On the Virtues of Just Being "Good Enough"

[PhoSita]

Rahat Huq writes about the Houston Rockets over at Red94, and recently he posted some thoughts about where that team appears to be headed that I found interesting.  In particular, what intrigued me about his perspective is that I think it may prove relevant to Celtics fans a couple years from now, if Danny Ainge never manages to land that elusive "third star" to put the Celts over the top into the elite tier of NBA teams.

Basically, the Rockets this off-season gave out big, long term contracts to fairly mediocre players (e.g. Eric Gordon, Ryan Anderson, etc), while also locking up James Harden for a couple more years beyond what his contract was before.  This means they are essentially locked into competing with a team that boils down to "James Harden and a bunch of offensive-minded dudes" for the next 3-4 years, with little hope of winning a title.

After years of thinking in terms of moves that the Rockets needed to make to field a contender, and watching the team strike out on free agents and major trades time and time again, this is where Rahat found himself:

I’ve been thinking for some time, recently, that the preferred model for sports business viability is sustained competitiveness with injected fusions of novelty.  You can’t go to the extremes, chasing an ideal.  That leaves you too vulnerable to setbacks.

....

I’ve written a lot the past year about the need to, rather than trying to be the best, just stick around and be “good enough”.  I think you want to just stick around, chase 50 wins each year, and just be interesting.  When things grow stale, inject some novelty with some sort of acquisition, even if not as drastic as an entirely new scheme.  You want to aim to just be good and then luck your way into a title – this idea becomes even more applicable when you already have a star.  Aiming for the ideal leaves you with no position from which to hedge.

....

 I don’t care about Durant and the Warriors.  That topic actually really bores me.  I want to see how the Rockets will look like on offense.  I know we won’t win the championship, and likely won’t go very far, but I want to see how high we can climb in the offensive rankings.  Can we lead the league?

....

If Harden is focused, and the above items occur, I don’t see why the Rockets can’t repeat their success from two seasons ago.  Maybe they can lead the league in scoring – that is interesting to me.  Sure, there would still be a sizable gap between Houston and the Warriors/Spurs, but is that really the end of the world?

....

I’m just glad they’ll be interesting and will be happy if they’re just good.  I’m tired of looking at cap space and looking ahead to next summer.  Is that wrong?

What do you think?

Imagine that, two years from now, there have still been no trades for that final big star.  No Blake Griffin, no Demarcus Cousins, no Russell Westbrook.  The Celts have just re-signed Isaiah Thomas, Marcus Smart, and Avery Bradley for a pretty sizable chunk of change, after resigning Kelly Olynyk to a team friendly deal the summer before.  The Celts are over the cap, and stand to be over the cap for the foreseeable future.  The core for the Celtics for at least 2-3 years is IT, Bradley, Crowder, Horford, Smart, and Olynyk.

Maybe the team could surprise if Jaylen Brown, or whoever the Celts draft with the Nets' picks in '17 and '18, blossom into stars while developing on the Celts' bench.  But most likely, the team will be good, but not great, for a while.

Could you live with that?  Would it be, in some ways, a relief, after four or five straight years of promised fireworks?  Or as a Boston fan, are you never willing to let go of the "titles or bust!" mentality?

After all, most teams that fail to put together multiple superstar players never make it to the promised land.  On the other hand, there are still exceptions -- like the 2011 Dallas Mavericks or the 2004 Pistons -- and those titles, while usually standalone achievements, arguably are sweeter and more meaningful than titles won by teams with the kind of talent that made winning a title an expected outcome, rather than an amazing surprise.

[BudweiserCeltic]

Rationalization.

[Ilikesports17]

This would mean more 0 of Jaylen Brown Nets '17 and Nets '18 turn into or look like a future star. As such, I would not be happy with continued quasi-contention.

That doesnt mean locking into quasi-contention would be a bad decision but it would be dissapointing.

Ainge has until the end of '18 FA to find that 3rd star. He must do it.

[loco_91]

Interesting read, TP.

As the owner's perspective, "good enough plus novelty" definitely has its merits. You can fill your seats every year. You don't lose fans in losing years. You don't take any big risks with the future of the franchise. For impatient fans, your injections of novelty keep them interested.

From a fan's perspective, "good enough plus novelty" might be okay, too. Your team makes the playoffs every year. Your favorite players stick around--no revolving door of subpar talent. Or you can cheer for the new guy.

But Boston is different.

In Boston, the fans are spoiled. We're spoiled by the Celtics' history. We're spoiled by 2007, we're spoiled by the Pats, by the Sox, by the Bruins. Boston fans are liable to get bored with the Celtics and watch hockey instead. From an owner's perspective, "good enough" isn't going to cut it.

From this fan's perspective, "good enough" would be disappointing because we don't have to settle for good enough. Our assets are much-ballyhooed, but the fact is that with smart trades or just with smart drafting, the C's should be set to compete for a championship either sooner or later. I'm fine with a couple years of "good enough", but I'll be sorely disappointed if three or four years from now, things aren't headed in the right direction.

[celticsclay]

I mean I think this is interesting to think about from the Rockets perspective, but it really becomes a stretch to think about this from the Celtics perspective. We already have the third pick from this past year's draft on our roster, who if nothing else, has star potential (while also having bust potential). We are then projected by anything you can find to land another top 5 pick next year. We basically get to be the 76ers and a 50 win team in the same season without one goal impacting the other. I don't really get how you could think we wont add pieces that will be extremely valuable with 2 top 5 picks coming into their own under our control 3 years from now. It is literally the best situation we could be in. So yes. Perhaps we could add zero superstars in free agency or trade, we could add 2 top 3 picks that never make an all-star game and we could see Marcus Smart never turn into nothing more than an average starter. However, we are probably the least likely team of any team in the league to be stuck in this situation 3-4 years from now because all those things have to happen for us to be in that position. You add in the fact that we can put the "stars don't want to sign here" to rest after our forays into signing horford and high interest from durant and it seems like a real stretch to discuss this with respect to the celtics.

[PhoSita]

In Boston, the fans are spoiled. We're spoiled by the Celtics' history. We're spoiled by 2007, we're spoiled by the Pats, by the Sox, by the Bruins. Boston fans are liable to get bored with the Celtics and watch hockey instead. From an owner's perspective, "good enough" isn't going to cut it.

From this fan's perspective, "good enough" would be disappointing because we don't have to settle for good enough. Our assets are much-ballyhooed, but the fact is that with smart trades or just with smart drafting, the C's should be set to compete for a championship either sooner or later. I'm fine with a couple years of "good enough", but I'll be sorely disappointed if three or four years from now, things aren't headed in the right direction.

So, given that this is your viewpoint, if two years from now the Celts haven't been able to sign or trade for a third star, should they think about letting IT go in free agency and trading Horford?  Should they try to re-focus the roster around Smart and the Nets picks and try to build for 2020?

To put it more simply, would you have a problem with locking in to Thomas, Smart, Bradley, Crowder, Horford, plus the potential of the still-developing Nets' picks, as the core of the team?

I suppose even in that case there'd be the possibility of making a trade, but once picks become players it's harder to sell other teams on them unless they're real studs (in which case why trade them), and once guys like Thomas and Bradley aren't wildly underpaid, they won't be so easily tradeable either.

[CoachBo]

Rationalization.

Precisely. This franchise is not the Houston Rockets.

If that is all there is, some people need to lose their jobs.

[positivitize]

Rationalization.

Ressentiment, more specifically. Nietzsche would be proud.

[Evantime34]

I don't think it's likely that the C's get no one in free agency next year. It might end up only being a guy like Millsap or Danillo (instead of Westbrook or Griffin), but I would be shocked if they come up empty handed.

If they do keep the team intact without adding via trade or free agency, then I'll be fine with it. Winning 50+ with a core I like would make me happy in the present, adding Jaylen, a 2017 and 2018 Nets picks would make me feel good about the future.

My goal every year has been for the team to improve upon their previous year. Pretty soon I will have to amend that goal, but as long as the team plateaus at a high level for an extended period I will be happy.

[Surferdad]

I believe DA is angling for either short-term or long-term solutions, depending on how things shake out.  In other words, if he can't acquire a "third" star, I believe he is prepared to build organically using the BKN 17 and 18 picks.  Horford is signed I think for 4 years but most other contracts are not very long.  In any case there is always a need to have some vets around to help the pups along, and at least keep the team competitive/relevant/"good enough".

[PhoSita]

Rationalization.

Precisely. This franchise is not the Houston Rockets.

If that is all there is, some people need to lose their jobs.

So when faced with a choice between a teardown and locking into "better than average but less than great," you'd tear the team down and fire the GM for letting it get to that point?

[PhoSita]

I don't think it's likely that the C's get no one in free agency next year. It might end up only being a guy like Millsap or Danillo (instead of Westbrook or Griffin), but I would be shocked if they come up empty handed.

I'd argue that would count as "locking into good but not great," personally.