Author Topic: How soon 'til we contend again?  (Read 10885 times)

0 Members and 0 Guests are viewing this topic.

Re: How soon 'til we contend again?
« Reply #30 on: February 06, 2014, 11:31:03 PM »

Offline indeedproceed

  • In The Rafters
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 42585
  • Tommy Points: 2756
  • You ain't the boss of the freakin' bedclothes.
I think it all depend on the lottery, and the offers Danny gets for his assets (Green, Bogans, Hump, Sully, Bradley, Rondo) or his future picks.

If we get a top-3 pick, I just don't see Danny trading that. In that case, it likely gets pushed out to the realm of the next president's reelection campaign.

If it's 4 th or lower , I could see Danny making a move to compete now.

"You've gotta respect a 15-percent 3-point shooter. A guy
like that is always lethal." - Evan 'The God' Turner

Re: How soon 'til we contend again?
« Reply #31 on: February 06, 2014, 11:33:50 PM »

Offline LooseCannon

  • NCE
  • Ed Macauley
  • ***********
  • Posts: 11833
  • Tommy Points: 950
Am I the only one who thinks that a five-year plan for contention is ridiculously long?
"The worst thing that ever happened in sports was sports radio, and the internet is sports radio on steroids with lower IQs.” -- Brian Burke, former Toronto Maple Leafs senior adviser, at the 2013 MIT Sloan Sports Analytics Conference

Re: How soon 'til we contend again?
« Reply #32 on: February 06, 2014, 11:44:40 PM »

Offline Nerf DPOY

  • Jim Loscutoff
  • **
  • Posts: 2509
  • Tommy Points: 377
Am I the only one who thinks that a five-year plan for contention is ridiculously long?

No, even if we draft one of Embiid, Wiggins, or Exum. Maybe we have a more liberal definition of contention, or maybe it's because I believe at least some of these future picks will be cashed in for a "ready now" player.

Re: How soon 'til we contend again?
« Reply #33 on: February 06, 2014, 11:56:36 PM »

Offline kg is king

  • Jaylen Brown
  • Posts: 508
  • Tommy Points: 37
  • KG IS THE KING
To those that are comparing our current situation (having assets and flipping them for impact player) to the 2007 situation, is there a player out there the caliber of KG (one of the best PFs of all time)? We were good because of KG, as he instantly changed the culture and play of the team. I don't see a player that can mirror KG's impact.

Durant ain't leaving OKC, Lebron won't come to Boston, Chris Paul seems content in LA.

Kevin Love is a very good player but he will not put us over the top imo.
"I'm from the bottom, I understand what it's like to have and to not have. My perception on giving is to put yourself in those people's shoes and go from there. So that's what I did. " - The One and Only KG

Re: How soon 'til we contend again?
« Reply #34 on: February 06, 2014, 11:59:13 PM »

Offline Phil125

  • Jrue Holiday
  • Posts: 322
  • Tommy Points: 57
Sobering thought for those who think we will be instant contenders after this draft even if we win the lottery. 

Since the 2003 Lebron James draft there have been exactly 2 players that were instant team changers.

Lebron James 2003 and Kevin Durant 2007

That is 600 picks and only 2 really were really over the top stars.


Go six years before that for Duncan.  And Five years before Duncan for Shaq.  Technically we are due this year for a game changer.  It will be 7 years since Durant.  So we are overdue.  But with college churning out crap every year the superstars might get rarer and rarer.

Do we count Kobe it took him a few years to get going?

ok so since 1992 (22 years)

Shaq
Kobe
Duncan
Lebron
Durant

(honorable mention to: Dwayne Wade and Dirk Nowitski)

I do not count Garnett he only got the wolves out of the first round once.  They had some decent teams too.

5 guys that made you team competitive even with an ok roster. 1320 picks bleah.  Not good odds.

If we do not get really lucky in the draft and get the next superstar it could be a long time before we put up another banner.  I see nothing in free agency that I find remotely enticing that is possible for us.  Lebron is not coming to Boston.

Re: How soon 'til we contend again?
« Reply #35 on: February 07, 2014, 12:01:41 AM »

Offline freshinthehouse

  • Don Chaney
  • *
  • Posts: 1626
  • Tommy Points: 158
Am I the only one who thinks that a five-year plan for contention is ridiculously long?

Thems the breaks, m'man.  Look how long it took Indy to build their team.  And they still haven't won anything.

Re: How soon 'til we contend again?
« Reply #36 on: February 07, 2014, 12:01:53 AM »

Offline indeedproceed

  • In The Rafters
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 42585
  • Tommy Points: 2756
  • You ain't the boss of the freakin' bedclothes.
Am I the only one who thinks that a five-year plan for contention is ridiculously long?

No and yes. Let's say we got Durant, or Lebron (as rookies). Even with those very top-end ridiculously out of the realm of possibilities kind of prospect , best case scenario is 3 years before they make 'the jump'.

So if we do go the long way, the hopeful payout is 3 years of meh with potential and 6-9 years of high level ball, maybe more.

If we cash in the picks for win now assets, who knows?

If Rondo is best case scenario and sully develops, who knows?

But if we do end up building from scratch, my kid will be reading before the celtics are contending. He's 6 months old now. Hope he's a fast learner.

"You've gotta respect a 15-percent 3-point shooter. A guy
like that is always lethal." - Evan 'The God' Turner

Re: How soon 'til we contend again?
« Reply #37 on: February 07, 2014, 01:18:51 AM »

Offline Mazingerz

  • Bill Walton
  • *
  • Posts: 1257
  • Tommy Points: 99
June, 2014.

Same feeling in my gut bro. But I believe the following players will no longer be part of the team (thru trades):

1. Bass
2. Green
3. Bayless
4. Faverani
5. Bogans
6. Hump

These six will be used as trade ballast IMHO. Danny will do what he did in 2007 to put us in contention again;
Peavey Bass Player - relearning to play after 10 years sucks;

Re: How soon 'til we contend again?
« Reply #38 on: February 07, 2014, 01:27:41 AM »

Offline guava_wrench

  • Satch Sanders
  • *********
  • Posts: 9931
  • Tommy Points: 777
Am I the only one who thinks that a five-year plan for contention is ridiculously long?
How long did it take Jordan to win a title? 6 or 7 years? Sure, the Bulls were contending against the strong Pistons teams. But it takes time for guys to develop and to get complimentary players around them.

Based on the assets we have, it might take a while. But we do at least have many picks that can add young talent. Considering most teams have plans to be good, I'll be very happy if we are contending in 5 years considering our team right now.

Re: How soon 'til we contend again?
« Reply #39 on: February 07, 2014, 06:18:26 AM »

Offline Depalma2002

  • Brad Stevens
  • Posts: 240
  • Tommy Points: 17
I think we're three to five seasons away.

3-5 sounds about right to me too.

I think there are going to be a lot of disappointed people as I see a lot of people comparing this season to 2007. That was at the end of the last rebuild. This year is the start.

On the positive side, Ainge has more assets at the start then he did in 2003 but on the negative side, players like KG don't become available all of the time. It's one thing to collect the assets that make such a deal possible, but you also need to have a seller.

So we have a great start on collecting the assets but it might take a few years for that last major piece to get within our grasp.

You could be right. It could be 3-5 years.  Problem with that is, the longer it takes, the more fans you lose.

I love the Celts, but there's no way I'll wait 3-5 years to watch another contending team.

For the fans sake, they should bring this team back to contention as soon as possible.

I would also think if takes 3-5 years for the Celts to contend again, that Ainge either would or should be on the hot seat.

I mean the Cavs GM got fired today and he just got the job the summer that Lebron left for Miami.

You make it sound like it's a choice.

The team would love to be a contender again as soon as possible. In fact, instead of risking another mediocre year or two of first round playoff ousters, they traded Pierce and Garnett to accelerate the process.

However, it takes time to build a contender.

I'm not saying they are going to tank for 3to5 years and then decide to flip the switch and contend. They'll continue to accumulate and develop assets, get gradually better, and when they get the opportunity to cash in those assets for a KG type move they will. But that final part is not totally up to them. They need a willing trade partner.

Perhaps we have different definitions of contender. I'm talking being one of the top 3 to 4 teams in the NBA with very realistic chances of being the champion? I don't think there is any chance Ainge is on the hotseat for not getting to this level in a shorter time. If Wyc was that type of owner, Danny would have been fired in 2006 or 2007 and we'd be hoping for Banner 17 instead of Banner 18.

Chris Grant got fired, not because the team is not a contender, but because the team hasn't progressed at all under his watch. If he had gotten this team into the playoffs he'd probabaly be there.

So again, perhaps our definitions of contender are different. I'm talking about contending for championships. We will be a playoff contender as early as next season.
« Last Edit: February 07, 2014, 06:23:43 AM by Depalma2002 »

Re: How soon 'til we contend again?
« Reply #40 on: February 07, 2014, 07:55:40 AM »

Offline gpap

  • Don Nelson
  • ********
  • Posts: 8224
  • Tommy Points: 417

Also, I kinda think the Sox caught lightining in a bottle last season and will now come back down to earth (and thus play like they appear on paper, a sub 500 team.) Also doesn't help that the Sox lost Ellsbury and Salty and then literally did nothing all offseason.

Only because you're ignoring how strong of a farm system the Red Sox have currently.

Also Salty sucks, he was useless in the playoffs to begin with and everyone could run on him, and I guess adding A.J. Pierzynski doesn't count. Or Edward Mujica who is a [dang] good relief pitcher, and Burke Badenhop who's a solid reliever.

Will see if Grady Sizemore will contribute or not, but now that he's healthy he's a low risk high reward addition.

In all, we've retained most of our roster and didn't break the bank on free-agents, now we'll have to see if we can perform with the solid replacements we have acquired. If it doesn't work, then we have the financial flexibility to get someone going forward supported by a strong farm crop... but this "literally did nothing all offseason" is a bit of nonsense.

Not that I'm expecting the team to be as good as last year, but we'll see... I didn't expect much from the last year either. But even back then I thought that we were moving in the right direction, and that sentiment is even stronger now than previously.

So in all the Red Sox might not be all that good this coming year in particular, or they could be... but this downward spiral talk doesn't apply as the team currently stands.

/enough MLB

I would've like to have seen the Sox add 1 or 2 of Beltran, Granderson and McCann.

I don't think giving McCann a 5 year, 85 million deal at 29 yrs old would've been a bad idea, considering he's one of the best catchers in baseball. Not to mention, you could also have him play 1st and DH.

Also, Pierzynski is 37 years old and Ross is 36. A little long in the tooth for such a defensively demanding position as catcher.

Then, I think either Beltran or Granderson would've been nice to replace Ellsbury's production

I wasn't a huge Ellsbury fan, but the fact is the Sox are a worse team without him and I don't think Jackie Bradley Jr is ready to take the reigns. I am also not even sure if he ends up becoming a full-time center fielder or more of a back-up.

As for Grady Sizemore, I don't see this notion of low-risk high-reward. All I see with Sizemore is all-risk no reward.

He hasn't played since 2011. Why leave such a big part of the outfield in the center field position as such a question mark between a rookie and an injury prone player?

That said, I am ready for baseball mostly because I want the nice weather to get here.


Re: How soon 'til we contend again?
« Reply #41 on: February 07, 2014, 08:26:59 AM »

Offline saltlover

  • Frank Ramsey
  • ************
  • Posts: 12490
  • Tommy Points: 2619
To those that are comparing our current situation (having assets and flipping them for impact player) to the 2007 situation, is there a player out there the caliber of KG (one of the best PFs of all time)? We were good because of KG, as he instantly changed the culture and play of the team. I don't see a player that can mirror KG's impact.

Durant ain't leaving OKC, Lebron won't come to Boston, Chris Paul seems content in LA.

Kevin Love is a very good player but he will not put us over the top imo.

Getting LaMarcus Aldridge from Portland would be the closest thing to getting a KG.  Problem is, with KG he signed an extension.  As we're seeing with Rondo, extensions in the new CBA sometimes can't pay enough, and that's even more true with extend-and-trade deals.  So you could pay a ton to Portland for Aldridge only to see him leave in a year.  It's a giant risk that could really set the franchise back for half a decade if it didn't work.  That's why I'd rather keep the picks this year and get a step closer to contention before trading for a superstar with one year left on his deal.

Re: How soon 'til we contend again?
« Reply #42 on: February 07, 2014, 08:58:06 AM »

Offline BudweiserCeltic

  • Bill Sharman
  • *******************
  • Posts: 19003
  • Tommy Points: 1833

Also, I kinda think the Sox caught lightining in a bottle last season and will now come back down to earth (and thus play like they appear on paper, a sub 500 team.) Also doesn't help that the Sox lost Ellsbury and Salty and then literally did nothing all offseason.

Only because you're ignoring how strong of a farm system the Red Sox have currently.

Also Salty sucks, he was useless in the playoffs to begin with and everyone could run on him, and I guess adding A.J. Pierzynski doesn't count. Or Edward Mujica who is a [dang] good relief pitcher, and Burke Badenhop who's a solid reliever.

Will see if Grady Sizemore will contribute or not, but now that he's healthy he's a low risk high reward addition.

In all, we've retained most of our roster and didn't break the bank on free-agents, now we'll have to see if we can perform with the solid replacements we have acquired. If it doesn't work, then we have the financial flexibility to get someone going forward supported by a strong farm crop... but this "literally did nothing all offseason" is a bit of nonsense.

Not that I'm expecting the team to be as good as last year, but we'll see... I didn't expect much from the last year either. But even back then I thought that we were moving in the right direction, and that sentiment is even stronger now than previously.

So in all the Red Sox might not be all that good this coming year in particular, or they could be... but this downward spiral talk doesn't apply as the team currently stands.

/enough MLB

I would've like to have seen the Sox add 1 or 2 of Beltran, Granderson and McCann.

I don't think giving McCann a 5 year, 85 million deal at 29 yrs old would've been a bad idea, considering he's one of the best catchers in baseball. Not to mention, you could also have him play 1st and DH.

Also, Pierzynski is 37 years old and Ross is 36. A little long in the tooth for such a defensively demanding position as catcher.

Then, I think either Beltran or Granderson would've been nice to replace Ellsbury's production

I wasn't a huge Ellsbury fan, but the fact is the Sox are a worse team without him and I don't think Jackie Bradley Jr is ready to take the reigns. I am also not even sure if he ends up becoming a full-time center fielder or more of a back-up.

As for Grady Sizemore, I don't see this notion of low-risk high-reward. All I see with Sizemore is all-risk no reward.

He hasn't played since 2011. Why leave such a big part of the outfield in the center field position as such a question mark between a rookie and an injury prone player?

That said, I am ready for baseball mostly because I want the nice weather to get here.

I was very much jonesing for Beltran, but not at his price tag. At most I would've gone for a 2 year deal while overpaying and that was already pushing it, but 3 years is too much.

As for Granderson, he sucks... he really hasn't had a good season since 2008, so I definitely wouldn't be giving him 60 million over 4 years.

The thing is that Shane Victorino is really a center-field by all accounts, but since he was so good in RF last year, maybe you don't want to move him, but the option is there. And we have quite a bit of depth in the outfield.

So considering Grady Sizemore you see him as an all-risk no reward only if you view him as a player you're depending to perform, he wasn't signed as such. The Red Sox didn't sign him with the notion of depending on him. They gave him a low contract, with performance incentives... so don't see what the risk is here at all, unless you're viewing him as the Ellsbury replacement, when he isn't. He's simply capable of replacing him if he manages, but nothing more than that.

As for McCann, well Pierzynski is better than him as recent as last year. So coming into next season Pierzynski seems like the better option still, still batted better than McCann and is a better defensive catcher too. Will he deteriorate this coming season, I don't know, but at the moment Pierzynski is the better option so as it regards next season I would've gone with Pierzynski on a short deal any day of the week.

What does worry me is depending on Xander and Middlebrooks in 3rd and SS. Both are young, but inexperienced, and Middlebrooks in particular struggled last year and seemed to have his confidence shaken. I'm still hoping that there's a better option out htere for any of those positions who can play alongside Xander.

My other worry is starting pitching. We have a lot of big names there, but I have my doubts on how dependable they're going to be next season. I was intrigued by Garza who at 4 years $50 million would've been a great move for the Red Sox if they had pulled it off.

I'm crossing my fingers we might be able to land one of Santana or Jimenez, though I'm not enamored with any of them and worry about the price tag. Also A.J. Burnett being the last option, he's had 2 good seasons in a row, but he struggled with the Yankees prior to that, so not sure there... plus he's old. There's also Arroyo, but again, not sure... but any of these would strengthen our SP depth a bit, which I think we need.

In all we'll see.

Re: How soon 'til we contend again?
« Reply #43 on: February 07, 2014, 10:30:39 AM »

Offline gpap

  • Don Nelson
  • ********
  • Posts: 8224
  • Tommy Points: 417
BUDWEISERCELTIC-

That's a good point about both Middlebrooks and the starting pitching.

If they could deal Middlebrooks and get something back reasonable, I would definitely make that deal as he strikes out alot.

I think what they'll probably do is resign Drew, play Bogaerts at 3rd and then either have Middlebrooks be a utility guy or maybe hold onto him as trade bait til the trade deadline.

As for the rotation, yes alot of question marks. The pitching staff did perform REALLY well in 2013 but there was also a perfect storm of events which took place as well(Lester being an ace, Lackey returning to form, etc.)

I am not so sure Lester/Lackey can have another season like last year and I am so done with Buchholz. Yes, the talent is there, but the guy can get injured just by brushing his teeth.

Doubront and Peavy are hit or miss. I think personally, Ubaldo Jiminez would be a nice number 3 behind Lester/Lackey.

I remember a few years, there was a rumor that Theo was considering trading for him when he was in Colorado. He's only 30 yrs and if you can get him on a decent 2-3 year deal, I say do it.