple big wins in there and some highlights great to put you in the media and have SOMEONE looking at you.

so if you put together a team of young studly talent, and you get a free agent (think about someone like David West) who knows their impact could change the club, you're making yourself a competitor.

[kozlodoev]

Asset acquisition mode.  Don't be surprised to see us flip Rondo for a package of draft picks.  We'll probably be trying to tank next year.   KG is the best per-minute player on this team.  Pierce is the best offensive player on this team.  This would be like stripping Duncan and Ginoboli off the Spurs and replacing them with bench players.  Why bother trying to win at that point?  It's tanking time.

When your best per-minute player can't be played for more than 28-30 minutes a game, and you have nothing else on your roster, you're already into tanking mode.

Last season should have dispersed any illusions about this.

[Moranis]

It's looking like a partial rebuilding process (35-42 win teams, trading out old for young, gaining flexibility, looking to make a major move down the road) rather than a full blown rebuilding process (20-25 win teams, multiple top five picks).

Retooling rather than rebuilding. Or partial rebuild rather than fully blown rebuilding.

and that crap never works.

how doesn't that work?
you win 35-42 games, you have to assume you're a player or two away from actually competing. One you could get in the draft or by trading away assets...
where as a 20-25 team...it's going to take a lot fo the bobcats to be competitors.

also with a 35-42 winning team, you have to also assume there will be a couple big wins in there and some highlights great to put you in the media and have SOMEONE looking at you.

so if you put together a team of young studly talent, and you get a free agent (think about someone like David West) who knows their impact could change the club, you're making yourself a competitor.

find me a team that was a title contender, tailed off but was still good, then made a bunch of trades to remain competitive but younger, and then made another jump to a title contender again.

[Yoki_IsTheName]

gathering  assets ,  getting younger,  reshaping the team for maybe another style of coaching 

not sure Celtics can rerun Rivers at this point

DA looking to rebuild the team top to bottom during 2014 ,  maybe trade for a decent pick in that draft.

not quite a tank,  but shuffle of assets.

I'm interested in who could be the coach.....please not Vinnie

Someone said this on the forums but I forgot who it is so im crediting who you are for saying this.

"Hiring Vinny makes sens if we are tanking."

Either way, I hope it's not VDN. While indeed we are rebuilding, we have to establish an identity as well while we are doing so, I don't like Vinny's ideas of CP3 ball style of play.

This has been said a million times, but really, make a run for JVG. Tough minded coach. Names that I would also like to be in the mix is Patrick Ewing. If we're getting DeAndre Jordan for that ridiculous deal, we better get a coach who can mentor him in a way not a lot can. Forget the offense for a second, if Jordan can play as tough as Chewing was on D, we got us a solid Center for years to come. We can still steal him from the Cats right?

Or if we want to go extreme, hire Bill Simmons. 

[CelticG1]

It's looking like a partial rebuilding process (35-42 win teams, trading out old for young, gaining flexibility, looking to make a major move down the road) rather than a full blown rebuilding process (20-25 win teams, multiple top five picks).

Retooling rather than rebuilding. Or partial rebuild rather than fully blown rebuilding.

and that crap never works.

how doesn't that work?
you win 35-42 games, you have to assume you're a player or two away from actually competing. One you could get in the draft or by trading away assets...
where as a 20-25 team...it's going to take a lot fo the bobcats to be competitors.

also with a 35-42 winning team, you have to also assume there will be a couple big wins in there and some highlights great to put you in the media and have SOMEONE looking at you.

so if you put together a team of young studly talent, and you get a free agent (think about someone like David West) who knows their impact could change the club, you're making yourself a competitor.

find me a team that was a title contender, tailed off but was still good, then made a bunch of trades to remain competitive but younger, and then made another jump to a title contender again.

Well why don't you list the many teams that have failed in doing this?

[kgainez]

It's looking like a partial rebuilding process (35-42 win teams, trading out old for young, gaining flexibility, looking to make a major move down the road) rather than a full blown rebuilding process (20-25 win teams, multiple top five picks).

Retooling rather than rebuilding. Or partial rebuild rather than fully blown rebuilding.

and that crap never works.

how doesn't that work?
you win 35-42 games, you have to assume you're a player or two away from actually competing. One you could get in the draft or by trading away assets...
where as a 20-25 team...it's going to take a lot fo the bobcats to be competitors.

also with a 35-42 winning team, you have to also assume there will be a couple big wins in there and some highlights great to put you in the media and have SOMEONE looking at you.

so if you put together a team of young studly talent, and you get a free agent (think about someone like David West) who knows their impact could change the club, you're making yourself a competitor.

find me a team that was a title contender, tailed off but was still good, then made a bunch of trades to remain competitive but younger, and then made another jump to a title contender again.

the reason i can't do this off top is because many of these teams decided to go into full blown rebuild or were extremely unlucky (take a look at the 2013 Lakers who won in 2010).

the Mavs decided they wanted to be proactive in dumping bad contracts...they may be able to come back tho, depends on what Cuban does.

The Heat won in 2006. Tailed off and basically won in free agency (which won't happen in Boston because of reasons).

The Spurs have always made minor changes to their roster. But they've always been contenders so I don't think they count.

Otherwise, in recent years, I can't show you who's done such a thing. I think the Pacers and Bulls built on something though. Same with the Knicks. All of which made some noise in the playoffs.

[RLewis35]

It's looking like a partial rebuilding process (35-42 win teams, trading out old for young, gaining flexibility, looking to make a major move down the road) rather than a full blown rebuilding process (20-25 win teams, multiple top five picks).

Retooling rather than rebuilding. Or partial rebuild rather than fully blown rebuilding.

and that crap never works.

how doesn't that work?
you win 35-42 games, you have to assume you're a player or two away from actually competing. One you could get in the draft or by trading away assets...
where as a 20-25 team...it's going to take a lot fo the bobcats to be competitors.

also with a 35-42 winning team, you have to also assume there will be a couple big wins in there and some highlights great to put you in the media and have SOMEONE looking at you.

so if you put together a team of young studly talent, and you get a free agent (think about someone like David West) who knows their impact could change the club, you're making yourself a competitor.

find me a team that was a title contender, tailed off but was still good, then made a bunch of trades to remain competitive but younger, and then made another jump to a title contender again.

Howabout the Lakers when they dealt Shaq and Malone/Payton retired?  They missed the playoffs the next year, but that was mainly because Kobe missed 16 games, Odom missed 16 games, etc. (injury).  2006 and 2007 they were 7 seed (in a tough west conference...not the weak east) and lost first round, and then of course they won it all in 2008.

We have more young quality assets than they did (but also no Kobe).  I think this is kind of the blueprint though.  We wouldn't be losing a Shaq, so the fall shouldn't be as far, but we also may need more than just a Gasol-type to win the finals.  But I think it provides a base that we can go vairous directions in...all of Rondo, Bradley, Green, Jordan, Bledsoe (if included), Sully, picks are tradeable assets.  We should contend for 7th/8th, we will be a lottery team if Rondo is hurt for an extended period, and if we add someone like Josh Smith we could be more like 3/4.  Add Josh Smith and then hit it big with another FA or package BRadley, Sullinger and picks for another all star, and you may be a contender again.  It's our best option.