Danny Ainge excuses and lack of trades(merged threads)

[Scottiej23]

Ainge has failed again. He didn’t do his job and get a scorer off the bench or front court depth. There is no way this team as it is constituted right now is beating Philly it Milwaukee in the playoffs. Philly gave up nothing and improved their bench scoring. Ainge couldn’t do anything? He gets touted for all these picks and young players yet he does nothing? So keep picking players and they can go back and forth to G league. Danny Ainge needs to stop living of off the 08 championship. Enough is enough, this is another second round exit coming. He also should have seen Kyrie being a head case but instead gambled and was left with nothing. Time to move on from Ainge.

You don't want Ainge to gamble but you want him to make trades?

Where did I say I don’t want him gamble? I’m not even sure what your talking about? I want to know how Philly took care of a need which was bench scoring and gave up practically nothing to get it. Yet Ainge sits on his hands and does nothing to help the team out. I’m not talking about trading fro Drummond I’m taking about being able to get someone who can come off the bench and score, or maybe a defensive big. Instead he does nothing and we all expect what? I will tell you whats going to happen, we will watch them get whipped by Milwaukee up front, ska ewith Embiid for Philly. We will see a lack of scoring off the bench. We will watch Gordon Hayward be even softer come playoff time and wish we had a more reliable scorer off the bench. I promise you Hayward will disappear at times and not be consistent. That’s were bench scoring would help.

"He also should have seen Kyrie being a head case but instead gambled and was left with nothing."

I know right?

I also don't understand the focus on bench scoring. If our top 4 scorers are healthy we don't need bench scoring, we need bench D, rebounding and playmaking. We will have two of Tatum/Brown/Walker/Hayward out there every minute. People look at our occasional scoring troubles but it's only because we haven't been healthy.

Exactly right. Our biggest need heading into the playoffs is health.

[rocknrollforyoursoul]

Amazing how these are seemingly the most common assertions on this forum:

1) "No matter how good your team is, you can't win the championship without a top-5 player!"

2) "We need to trade our first round picks to fortify our bench if we want any hope to win a championship!"

It's very difficult to win a title without a top-5 player. It's been done only a handful of times in the last 20 seasons:

• 2011 Mavs (Dirk, Terry, Marion)
• 2008 Celtics (Pierce, KG, Ray)
• 2007 Spurs (Duncan, Parker, Ginobili)
• 2005 Spurs (Duncan, Parker, Ginobili)
• 2004 Pistons (Billups, Wallace boys)
• 1999 Spurs (Robinson, Duncan)

And some people might argue that Duncan was a top-5 player some of those seasons, which would make this list even smaller. It can be done, but it's really tough.

[nickagneta]

Amazing how these are seemingly the most common assertions on this forum:

1) "No matter how good your team is, you can't win the championship without a top-5 player!"

2) "We need to trade our first round picks to fortify our bench if we want any hope to win a championship!"

It's very difficult to win a title without a top-5 player. It's been done only a handful of times in the last 20 seasons:

• 2011 Mavs (Dirk, Terry, Marion)
• 2008 Celtics (Pierce, KG, Ray)
• 2007 Spurs (Duncan, Parker, Ginobili)
• 2005 Spurs (Duncan, Parker, Ginobili)
• 2004 Pistons (Billups, Wallace boys)
• 1999 Spurs (Robinson, Duncan)

And some people might argue that Duncan was a top-5 player some of those seasons, which would make this list even smaller. It can be done, but it's really tough.

So over the last 20 years, 30% of titles were won without a top 5 guy on the roster. That is actually a significant statistical number. You kinda proved the point you are arguing against.

[Walker Wiggle]

Amazing how these are seemingly the most common assertions on this forum:

1) "No matter how good your team is, you can't win the championship without a top-5 player!"

2) "We need to trade our first round picks to fortify our bench if we want any hope to win a championship!"

It's very difficult to win a title without a top-5 player. It's been done only a handful of times in the last 20 seasons:

• 2011 Mavs (Dirk, Terry, Marion)
• 2008 Celtics (Pierce, KG, Ray)
• 2007 Spurs (Duncan, Parker, Ginobili)
• 2005 Spurs (Duncan, Parker, Ginobili)
• 2004 Pistons (Billups, Wallace boys)
• 1999 Spurs (Robinson, Duncan)

And some people might argue that Duncan was a top-5 player some of those seasons, which would make this list even smaller. It can be done, but it's really tough.

So over the last 20 years, 30% of titles were won without a top 5 guy on the roster. That is actually a significant statistical number. You kinda proved the point you are arguing against.

All good points, but the reason I wrote that post was to argue that you can’t have it both ways. You can’t simultaneously say that the Celtics can’t win a championship because they don’t have an elite player, while complaining that they should have traded for Davis Bertans.

[ozgod]

I don't think there's anyone out there that would really move the needle for us without us having to give up a lot. I didn't expect us to win the championship this year, but I don't think we're out of the running by any means. These coming playoffs will make it clear what piece we need and which major piece we can most afford to give up to get it. I hate trades for the sake of trades just to change things up and get people talking, that's what the Knicks are good at. Like shuffling deck chairs around on the Titanic.

[bdm860]

Amazing how these are seemingly the most common assertions on this forum:

1) "No matter how good your team is, you can't win the championship without a top-5 player!"

2) "We need to trade our first round picks to fortify our bench if we want any hope to win a championship!"

It's very difficult to win a title without a top-5 player. It's been done only a handful of times in the last 20 seasons:

• 2011 Mavs (Dirk, Terry, Marion)
• 2008 Celtics (Pierce, KG, Ray)
• 2007 Spurs (Duncan, Parker, Ginobili)
• 2005 Spurs (Duncan, Parker, Ginobili)
• 2004 Pistons (Billups, Wallace boys)
• 1999 Spurs (Robinson, Duncan)

And some people might argue that Duncan was a top-5 player some of those seasons, which would make this list even smaller. It can be done, but it's really tough.

Some might argue Duncan was a top-5 player???  Who would argue that he wasn't?  From '99 to '07 he finished Top 5 in MVP voting all but 1 year (winning 2 MVPs), and was All-NBA 1st team all but 1 year, and All-D 1st team all but 2 years.  So it looks like you have him top-5 in '03, but not the other years?  Ya I'm going to need to see this top-5 list of yours 

But while anybody can nitpick about who was top-5 any particular year (personally I don't think Wade or Shaq were top-5 in '06, don't think Kawhi was top-5 in '14), I think your overall math works out, roughly 30% of the time a team with a no top-5 player has won.  Like nick said, that's a pretty big number, better odds than the worst team in the league winning the lottery (even with the old odds).

[Somebody]

Amazing how these are seemingly the most common assertions on this forum:

1) "No matter how good your team is, you can't win the championship without a top-5 player!"

2) "We need to trade our first round picks to fortify our bench if we want any hope to win a championship!"

It's very difficult to win a title without a top-5 player. It's been done only a handful of times in the last 20 seasons:

• 2011 Mavs (Dirk, Terry, Marion)
• 2008 Celtics (Pierce, KG, Ray)
• 2007 Spurs (Duncan, Parker, Ginobili)
• 2005 Spurs (Duncan, Parker, Ginobili)
• 2004 Pistons (Billups, Wallace boys)
• 1999 Spurs (Robinson, Duncan)

And some people might argue that Duncan was a top-5 player some of those seasons, which would make this list even smaller. It can be done, but it's really tough.

Some might argue Duncan was a top-5 player???  Who would argue that he wasn't?  From '99 to '07 he finished Top 5 in MVP voting all but 1 year (winning 2 MVPs), and was All-NBA 1st team all but 1 year, and All-D 1st team all but 2 years.  So it looks like you have him top-5 in '03, but not the other years?  Ya I'm going to need to see this top-5 list of yours 

But while anybody can nitpick about who was top-5 any particular year (personally I don't think Wade or Shaq were top-5 in '06, don't think Kawhi was top-5 in '14), I think your overall math works out, roughly 30% of the time a team with a no top-5 player has won.  Like nick said, that's a pretty big number, better odds than the worst team in the league winning the lottery (even with the old odds).

^^^Duncan was definitely top 5 from '98 to '08. Btw how were '08 KG and '11 Dirk not top 5 players in their respective years?

[gouki88]

Amazing how these are seemingly the most common assertions on this forum:

1) "No matter how good your team is, you can't win the championship without a top-5 player!"

2) "We need to trade our first round picks to fortify our bench if we want any hope to win a championship!"

It's very difficult to win a title without a top-5 player. It's been done only a handful of times in the last 20 seasons:

• 2011 Mavs (Dirk, Terry, Marion)
• 2008 Celtics (Pierce, KG, Ray)
• 2007 Spurs (Duncan, Parker, Ginobili)
• 2005 Spurs (Duncan, Parker, Ginobili)
• 2004 Pistons (Billups, Wallace boys)
• 1999 Spurs (Robinson, Duncan)

And some people might argue that Duncan was a top-5 player some of those seasons, which would make this list even smaller. It can be done, but it's really tough.

So over the last 20 years, 30% of titles were won without a top 5 guy on the roster. That is actually a significant statistical number. You kinda proved the point you are arguing against.

Although they’re wrong. TD and KG were top 5 guys, and there’s definitely an argument for Dirk. Playoff Dirk that year was a top 5 guy

[ozgod]

Danny's thoughts (some might say excuses) after the deadline.

Celtics president of basketball operations Danny Ainge keeps a John Wooden book on his desk, and he likes to think back to one of the legendary UCLA coach’s famous quotes when the NBA trade deadline arrives.

“Don’t confuse activity with achievement,” Ainge said. “It might be that the best thing you ever did was stand pat. Red [Auerbach] told me in my first year doing the job, ‘The best trades I ever made were the ones I didn’t make. I held restraint.’ I’ve actually often thought of that, because sometimes you start feeling the heat because everybody around you is doing things. It’s like, ‘Oh, my gosh.’ But it doesn’t always mean that it’s making everybody better. It just means that you’re making changes.”

“We were looking to improve our team and we didn’t find any deals,” Ainge said by phone Thursday afternoon. “We’ve been pretty open to making trades over the years, but there’s a time and a place to make deals, and sometimes you just aren’t in those times and places. We didn’t feel like there was anything we needed to do.

“It’s always iffy of how much to give up, but we like our team. And we haven’t been healthy and are a top-five offense and defense in the NBA at this point and haven’t enjoyed the benefit of being healthy.”

https://www.bostonglobe.com/sports/celtics/2020/02/06/celtics-could-add-player-buyout-market-but-don-make-any-moves-trade-deadline/blx0QtDXxOcU4CsTwWuNUM/story.html?p1=HP_Feed_ContentQuery

Totally agree with Danny. No need to keep introducing change for change's sake.

[Scottiej23]

Danny's thoughts (some might say excuses) after the deadline.

Celtics president of basketball operations Danny Ainge keeps a John Wooden book on his desk, and he likes to think back to one of the legendary UCLA coach’s famous quotes when the NBA trade deadline arrives.

“Don’t confuse activity with achievement,” Ainge said. “It might be that the best thing you ever did was stand pat. Red [Auerbach] told me in my first year doing the job, ‘The best trades I ever made were the ones I didn’t make. I held restraint.’ I’ve actually often thought of that, because sometimes you start feeling the heat because everybody around you is doing things. It’s like, ‘Oh, my gosh.’ But it doesn’t always mean that it’s making everybody better. It just means that you’re making changes.”

“We were looking to improve our team and we didn’t find any deals,” Ainge said by phone Thursday afternoon. “We’ve been pretty open to making trades over the years, but there’s a time and a place to make deals, and sometimes you just aren’t in those times and places. We didn’t feel like there was anything we needed to do.

“It’s always iffy of how much to give up, but we like our team. And we haven’t been healthy and are a top-five offense and defense in the NBA at this point and haven’t enjoyed the benefit of being healthy.”

https://www.bostonglobe.com/sports/celtics/2020/02/06/celtics-could-add-player-buyout-market-but-don-make-any-moves-trade-deadline/blx0QtDXxOcU4CsTwWuNUM/story.html?p1=HP_Feed_ContentQuery

Totally agree with Danny. No need to keep introducing change for change's sake.

Yeah, stupid Danny with his logic...

[rocknrollforyoursoul]

Amazing how these are seemingly the most common assertions on this forum:

1) "No matter how good your team is, you can't win the championship without a top-5 player!"

2) "We need to trade our first round picks to fortify our bench if we want any hope to win a championship!"

It's very difficult to win a title without a top-5 player. It's been done only a handful of times in the last 20 seasons:

• 2011 Mavs (Dirk, Terry, Marion)
• 2008 Celtics (Pierce, KG, Ray)
• 2007 Spurs (Duncan, Parker, Ginobili)
• 2005 Spurs (Duncan, Parker, Ginobili)
• 2004 Pistons (Billups, Wallace boys)
• 1999 Spurs (Robinson, Duncan)

And some people might argue that Duncan was a top-5 player some of those seasons, which would make this list even smaller. It can be done, but it's really tough.

So over the last 20 years, 30% of titles were won without a top 5 guy on the roster. That is actually a significant statistical number. You kinda proved the point you are arguing against.

Well some people disagreed with my classification of Duncan and KG as not top-5 guys, and I actually was unsure about them—I put my list together pretty quickly and didn't bother to think too much about who was top 5 those years. So if you remove those from my list, that leaves only two instances of the champ having no top-5 player, which would be only 10%. And the '90s were no different—from '90 through '98 (9 seasons), there was Jordan 6 times and Olajuwon twice.

But even if we say, for the sake of argument, it were closer to a 30% chance, those still aren't great odds. Any way you slice it, it's much easier to win a title if you have a top-5 player.

[DefenseWinsChamps]

Amazing how these are seemingly the most common assertions on this forum:

1) "No matter how good your team is, you can't win the championship without a top-5 player!"

2) "We need to trade our first round picks to fortify our bench if we want any hope to win a championship!"

It's very difficult to win a title without a top-5 player. It's been done only a handful of times in the last 20 seasons:

• 2011 Mavs (Dirk, Terry, Marion)
• 2008 Celtics (Pierce, KG, Ray)
• 2007 Spurs (Duncan, Parker, Ginobili)
• 2005 Spurs (Duncan, Parker, Ginobili)
• 2004 Pistons (Billups, Wallace boys)
• 1999 Spurs (Robinson, Duncan)

And some people might argue that Duncan was a top-5 player some of those seasons, which would make this list even smaller. It can be done, but it's really tough.

So over the last 20 years, 30% of titles were won without a top 5 guy on the roster. That is actually a significant statistical number. You kinda proved the point you are arguing against.

Well some people disagreed with my classification of Duncan and KG as not top-5 guys, and I actually was unsure about them—I put my list together pretty quickly and didn't bother to think too much about who was top 5 those years. So if you remove those from my list, that leaves only two instances of the champ having no top-5 player, which would be only 10%. And the '90s were no different—from '90 through '98 (9 seasons), there was Jordan 6 times and Olajuwon twice.

But even if we say, for the sake of argument, it were closer to a 30% chance, those still aren't great odds. Any way you slice it, it's much easier to win a title if you have a top-5 player.

As always, which comes first? Does the title make the top 5 player or does the top 5 player make the title?

If Tatum went for 25-8-3-1-1 in the playoffs and the Cs won the title, would he be in the conversation?

I'm not saying he will do that. I just want to point out that the narrative normally shifts, but the narrative has very little to do with actually on court effectiveness.

[liam]

Danny's thoughts (some might say excuses) after the deadline.

Celtics president of basketball operations Danny Ainge keeps a John Wooden book on his desk, and he likes to think back to one of the legendary UCLA coach’s famous quotes when the NBA trade deadline arrives.

“Don’t confuse activity with achievement,” Ainge said. “It might be that the best thing you ever did was stand pat. Red [Auerbach] told me in my first year doing the job, ‘The best trades I ever made were the ones I didn’t make. I held restraint.’ I’ve actually often thought of that, because sometimes you start feeling the heat because everybody around you is doing things. It’s like, ‘Oh, my gosh.’ But it doesn’t always mean that it’s making everybody better. It just means that you’re making changes.”

“We were looking to improve our team and we didn’t find any deals,” Ainge said by phone Thursday afternoon. “We’ve been pretty open to making trades over the years, but there’s a time and a place to make deals, and sometimes you just aren’t in those times and places. We didn’t feel like there was anything we needed to do.

“It’s always iffy of how much to give up, but we like our team. And we haven’t been healthy and are a top-five offense and defense in the NBA at this point and haven’t enjoyed the benefit of being healthy.”

https://www.bostonglobe.com/sports/celtics/2020/02/06/celtics-could-add-player-buyout-market-but-don-make-any-moves-trade-deadline/blx0QtDXxOcU4CsTwWuNUM/story.html?p1=HP_Feed_ContentQuery

Totally agree with Danny. No need to keep introducing change for change's sake.

Yeah, stupid Danny with his logic...

I hates that logic!!!!!!

[Moranis]

Amazing how these are seemingly the most common assertions on this forum:

1) "No matter how good your team is, you can't win the championship without a top-5 player!"

2) "We need to trade our first round picks to fortify our bench if we want any hope to win a championship!"

It's very difficult to win a title without a top-5 player. It's been done only a handful of times in the last 20 seasons:

• 2011 Mavs (Dirk, Terry, Marion)
• 2008 Celtics (Pierce, KG, Ray)
• 2007 Spurs (Duncan, Parker, Ginobili)
• 2005 Spurs (Duncan, Parker, Ginobili)
• 2004 Pistons (Billups, Wallace boys)
• 1999 Spurs (Robinson, Duncan)

And some people might argue that Duncan was a top-5 player some of those seasons, which would make this list even smaller. It can be done, but it's really tough.

So over the last 20 years, 30% of titles were won without a top 5 guy on the roster. That is actually a significant statistical number. You kinda proved the point you are arguing against.

Well some people disagreed with my classification of Duncan and KG as not top-5 guys, and I actually was unsure about them—I put my list together pretty quickly and didn't bother to think too much about who was top 5 those years. So if you remove those from my list, that leaves only two instances of the champ having no top-5 player, which would be only 10%. And the '90s were no different—from '90 through '98 (9 seasons), there was Jordan 6 times and Olajuwon twice.

But even if we say, for the sake of argument, it were closer to a 30% chance, those still aren't great odds. Any way you slice it, it's much easier to win a title if you have a top-5 player.

As always, which comes first? Does the title make the top 5 player or does the top 5 player make the title?

If Tatum went for 25-8-3-1-1 in the playoffs and the Cs won the title, would he be in the conversation?

I'm not saying he will do that. I just want to point out that the narrative normally shifts, but the narrative has very little to do with actually on court effectiveness.

except in extreme cases of things like rookie year wins, the top 5 player comes first.  That is why those teams win the championship i.e. they already have the horse on the team.

[Ogaju]

Danny is too stingy.