Humorous Trade Analysis of IT, NBA.com

[PhoSita]

You don't reach "never-ending rebuild" status until you gone through multiple young "cores" only to max out around 35 wins, requiring another blow up trade and ensuing tanking season.

See: Timberwolves, Kings, Magic

[celticsclay]

I see nothing wrong with that analysis

Of course you don't.

lol tp costa.

[Moranis]

I see nothing wrong with that analysis

if we were forever rebuilding 1.5 years into the rebuild then what in Gods name is Philly? Sacramento? Phoenix?

He was talking about all of the seemingly lateral moves that Boston was doing at the time.  He obviously underestimated how good Thomas was going to be, but he expected Thomas to be nothing more than a lateral move that wouldn't push Boston forward.  That was a pretty common thought at the time of the trade and it seemed like an odd move for a team to trade a first for a journeymanish PG.  Obviously Thomas far exceeded everyone's expectations.

What were the 'seemingly lateral moves'? Every move DA made was either with the purpose of gathering assets (CLE-BRK-BOS deal, Rondo deal, Green deal, Wright deal) or looked to help the team improve (Thomas deal, Prince for Gigi and JJ deal).

I don't think anyone thought Marcus Thornton for Isaiah Thomas was a lateral move, Thomas was clearly the better player in that deal, hence us adding a pick. Phoenix moved him because of the turmoil that had been brewing the last few months.

Lateral in the sense as not a full rebuild but not a real contender type move.  Obviously Thomas was better than Thornton, but I don't think anyone thought Thomas would become the all star offensive force that he has become. 

Boston had a lot of those non-needle moving type trades after the PP/KG trade.  Crawford/Brooks being moved for Anthony and a bunch of 2nds.  Using the trade exception to acquire Zeller and a 1st.  Trading Humphries for a 2nd.  Trading Bogans and some 2nd's for a collection of players and 2nd's that didn't yield much.  The Rondo trade followed closely by the Green trade.  Then trading Nelson for Robinson and immediately cutting Robinson.  On the same day of the Thomas trade Boston also moved Prince for Datome/Jerekbo.  Those type moves really continued until Horford was signed last summer. 

That is what the analysis was talking about.  Clearly Thomas ended up worth far more than Thornton and a late 1st that he was traded for, but at the time it just seemed to be another in the long line of non-needle moving trades the Celtics made just to make moves and to enter rebuilding.  Then Thomas played so well that Boston made the playoffs and ended up with Rozier instead of Winslow, which after doing it again forced Ainge to really try and win now which led to Horford.

I'd agree that the bolded moves were lateral moves (give nothing and get nothing), but the Zeller, Rondo, Green, and Thomas trades weren't (the Humphries deal was a sign and trade so it doesn't really count as a deal) .  In the Zeller deal, we gained 2 okay players and a first rounder for nothing, which is a clear gain of assets for us.  In the Rondo and Green deals, we traded our 2 best players for future assets, which made us worse in the short term and were supposed to make the teams we traded with better.  In the Thomas deal, we traded a first and a borderline rotation player for a good young PG, which even at the time of the trade was a clear win by us and would make us better. 

Defining any non-franchise altering moves as "lateral moves" doesn't make any sense - that implies that you'd be in the same position whether you made the trade or not (ie similar players for similar players, like the Bogans deal), but some of the deals you listed (including the Thomas deal) had a clear talent disparity.  Those aren't "lateral moves"

Sure, but none of those trades were full on tank moves or moves that built a contender, which makes them lateral moves in a "never ending rebuild" sort of way.  Boston, post PP (and even the last PP/KG Boston was mediocre) and pre-Horford, was a mediocre team that wasn't good enough to win but not bad enough to yield a high pick (from its own pick).  That is the sort of gray area that dooms teams.  Now Boston obviously has an out because of the Brooklyn picks and with Horford Boston should at least be a 2nd round playoff team and not stuck in the first round where it has been for the last two seasons.  Boston hasn't won a playoff series in five seasons, this should be the year to end that stretch.  Sure the statement was a bit hyperbolic in that it wasn't that long a time, but the analysis was generally fine, especially considering when it was made and Thomas' presumed top end potential (which he far surpassed).  That is the point I was making.