Aldridge - Almost nobody is better is set up for next 3-5 years than the Cs

[Moranis]

I find this premise to be silly.  Boston doesn't have James, Durant, Paul, Davis, Harden, Griffin, Curry, etc.  Boston doesn't even have a 2nd tier star player like a Horford, Bosh, Love, Leonard, Rose, Wall, Irving, Aldridge, etc.  Boston might not even have a 3rd tier star player like Butler, Noah, Teague, etc.  Boston has no young guys with that sort of potential either i.e. there is no Wiggins, Parker, Noel, etc. 

It is nice to have a lot of draft picks, but none of them are top 5 or even a real great shot at top 5 (heck none of them may end even being a top 10 pick).  It is also nice to not have albatross contracts, but I find Aldridge's statement to be preposterous.  I'd much rather be any number of teams that has at least one, if not multiple, top tier players or players that could become top tier players.  Boston doesn't have that.

The last time a team had this many 1st round picks, the Seattle Sonics turned Oklahoma City Thunder ended up with top 5 picks in 3 consecutive drafts (and heck they started that run with 2 top 5 picks in the first draft after trading Allen for the 5th pick).  That is how you build your base through the draft and if you want to trade the picks, that is a heck of a lot easier if they are top 5 picks as well (you know like Boston acquiring Allen for the 5th pick).  Middle of the 1st picks are a nice way to find role players, but they are not a good way to build a franchise.  The value from trades and/or drafted players just isn't there from a historical perspective.

[JBcat]

I find this premise to be silly.  Boston doesn't have James, Durant, Paul, Davis, Harden, Griffin, Curry, etc.  Boston doesn't even have a 2nd tier star player like a Horford, Bosh, Love, Leonard, Rose, Wall, Irving, Aldridge, etc.  Boston might not even have a 3rd tier star player like Butler, Noah, Teague, etc.  Boston has no young guys with that sort of potential either i.e. there is no Wiggins, Parker, Noel, etc. 

It is nice to have a lot of draft picks, but none of them are top 5 or even a real great shot at top 5 (heck none of them may end even being a top 10 pick).  It is also nice to not have albatross contracts, but I find Aldridge's statement to be preposterous.  I'd much rather be any number of teams that has at least one, if not multiple, top tier players or players that could become top tier players.  Boston doesn't have that.

The last time a team had this many 1st round picks, the Seattle Sonics turned Oklahoma City Thunder ended up with top 5 picks in 3 consecutive drafts (and heck they started that run with 2 top 5 picks in the first draft after trading Allen for the 5th pick).  That is how you build your base through the draft and if you want to trade the picks, that is a heck of a lot easier if they are top 5 picks as well (you know like Boston acquiring Allen for the 5th pick).  Middle of the 1st picks are a nice way to find role players, but they are not a good way to build a franchise.  The value from trades and/or drafted players just isn't there from a historical perspective.

I agree with much of this but I'm hoping Smart can be a 3rd tier star, or maybe Sully if he can get his act together being only 22.  We also better hope as everyone knows the Nets really bottom out the next few years.  Maybe then we'll have our 3rd tier star like an Al Jefferson combined with those Nets picks to really start to turn things around.  Ainge is creative though so I wouldn't be too surprised if things started to really turn around prior to that.

[MBunge]

I find this premise to be silly.  Boston doesn't have James, Durant, Paul, Davis, Harden, Griffin, Curry, etc.  Boston doesn't even have a 2nd tier star player like a Horford, Bosh, Love, Leonard, Rose, Wall, Irving, Aldridge, etc.  Boston might not even have a 3rd tier star player like Butler, Noah, Teague, etc.  Boston has no young guys with that sort of potential either i.e. there is no Wiggins, Parker, Noel, etc. 

It's fair to say that Boston doesn't have anyone like Davis, James, etc.

But Jeff Teague or Al Horford?  When Teague was a rookie he averaged 10 minutes a game with 3.2 pts and 1.7 assists.  He didn't start getting serious minutes until his third year in the NBA.  Marcus is faaaar ahead of Teague at the same point in their careers.  When Al Horford was 23, his per 36 numbers were 14.5 pts and 10.1 rebs on 55% shooting.  Sully's per 36 numbers this past season, at age 23, are 17.7 pts, 10 .1 rebs on 43% shooting, and that percentage would certainly be better with fewer threes.

Can we stop complaining because Boston players in their early 20s aren't already as good as veterans 5 and 6 years older?

Mike

[Al91]

I don't trust Ainge. A lot of drafting woes, he's turning it around now.

You must not be old enough to recall the summer of 2007?

What does that have to do with Ainge's drafting?

DA drafted players that made that trade possible. They had value for us, just not in a green and white uniform.

[Evantime34]

I find this premise to be silly.  Boston doesn't have James, Durant, Paul, Davis, Harden, Griffin, Curry, etc.  Boston doesn't even have a 2nd tier star player like a Horford, Bosh, Love, Leonard, Rose, Wall, Irving, Aldridge, etc.  Boston might not even have a 3rd tier star player like Butler, Noah, Teague, etc.  Boston has no young guys with that sort of potential either i.e. there is no Wiggins, Parker, Noel, etc. 

It's fair to say that Boston doesn't have anyone like Davis, James, etc.

But Jeff Teague or Al Horford?  When Teague was a rookie he averaged 10 minutes a game with 3.2 pts and 1.7 assists.  He didn't start getting serious minutes until his third year in the NBA.  Marcus is faaaar ahead of Teague at the same point in their careers.  When Al Horford was 23, his per 36 numbers were 14.5 pts and 10.1 rebs on 55% shooting.  Sully's per 36 numbers this past season, at age 23, are 17.7 pts, 10 .1 rebs on 43% shooting, and that percentage would certainly be better with fewer threes.

Can we stop complaining because Boston players in their early 20s aren't already as good as veterans 5 and 6 years older?

Mike

TP

Honestly I think how people feel about the viability of the rebuild is based on how much you trust Danny Ainge to use his many various assets to get a star. Our path towards a title is significantly more clouded than that of a team like the Pelicans with a young star. However, if you combine our current quality players with cap space and an abundance of draft picks an argument could be made that we have as good a chance to build a contender as any team

In the end, it depends on your faith in Ainge, since the path towards becoming a contender is not readily apparent. Even though our path towards a star is unclear, the C's have made it so they have many avenues towards getting that star, which gives them a good chance imo.

Here is a quote from a Kevin Pelton chat that kind of sums up how I feel

T (Boston)

I keep hearing about all of the assets that Danny Ainge has but I'm struggling to come up with a legitimate way for them to use them to get stars. Packaging picks to move up to get someone rarely happens (beyond a couple of spots) and, outside of Marcus Smart, I'm not sure they have someone to headline a trade offer for a star. It seems like their hopes will come from players going beyond their current projection (Sully, James Young); luring a Free Agent (which will mean overpaying); and/or winning the lottery (both literally and figuratively) with Brooklyn's picks. How do you see Danny getting to Banner 18?
Kevin Pelton  (3:31 PM)

I think for most teams you can consider getting a superstar what Nassim Taleb calls a "black swan" event -- something so unlikely in any individual situation that it's impossible to predict. In that scenario, what you probably want to do is increase your total number of opportunities to get lucky, which is what the Celtics have done by stockpiling draft picks, maintaining cap space, etc. That still may not happen, but I'm not sure a better way to try to do it.

[clover]

Pundits rushing to get their vague praise on the record, just in case Danny swings a spectacular summer.

[SHAQATTACK]

Well ....we ll. find out just  HOW good of shape the Celtics are .....sooner than later .

Some of this massive change hopefully for the better should be just down the road.

[Moranis]

I find this premise to be silly.  Boston doesn't have James, Durant, Paul, Davis, Harden, Griffin, Curry, etc.  Boston doesn't even have a 2nd tier star player like a Horford, Bosh, Love, Leonard, Rose, Wall, Irving, Aldridge, etc.  Boston might not even have a 3rd tier star player like Butler, Noah, Teague, etc.  Boston has no young guys with that sort of potential either i.e. there is no Wiggins, Parker, Noel, etc. 

It's fair to say that Boston doesn't have anyone like Davis, James, etc.

But Jeff Teague or Al Horford?  When Teague was a rookie he averaged 10 minutes a game with 3.2 pts and 1.7 assists.  He didn't start getting serious minutes until his third year in the NBA.  Marcus is faaaar ahead of Teague at the same point in their careers.  When Al Horford was 23, his per 36 numbers were 14.5 pts and 10.1 rebs on 55% shooting.  Sully's per 36 numbers this past season, at age 23, are 17.7 pts, 10 .1 rebs on 43% shooting, and that percentage would certainly be better with fewer threes.

Can we stop complaining because Boston players in their early 20s aren't already as good as veterans 5 and 6 years older?

Mike

Smart certainly could be a 3rd tier player at some point in time, but not a 1st or 2nd.  That is apparent already as those guys you just know from the get.  Horford was already an all star at 23.  He is better and healthier than Sullinger at every single age (or comparable season), and it isn't really that close.  And that is both in the actual, efficiency, or advanced stats.  Horford was a far better player at 23 than Sullinger is.  It isn't close.

[jpotter33]

I find this premise to be silly.  Boston doesn't have James, Durant, Paul, Davis, Harden, Griffin, Curry, etc.  Boston doesn't even have a 2nd tier star player like a Horford, Bosh, Love, Leonard, Rose, Wall, Irving, Aldridge, etc.  Boston might not even have a 3rd tier star player like Butler, Noah, Teague, etc.  Boston has no young guys with that sort of potential either i.e. there is no Wiggins, Parker, Noel, etc. 

It's fair to say that Boston doesn't have anyone like Davis, James, etc.

But Jeff Teague or Al Horford?  When Teague was a rookie he averaged 10 minutes a game with 3.2 pts and 1.7 assists.  He didn't start getting serious minutes until his third year in the NBA.  Marcus is faaaar ahead of Teague at the same point in their careers.  When Al Horford was 23, his per 36 numbers were 14.5 pts and 10.1 rebs on 55% shooting.  Sully's per 36 numbers this past season, at age 23, are 17.7 pts, 10 .1 rebs on 43% shooting, and that percentage would certainly be better with fewer threes.

Can we stop complaining because Boston players in their early 20s aren't already as good as veterans 5 and 6 years older?

Mike

Smart certainly could be a 3rd tier player at some point in time, but not a 1st or 2nd.  That is apparent already as those guys you just know from the get.  Horford was already an all star at 23.  He is better and healthier than Sullinger at every single age (or comparable season), and it isn't really that close.  And that is both in the actual, efficiency, or advanced stats.  Horford was a far better player at 23 than Sullinger is.  It isn't close.

Smart will never be in the first tier of those like Durant, James, Paul, Westbrook, and Harden, but I definitely think he has the ceiling of a 2nd tier guy who makes multiple All-Star teams, whether or not he actually reaches it is the question in my mind. I can see him attaining 19-20 pts, 7-8 asts, 4-5 rebs, 1-2 steals, and 1 blk a game at his peak, while being a perennial All-Defensive 1st Team guard and a potential DPOY.

[littleteapot]

I think that every GM in the league (including ours) would rather have 1 awesome asset than 4 pretty good assets. If we tried to trade all our draft picks this year for a top 3 pick I don't think one of the teams with the top 3 picks would bite.

We're in a great spot for the future, but ultimately we are giving ourselves as many chances to swing for the fences and try to get Andrew Wiggins, Jabari Parker or Anthony Davis. We're not in better shape for the future than the teams that already have Andrew Wiggins, Jabari Parker or Anthony Davis. We're a notch below those teams.

[Ilikesports17]

I find this premise to be silly.  Boston doesn't have James, Durant, Paul, Davis, Harden, Griffin, Curry, etc.  Boston doesn't even have a 2nd tier star player like a Horford, Bosh, Love, Leonard, Rose, Wall, Irving, Aldridge, etc.  Boston might not even have a 3rd tier star player like Butler, Noah, Teague, etc.  Boston has no young guys with that sort of potential either i.e. there is no Wiggins, Parker, Noel, etc. 

It's fair to say that Boston doesn't have anyone like Davis, James, etc.

But Jeff Teague or Al Horford?  When Teague was a rookie he averaged 10 minutes a game with 3.2 pts and 1.7 assists.  He didn't start getting serious minutes until his third year in the NBA.  Marcus is faaaar ahead of Teague at the same point in their careers.  When Al Horford was 23, his per 36 numbers were 14.5 pts and 10.1 rebs on 55% shooting.  Sully's per 36 numbers this past season, at age 23, are 17.7 pts, 10 .1 rebs on 43% shooting, and that percentage would certainly be better with fewer threes.

Can we stop complaining because Boston players in their early 20s aren't already as good as veterans 5 and 6 years older?

Mike

Smart certainly could be a 3rd tier player at some point in time, but not a 1st or 2nd.  That is apparent already as those guys you just know from the get.  Horford was already an all star at 23.  He is better and healthier than Sullinger at every single age (or comparable season), and it isn't really that close.  And that is both in the actual, efficiency, or advanced stats.  Horford was a far better player at 23 than Sullinger is.  It isn't close.

Hahaha alot of people really like the Celtics. I have seen a ton of really good NBA minds say we are in great shape. I know you love your top 5 picks man, but its not just blind-eyed green teamers like Im sure you percieve many of us to be.

A lot good basketball minds look at the Celtics and think we are in really good shape.

Why cant Smart be second tier? What even is second tier?

[Rondo9]

I think that every GM in the league (including ours) would rather have 1 awesome asset than 4 pretty good assets. If we tried to trade all our draft picks this year for a top 3 pick I don't think one of the teams with the top 3 picks would bite.

We're in a great spot for the future, but ultimately we are giving ourselves as many chances to swing for the fences and try to get Andrew Wiggins, Jabari Parker or Anthony Davis. We're not in better shape for the future than the teams that already have Andrew Wiggins, Jabari Parker or Anthony Davis. We're a notch below those teams.

I don't know about that, maybe the Celtics don't have a brighter future than say the Pelicans, but I think with their flexibility, young players (they're not superstars but still.) a rising young coach and a elite front office and you can see where David Aldrige is getting at.

[littleteapot]

I don't about that, maybe the Celtics don't have a brighter future than say the Pelicans, but I think with their flexibility, young players (they're not superstars but still.) a rising young coach and a elite front office and you can see where David Aldrige is getting at.

I absolutely think we're set up well for the future. However saying nobody is better set up than us is ridiculous IMO. We've done a great job putting us in position to get a star and a core around him. There are teams who actually have that already that are clearly in better shape than us.

I'm saying we are like the 4th or 5th best team in terms of future assets, which is OK!