You get what you can get.
It is funny listening to people talk about All-NBA players who supposedly can't lead a team anywhere and then hear others talk about top college players year after year. If people have reservations about #1 picks that actually panned out like Griffin and AD, why would be get excited about Simmons?
3. No overpays for "stars" who are one dimensional or obvious negatives on defense. This is not to say actively avoid such players, but you dont give as much for love or monroe as you would expect.
Steph Curry was considered a major defensive liability at one point.
Point guard is the one and only position where being a bit of a defensive liability should be tolerable. Every other position should require strong defense. That's the only way I see a team overcoming/undermining the current Golden State juggernaut, let alone the juggernaut to come if Durant signs there. Field a team with at least four perennial candidates for the All-Defensive team. That's what I want Ainge to build around. Defense.
Yes, im not saying all or nothing. But it is worth noting that steph's effort is good. And also, it was this plus injuries that explain why he is signed to a non-max contract, a rare occurrence for an mvp caliber player. There is still a tendency to pay assets or money based on offense. I think love can be good on the right team, but not any team. There are some players who you get and that position is set. Not so Love, you have to have the ideal frontcourt partner, you cant just pair him with anyone. A good team can have one or two of thosr kind of guys as long as the other players on the team have strengths to fill the fap and as long as you dont deplete your assets (capspace, draft picks) to get a more one dimensional player. That is why id be ok getting love and putting hin in the sully role. Our tesm would be better. But im also ok not both giving him a large percentage of the capAND giving up good players and the brooklyn pick for a player who is not a two way solution and needs specific players around him.
You can only put five players on the court. Acquiring Love while saving assets and cap space sounds nice, great value, etc. But you're still cursing the team with a major defensive liability (I don't care what any metric shows, Love
sucks at defense) at a critical position. Now you only have four other positions to make up for that liability, one of which, PG, is relatively inconsequential, so really only three positions.
Defense is additive. If you have five great scorers, there's a limit to how much better they can make each other, because only one player ever gets to shoot the ball per possession. If you have five great defenders, or even four great defenders plus an average point guard, they can work together to limit the other team to, well, theoretically zero points. Introduce one bad defender and that cumulative effect is reduced if not crippled.
But hey, as long as we're better overall with Love and we're not paying an undeserved premium for his offense, it's all good? No. Because becoming better is not good enough. We need to become better than the Warriors, or at least capable of neutralizing the Warriors. Just like it wasn't good enough for teams in the 90's to merely improve if it didn't get them over the Bulls. It's going to be impossible to equal the Warriors offensively, let alone be better that way. The only chance any team will have is to become such a superior defense that it brings the Warriors down to earth. Love, or any player like Love, despite whatever offensive improvement there'd be, would doom that mission.
So, in that sense, it
is all or nothing.
Topic: If you are ainge who do you want to build the celtics around? (Read 4029 times)