Concerned that the Celtics seem determined to stay on the treadmill

[footey]

Danny just is awful drafting bigs.

He has to trade to get the prize big , and thats impossible to compete with the LA teams for the best centers , they all,head for LA soon as their rookie contracts are up ....so either you have to be a great drafter of bigs or tank for the best center like Philly till you get one.

Kendrick Perkins
Al Jefferson
Sully
Kelly
Time Lord

I'd say some of those were pretty decent, especially given where he selected them in the draft.  Not awesome, but not terrible. 

[JBcat]

I think we have the best of both worlds built to compete now in the near future for the next few years where the NBA is completely wide open, and also beyond if Brown and Tatum come at least close to maxing out their potential with maybe 1 or 2 other surprises like with the Memphis pick.

A lot of teams are built either just for the near future, or rebuilding for down the road. So we be on our way for sustainable success going deep into the playoffs if Ainge continues to make smart moves.

[BitterJim]

I think what the premise of the OP is that Danny failed to pick a clear direction and that hurt the Celtics in the end. I also agree with that.
One implication is the future contract that jaylen will or should sign.
Danny has no idea how much jaylen is worth right now because in his mind the young kids have to wait for the chance to take the torch from the older guys and that plan clearly didn’t work out

What the heck is the direction he shouldve picked?! There was none! Its very easy for you guys to say, shouldve done this or that, but 1) you didnt know if that was feasible or 2) if that was actually the better outcome.

None of you know what the actual situation is. Heck the ownership couldve vetoed certain moves and you wouldnt know it! Just because a result isnt your ideal outcome means the alternate options were any better!

It’s easy for us fans to comment on what’s right or wrong after the fact ... we have that luxury as fans .. we are not front office executives...
And a direction is easy to pick and sell to fans... either go young and develop players ....
go big - what we did in summer 2007... it was a clear direction.

The last 3 seasons will serve as case studies for nba exetuves of what the risks are of not having a clear direction and how not to waste assets you worked hard to accumulate.

Also Danny saying he would do this or that move 100 times out of hundred tells me he is a little over in his head...

Also a guy that was his right hand for years and picked up his brain ... left a huge mess in Phoenix

The goal isn't to sell a direction to the fans, it's to win a championship. Deciding to commit fully to the young guys is all well and good, but why give up on the championship hopes in th short term if you don't have to? Is a pick 5 or 10 slots higher worth giving up all your hopes for the next 5 years? Haven't we seen enough examples of how difficult it is to build around a young star or two?

Going all on for a year or two is easy to sell, too, but you don't do that unless you're pretty sure it'll bring you a championship. Selling young guys/future picks for a short window will end your rebuild and make things difficult to keep together, so of your team isn't enough you can just lose them for nothing.

We've seen some best-case scenarios of commuting in the past couple of years (Raptors and Nets), but we've seen plenty more that haven't worked out (Philly trading for Butler, the Suns and Timberwolves being totally unable to build anything, the Thunder [though the haul they got for George has kind if erased that], the Billy King Nets). You can't just look at the ones that worked out and act like they were destined to succeed from the get go

[cman88]

SO, what should danny have done? he had to spend the cap-space on someone. His original plan was to have Kyrie Irving and go after a 2nd star. Little did he know that Kyrie was a headcase and would poison the locker-room and book it out of town...and that 34 year old horford would get over 100million$ offers.

Then out of the sky, a 25ppg all-star point guard wants to sign with the team, and a big who averaged a double double last year is willing to take less to play with us. Should danny say no?

so his other option is to NOT sign an all-star Point guard and instead sign mediocre players to big short term contracts in hopes that he will have cap-space in the future to sign some not yet known All-star. Now, the team will tank and be horrible and danny will be faced with trying to convince Tatum/Brown whom already only know playoffs and winning to stay with a team with a gutted roster when their rookie contracts are up. All the while hoping that you can draft someone half as good as tatum/brown/Kemba..

celtics are in a much better position than many teams in the league.

[obnoxiousmime]

Danny just is awful drafting bigs.

He has to trade to get the prize big , and thats impossible to compete with the LA teams for the best centers , they all,head for LA soon as their rookie contracts are up ....so either you have to be a great drafter of bigs or tank for the best center like Philly till you get one.

From the position we are picking there are rarely any surefire big man prospects. You always go BPA.

He's had 16 years to draft a great big man. I'm still waiting.

I'm not sure Romeo was BPA.

I'm not being sarcastic, but what great big men could he have drafted? Giannis comes to mind. That was a big miss, but in his defense, no one, not even Milwaukee, had any idea how good Giannis would be. What other big men did he miss on? I'm not talking just about guys who have come into the league, but guys the Celtics actually could have drafted at their spot.

A big one was Capela in 2014. Ainge drafted James Young at 17, around the range of where Capela was rumored to go, from the late 10s to late 20s. He ended up going 25th to the Rockets. Capela was athletic but raw and definitely a project. Also, even though we probably never would have drafted him, Nurkic went right before at pick 16.

In 2015, Ainge took Rozier at 16. There weren't really any good big men around that spot, but Kevon Looney was taken two picks after RJ Hunter at 30. Montrezl Harrell was also available, he went #32. Not world beaters, but solid guys nonetheless.

The 2016 draft didn't have a lot of great big men (that was the year of Bender, Chriss, Poetl, Maker, etc.). Sabonis did go 11th but we didn't have a pick there. The one that hurts is Toronto took Siakim at 27 and we took Zizic at 23.... =(

2017 was the Tatum draft. We weren't really in any position to take good big men that year, though it's too early to tell how a lot of those players will pan out.

In 2018 we took Rob Williams, which was a nice value at 27. Mentality/work ethic issues were likely the cause for his drop, so we'll see how he develops.

Anyway, I suspect that Ainge's philosophy is that if a big man isn't multifaceted there isn't much point in taking them, and he seems to prefer taking his shot at guards and wings. Since we're usually picking mid teens to twenties, you're just not going to find tall guys who also have other skills there. Anybody 6'10'' to 7'1'' who has a whiff of being a good passer, shooter, or playmaker IN ADDITION to normal big man skills is almost always snatched up early. That being said, there are exceptions in history: Jokic, Draymond, Jermaine O'Neal being the examples that come to mind.

Also, there was a point, maybe in the 90s and aughts where it didn't seem like the Celtics were as advanced with their European scouting as the savviest teams were.

[droopdog7]

Danny just is awful drafting bigs.

He has to trade to get the prize big , and thats impossible to compete with the LA teams for the best centers , they all,head for LA soon as their rookie contracts are up ....so either you have to be a great drafter of bigs or tank for the best center like Philly till you get one.

From the position we are picking there are rarely any surefire big man prospects. You always go BPA.

He's had 16 years to draft a great big man. I'm still waiting.

I'm not sure Romeo was BPA.

There is a big difference between you thinking Romeo was not the BPA and you thinking DA drafted Romeo for a reason other than HE thought Romeo was the BPA.

[celticpride07]

Maybe we can target Westbrook and Adams if OKC is blowing it up
This trade works in trade machine;

Westbrook and Adams for Hayward Smart Yabu, Romeo and add picks if needed, idk if it Russ can play the 2 but you’d have

Kemba/Wannamaker/Waters
Westbrook/Edwards
Brown/Semi
Tatum/williams/Theis
Adams/Kanter/Williams

[alt]

No doubt.

Striking to see how the Clippers went for it by taking a gamble with their own picks while Ainge had that huge collection of draft picks and kept churning them on depth to fill out the bench and the rotation.

There is no value in being "in a good position to become contenders" if you then you never jump off that good position into actual contention. And Boston's "good position" is infinitely worse than it was just a couple of years ago, when they had good veterans in very cheap contracts, plenty of cap space, blue chip prospects and an abundance of draft picks.


This idea that it'd be too risky to do this or that, that trading for Paul George when he was still in Indiana would be too risky (because the Sacramento pick was too valuable - who today wouldn't trade Langford for Paul George), trading for Kawhi would be too risky, trading for Anthony Davis would be too risky arises from a faulty understanding of what risk it.

There's no risk free-path. Using the picks, sticking with your prospects, that's risky in itself. There's a fairly high risk neither Tatum or Brown become MVP level player or close to it, that the Memphis pick doesn't turn into one either.

The Raptors didn't win the NBA championship because they waited for an opportunity to come along. They created their own, by trading for Kawhi and then for Gasol. If the Clippers win a championship in the next few years, they didn't wait for an opportunity - they used a record number of their own picks to get there.

There's a saying in dinghy racing that goes "if you're never capsizing and swimming, you're not racing hard enough". The same is true for managing NBA teams.

[cman88]

No doubt.

Striking to see how the Clippers went for it by taking a gamble with their own picks while Ainge had that huge collection of draft picks and kept churning them on depth to fill out the bench and the rotation.

There is no value in being "in a good position to become contenders" if you then you never jump off that good position into actual contention. And Boston's "good position" is infinitely worse than it was just a couple of years ago, when they had good veterans in very cheap contracts, plenty of cap space, blue chip prospects and an abundance of draft picks.


This idea that it'd be too risky to do this or that, that trading for Paul George when he was still in Indiana would be too risky (because the Sacramento pick was too valuable - who today wouldn't trade Langford for Paul George), trading for Kawhi would be too risky, trading for Anthony Davis would be too risky arises from a faulty understanding of what risk it.

There's no risk free-path. Using the picks, sticking with your prospects, that's risky in itself. There's a fairly high risk neither Tatum or Brown become MVP level player or close to it, that the Memphis pick doesn't turn into one either.

The Raptors didn't win the NBA championship because they waited for an opportunity to come along. They created their own, by trading for Kawhi and then for Gasol. If the Clippers win a championship in the next few years, they didn't wait for an opportunity - they used a record number of their own picks to get there.

There's a saying in dinghy racing that goes "if you're never capsizing and swimming, you're not racing hard enough". The same is true for managing NBA teams.

to be fair though, Kyrie Irving put a big dent in that plan to go after AD.  with Kyrie having one foot out the door no way AD was staying. to lose Tatum for essentially what would be a one year rental would be devastating to the franchise. Losing Kyrie/Horford almost was but Danny luckily was able to pivot and pick up Kemba walker and Kanter...that generally NEVER happens.

now going after kawhi and George is another story. I do agree we kind of whiffed on those. I remember danny was interested in pairing Goerge/hayward/Thomas that summer....before he set hits sights on Kyrie.

[jambr380]

No doubt.

Striking to see how the Clippers went for it by taking a gamble with their own picks while Ainge had that huge collection of draft picks and kept churning them on depth to fill out the bench and the rotation.

There is no value in being "in a good position to become contenders" if you then you never jump off that good position into actual contention. And Boston's "good position" is infinitely worse than it was just a couple of years ago, when they had good veterans in very cheap contracts, plenty of cap space, blue chip prospects and an abundance of draft picks.


This idea that it'd be too risky to do this or that, that trading for Paul George when he was still in Indiana would be too risky (because the Sacramento pick was too valuable - who today wouldn't trade Langford for Paul George), trading for Kawhi would be too risky, trading for Anthony Davis would be too risky arises from a faulty understanding of what risk it.

There's no risk free-path. Using the picks, sticking with your prospects, that's risky in itself. There's a fairly high risk neither Tatum or Brown become MVP level player or close to it, that the Memphis pick doesn't turn into one either.

The Raptors didn't win the NBA championship because they waited for an opportunity to come along. They created their own, by trading for Kawhi and then for Gasol. If the Clippers win a championship in the next few years, they didn't wait for an opportunity - they used a record number of their own picks to get there.

There's a saying in dinghy racing that goes "if you're never capsizing and swimming, you're not racing hard enough". The same is true for managing NBA teams.

There is some truth to what you are saying, but there is a humongous hole in your argument. By trading for George, they were guaranteeing Kawhi to sign there. When has Danny ever had such an opportunity? AD specifically said he wasn't re-signing here and Kyrie was leaving no matter what. We would have had AD, Horford, Brown, and Hayward with maybe Rozier/Morris. I am not so sure that is a slam dunk championship and you only get one shot at it since AD would be leaving in 2020.

Danny has done an amazing job opening up cap space and succeeding at signing max level FAs; he has made masterful trades; and drafted the right players at high stakes positions in the draft. I also want to win a championship, but only one team out of 30 wins each year. If Kawhi wanted to sign in Boston, Danny would have been on his knees giving him everything he wants. Sometimes things don't break your way, but I am glad we have a GM who always has a plausible Plan B, C, and D.

[Bobshot]

The LA and NY teams have a big advantage in that stars frequently fall in their laps because of their location.

That is what happened this year. Leonard wanted to play in LA. George also wanted to play in LA. Neither apparently wanted to play with James. So they picked the Clippers, told them, and the Clippers traded for George in a lopsided deal, giving up a ton of draft picks. Kind of like what the Lakers did trading for Davis. It didn't have a lot to do with anything else. Just like James and Davis going to the Lakers. A mirror image of that situation. And then Durant-Irving to the NY, er., Brooklyn  Nets. Same deal. Fell into their laps because of location.

It wasn't the management that engineered those deals. It was the stars dictating where they wanted to go, and the management of those teams  just following their wishes.

You could say this was the year of the triumph of the big markets.

Ainge had a different situation. The Celtics were losing star players in free agency. They were fortunate one star player, Walker, wanted to come to Boston. But they came out one Horford short because Danny wouldn't tack on a 4th year. I think Ainge was right about that, because now the Sixers are stuck with a max contract until Al is 37. Horford got a steal. But now Danny has to get stronger up front just to tread water.

[Sketch5]

Maybe we can target Westbrook and Adams if OKC is blowing it up
This trade works in trade machine;

Westbrook and Adams for Hayward Smart Yabu, Romeo and add picks if needed, idk if it Russ can play the 2 but you’d have

Kemba/Wannamaker/Waters
Westbrook/Edwards
Brown/Semi
Tatum/williams/Theis
Adams/Kanter/Williams

Adding Westbrook hurts the development of Brown and Tatum. People were concern about Kemba taking shots away from them and then you add a legit ball hog. Hayward is better for the team right now than Westbrook, plays the right way, makes the right passes, and the ball doesn't stick. He'll be out point forward letting Kemba play off the ball more, which I hear when given chance is really good at it.

Now Adams on the other hand I'd be more willing to bring in, not sure I'd want to deal out Smart with the back up PG/SG's being very, well, green. If there was a way to move some youth in the deal it would be great, but not going to happen now.

[Geo123]

Ainge hasn't doomed us to the treadmill. He's put the team into a position where Tatum or Brown making a leap makes us contenders, but we can also change directions in a couple of years if neither does

+1

[ederson]

The LA and NY teams have a big advantage in that stars frequently fall in their laps because of their location.

That is what happened this year. Leonard wanted to play in LA. George also wanted to play in LA. Neither apparently wanted to play with James. So they picked the Clippers, told them, and the Clippers traded for George in a lopsided deal, giving up a ton of draft picks. Kind of like what the Lakers did trading for Davis. It didn't have a lot to do with anything else. Just like James and Davis going to the Lakers. A mirror image of that situation. And then Durant-Irving to the NY, er., Brooklyn  Nets. Same deal. Fell into their laps because of location.

It wasn't the management that engineered those deals. It was the stars dictating where they wanted to go, and the management of those teams  just following their wishes.

That is not 100% accurate. Both FOs had a lot to do with the final outcome.

They managed to create intriguing rosters appealing to top stars. And in the clippers case the FO managed to collect enough assets to make the trade

[mctyson]

The LA and NY teams have a big advantage in that stars frequently fall in their laps because of their location.

That is what happened this year. Leonard wanted to play in LA. George also wanted to play in LA. Neither apparently wanted to play with James. So they picked the Clippers, told them, and the Clippers traded for George in a lopsided deal, giving up a ton of draft picks. Kind of like what the Lakers did trading for Davis. It didn't have a lot to do with anything else. Just like James and Davis going to the Lakers. A mirror image of that situation. And then Durant-Irving to the NY, er., Brooklyn  Nets. Same deal. Fell into their laps because of location.

It wasn't the management that engineered those deals. It was the stars dictating where they wanted to go, and the management of those teams  just following their wishes.

You could say this was the year of the triumph of the big markets.

Ainge had a different situation. The Celtics were losing star players in free agency. They were fortunate one star player, Walker, wanted to come to Boston. But they came out one Horford short because Danny wouldn't tack on a 4th year. I think Ainge was right about that, because now the Sixers are stuck with a max contract until Al is 37. Horford got a steal. But now Danny has to get stronger up front just to tread water.

Why do people keep saying this?  The Knicks never land anyone, and Kyrie wanting to go to Brooklyn (being from the NYC area) is the only reason Durant is there.