Danny Ainge: "Making the playoffs is not a goal" (12/13)

[Celtics18]

Tank for 10th?  No, you don't tank for the 10th pick.  The chances of getting good talent at 9th or 10th aren't appreciably higher than finding a player at 16th or 17th. 

Once again, the misconception about the word "tank" rears its ugly head.

No, you don't outright "tank" for the 10th pick.

Do you make the choice to be a seller at the trade deadline instead of a buyer?  Yes, I think you do.  That's not tanking, it's just arranging your priorities for the future.

Brandon Bass is not the future.

Jordan Crawford, most likely, is not the future.

Courtney Lee is not the future.

Jeff Green and Avery Bradley may or may not be the future.


Looking to sell high on those players for future assets doesn't just help the team have a worse record this season.  It opens up time for players who probably do have a future here, and also increases salary cap flexibility, which is huge.  It's tough being a rebuilding team with salary obligations all the way up to the luxury line.  Making the team less competitive in the short term is an added bonus.

In the big scheme of things, picking in the top 10 is better for the future than playing a meaningful first round series against a team slightly less mediocre than ours.

Whether or not the players you mentioned could be used in trades to set us up better for the future wasn't what I was debating.

I was debating whether a 9th or 10th pick is so much more valuable than a 16th or 17th pick that it's worth purposefully getting worse for.  I contend that it isn't. 

Back to your above list of players, I could definitely see possibly one or two of those players getting traded this season, but I have a hard time imagining Danny trading all of those players. 

Further, it's my opinion that trading off either of the first three probably wouldn't make us appreciably worse.  Bass is somewhat expendable because we have two younger guys at his position with more possible upside.  Crawford is expendable because we have a perennial all star returning at his position.  Lee is expendable because he is behind Bradley at his position right now.

As for the last two, I definitely don't think they are moved unless we get back good value for them.  And, by good value, I don't mean purely for cap relief (which, by the way, it would be impossible to trade Avery for, as he becomes a free agent this off-season) and draft picks.  I think Danny would want actual, established players who can be counted on to help the team win ball games, both now and in the future. 

I'm going to wait and see what happens, but I don't think that Danny is going to be able to make this team worse unless he trades all of Rondo, Bradley, Green, Sullinger, Bass, and Olynyk for washed up expiring players and future draft picks.  And, I just don't think that scenario is likely. 

[thirstyboots18]

I hope that Danny does not trade Crawford.  He is the first decent backup point guard that Rondo has had in the last few years.  You can't say it is easy to pick up a back up point, that would indicate that Danny has failed in his job.  Crawford is probably not an all star, but right now he is playing close enough to one to win Player of the Week.  I do not want to regress to Bradley at the point again.  That experiment failed.  Twice.  Rondo has been injured each year since the Championship year, and if the Celtics keep him, he will need a Crawford type.  Pressey doesn't seem to be ready yet.

[PhoSita]

I was debating whether a 9th or 10th pick is so much more valuable than a 16th or 17th pick that it's worth purposefully getting worse for.  I contend that it isn't. 

....

Further, it's my opinion that trading off either of the first three probably wouldn't make us appreciably worse. 

It's enough for me that historically there is an appreciable difference between picking 9th or 10th versus picking in the mid to late teens.

The cost of selling high on the middle class players on the roster and missing the playoffs is negligible in my view.

I disagree that dumping Bass and Crawford wouldn't make the team worse, especially in the short term.  Bass has been huge for the team defense, and Crawford is probably the only reason this team doesn't have 5 or 6 more losses than it does now.  I agree about Lee, though.  I don't think losing him would make the team that much worse.  But plugging Bogans or Brooks into his spot would make the team at least a bit worse.

[LooseCannon]

You can't say it is easy to pick up a back up point, that would indicate that Danny has failed in his job.

It's easy to pick up a mediocre back-up point.  Ainge failed because he seemed to be obsessed with finding a SG who could play some point instead of an actual PG.

[j804]

I hope that Danny does not trade Crawford.  He is the first decent backup point guard that Rondo has had in the last few years.  You can't say it is easy to pick up a back up point, that would indicate that Danny has failed in his job.  Crawford is probably not an all star, but right now he is playing close enough to one to win Player of the Week.  I do not want to regress to Bradley at the point again.  That experiment failed.  Twice.  Rondo has been injured each year since the Championship year, and if the Celtics keep him, he will need a Crawford type.  Pressey doesn't seem to be ready yet.

I agree and he's the perfect yin and yang to Rondo he can straight up fill it up from anywhere. He's thriving in Brads system seeing the floor well improving as a team defender but instead ehh lets dump him. smh

[PhoSita]

You can't say it is easy to pick up a back up point, that would indicate that Danny has failed in his job.

It's easy to pick up a mediocre back-up point.  Ainge failed because he seemed to be obsessed with finding a SG who could play some point instead of an actual PG.

Whether or not it's easy, backup point will never be an important role on this team so long as Rondo is playing 38+ minutes a night on a regular basis.

[BballTim]

I was debating whether a 9th or 10th pick is so much more valuable than a 16th or 17th pick that it's worth purposefully getting worse for.  I contend that it isn't. 

....

Further, it's my opinion that trading off either of the first three probably wouldn't make us appreciably worse. 

It's enough for me that historically there is an appreciable difference between picking 9th or 10th versus picking in the mid to late teens.

The cost of selling high on the middle class players on the roster and missing the playoffs is negligible in my view.

I disagree that dumping Bass and Crawford wouldn't make the team worse, especially in the short term.  Bass has been huge for the team defense, and Crawford is probably the only reason this team doesn't have 5 or 6 more losses than it does now.  I agree about Lee, though.  I don't think losing him would make the team that much worse.  But plugging Bogans or Brooks into his spot would make the team at least a bit worse.

  It depends on what happens to Bass's minutes. Give them to Humphries or Sully and we probably don't lose much.

[PhoSita]

I was debating whether a 9th or 10th pick is so much more valuable than a 16th or 17th pick that it's worth purposefully getting worse for.  I contend that it isn't. 

....

Further, it's my opinion that trading off either of the first three probably wouldn't make us appreciably worse. 

It's enough for me that historically there is an appreciable difference between picking 9th or 10th versus picking in the mid to late teens.

The cost of selling high on the middle class players on the roster and missing the playoffs is negligible in my view.

I disagree that dumping Bass and Crawford wouldn't make the team worse, especially in the short term.  Bass has been huge for the team defense, and Crawford is probably the only reason this team doesn't have 5 or 6 more losses than it does now.  I agree about Lee, though.  I don't think losing him would make the team that much worse.  But plugging Bogans or Brooks into his spot would make the team at least a bit worse.

  It depends on what happens to Bass's minutes. Give them to Humphries or Sully and we probably don't lose much.

Eh, I disagree.  I really think the defense would be substantially worse without Bass.  The offense might improve a bit to compensate somewhat, though.  Plus, Sullinger is already to the point where he's playing 30-34 minutes every night.  Not sure he can play much more than that at this point.

I also think those minutes would largely go to Faverani and Olynyk.  If you're trading Bass that's a pretty clear "focus on development" move.

[BballTim]

I was debating whether a 9th or 10th pick is so much more valuable than a 16th or 17th pick that it's worth purposefully getting worse for.  I contend that it isn't. 

....

Further, it's my opinion that trading off either of the first three probably wouldn't make us appreciably worse. 

It's enough for me that historically there is an appreciable difference between picking 9th or 10th versus picking in the mid to late teens.

The cost of selling high on the middle class players on the roster and missing the playoffs is negligible in my view.

I disagree that dumping Bass and Crawford wouldn't make the team worse, especially in the short term.  Bass has been huge for the team defense, and Crawford is probably the only reason this team doesn't have 5 or 6 more losses than it does now.  I agree about Lee, though.  I don't think losing him would make the team that much worse.  But plugging Bogans or Brooks into his spot would make the team at least a bit worse.

  It depends on what happens to Bass's minutes. Give them to Humphries or Sully and we probably don't lose much.

Eh, I disagree.  I really think the defense would be substantially worse without Bass.  The offense might improve a bit to compensate somewhat, though.  Plus, Sullinger is already to the point where he's playing 30-34 minutes every night.  Not sure he can play much more than that at this point.

I also think those minutes would largely go to Faverani and Olynyk.  If you're trading Bass that's a pretty clear "focus on development" move.

  Maybe. Humphries is playing over Vitor now, I don't know that would change. Theoretically they could be playing Vitor over Bass now to "focus on development".

[csfansince60s]

I was debating whether a 9th or 10th pick is so much more valuable than a 16th or 17th pick that it's worth purposefully getting worse for.  I contend that it isn't. 

....

Further, it's my opinion that trading off either of the first three probably wouldn't make us appreciably worse. 

It's enough for me that historically there is an appreciable difference between picking 9th or 10th versus picking in the mid to late teens.

And more than enough for me too.

Drummond
Paul George
G. Hayward
Noah
Bynum
Iguadala
Amare Stat
Caron Butler
Joe Johnson
Shawn Marion
Jet
Nowitzki
Pierce
Tracy McGrady

All either 9 or 10 in the past 15 years.

[LooseCannon]

You can't say it is easy to pick up a back up point, that would indicate that Danny has failed in his job.

It's easy to pick up a mediocre back-up point.  Ainge failed because he seemed to be obsessed with finding a SG who could play some point instead of an actual PG.

Whether or not it's easy, backup point will never be an important role on this team so long as Rondo is playing 38+ minutes a night on a regular basis.

Rondo would get dinged up every once in a while.  It might be useful to have a solid backup who won't make Rondo feel like he has to play through injuries.

[CelticsFan9]

Danny isn't saying anything new here.  Coming in to the season, the Celtics' main goals were to get Rondo healthy and develop the young talent.  Just because he says the playoffs aren't a goal doesn't mean he doesn't want the team to make the playoffs.  I think Danny was always going to be fine with letting the chips fall where they may.  Plus, if he later changes his mind and wants to go for the lottery, he can always trade some of our vets that are currently helping us win.