One move away?

[GreenEnvy]

The Celts are one move away in the sense that every team that lacks a clear cut MVP player is one major move away.



The easiest way for this roster to pop would be if one of the guys they've drafted in the last few years makes an unexpected leap.

Otherwise, we know what we've got. Tatum is a signature star in the NBA, an All NBA fixture for years to come, but not yet a top 5 guy. Kemba and Brown are very nice secondary stars who may or may not make All Star.  Smart is an elite defensive role player.  Mixed bag of role players and young guys otherwise.


The Celts enter this next season in much the same position they were in at the end of their bubble playoff run. That's both good and bad.

How many teams with clear cut MVP players are legit contenders?

Giannis hasn’t made a Finals. Harden and Westbrook didn’t make it since ascending to MVP-level players.

Teams with MVP’s are sometimes further away than a team like ours. Look at the flurry of moves Milwaukee made after running away with the best record.

[PhoSita]

It's true that having a clear cut MVP type player is not sufficient to be a title favorite.

I do think that the bucks are a special case because by every measure they have been a great team but for some reason (coach failing to make adjustments) they've fallen apart in the playoffs.

[Somebody]

The Celts are one move away in the sense that every team that lacks a clear cut MVP player is one major move away.



The easiest way for this roster to pop would be if one of the guys they've drafted in the last few years makes an unexpected leap.

Otherwise, we know what we've got. Tatum is a signature star in the NBA, an All NBA fixture for years to come, but not yet a top 5 guy. Kemba and Brown are very nice secondary stars who may or may not make All Star.  Smart is an elite defensive role player.  Mixed bag of role players and young guys otherwise.


The Celts enter this next season in much the same position they were in at the end of their bubble playoff run. That's both good and bad.

How many teams with clear cut MVP players are legit contenders?

Giannis hasn’t made a Finals. Harden and Westbrook didn’t make it since ascending to MVP-level players.

Teams with MVP’s are sometimes further away than a team like ours. Look at the flurry of moves Milwaukee made after running away with the best record.

1. Making the finals or being unable to do so doesn't really determine whether a team is a title contender or not. Milwaukee had two fantastic seasons by smashing indicators that are more reliable than playoff wins that have a ton of variance while Houston had some really good years with Harden as their centrepiece (they almost beat one of the most dominant teams of all time), those teams were absolutely good enough to win NBA titles.

2. Westbrook winning the MVP was more about the narrative surrounding his season rather than his quality as a player.

Obviously having an MVP player doesn't automatically make you a contender (look at Garnett's Wolves in the 2000s), but they provide massive lift to a team's title odds even if their supporting cast isn't incredibly good. Do think that people overestimate the difficulty in building a balanced title contender without an MVP candidate though, there have been plenty of title contenders in the past couple of decades that were led by an All-NBA player or two (eg. 2000 Blazers, early 2000s Kings/Nets, mid-late 2000s Pistons, 2010 Celtics, 2011 Bulls, early-mid 2010s Spurs before Kawhi exploded in 2015/2016ish, our recent Celtic teams and the 2020 Heat).

[LilRip]

As crazy as it sounds... I think we’re there.

At this point, we’ll get as far as our big 3 will take us (Kemba/JB/JT). I think DA has done a good job getting role players to complement them (Smart, TT, Nesmith, Teague, Theis).

If anything, maybe we’re one sweet shooting bench wing player away. But if Nesmith can come in with an NBA-ready stroke? I think this team is a contender. Tatum is our best player. Kemba is our #2. And Brown is our #3. That’s the hierarchy, at least to me.

[Vermont Green]

For the Celtics, it is about how much Tatum and Brown improve more than it is about who we go out and get.  To bring in a star would mean trading one or both of these guys, starting over.

Putting the right pieces around your stars is part of the equation so to speak but we need these guys to emerge as stars and see what kind of stars they are before we can figure out what pieces need to be put around them.  I hope it gets to that but I don't think we are there yet.

Milwaukee is more at the point of "what pieces".  They have their star.  They have a core around the star.  Now they just need to see if they can grow up together and become a title team.  It does not concern me that the Bucks have fizzled in the playoffs so far.   That is pretty normal for a team on their way to the top.  All part of the process.

[Darth_Yoda]

We are potentially there right now. We have greatly improved on the weaknessess of last years team.

Shooting is dramatically improved
Rebounding and front court toughness and defense is improved
Backup PG is greatly improved

Last seasons 6-9 men consisted of
Wannamaker
Romeo
GrantW
Kanter

this year its
Teague
Thompson
Nesmith
Romeo

That is a massive improvement.


team is also potentially loading up for the future with
Smart
Nesmith
Brown
Tatum

still need a center for the future though. Would love for team to talk to Washington about Bryant or Minny about Reid. 2 cheap options that could become the center for the future. 

[Kernewek]

The Celts are one move away in the sense that every team that lacks a clear cut MVP player is one major move away.



The easiest way for this roster to pop would be if one of the guys they've drafted in the last few years makes an unexpected leap.

Otherwise, we know what we've got. Tatum is a signature star in the NBA, an All NBA fixture for years to come, but not yet a top 5 guy. Kemba and Brown are very nice secondary stars who may or may not make All Star.  Smart is an elite defensive role player.  Mixed bag of role players and young guys otherwise.


The Celts enter this next season in much the same position they were in at the end of their bubble playoff run. That's both good and bad.

How many teams with clear cut MVP players are legit contenders?

Giannis hasn’t made a Finals. Harden and Westbrook didn’t make it since ascending to MVP-level players.

Teams with MVP’s are sometimes further away than a team like ours. Look at the flurry of moves Milwaukee made after running away with the best record.

1. Making the finals or being unable to do so doesn't really determine whether a team is a title contender or not. Milwaukee had two fantastic seasons by smashing indicators that are more reliable than playoff wins that have a ton of variance while Houston had some really good years with Harden as their centrepiece (they almost beat one of the most dominant teams of all time), those teams were absolutely good enough to win NBA titles.

I think there's merit to this, but I also think that you can be a very good team without being a title contender.  Ultimately, in order for a team to hit that bar they would actually have to put themselves into title contention.

Houston's "very good years" with Harden resulted in more first round playoff exits than Conference Finals appearances. As memory serves, with the exception of the WCF loss to the Warriors three years ago, none of their exits were particularly competitive:

'13: 2-4 against the Thunder in the first round
'14: 2-4 against the Trail Blazers in the first round
'15: 1-4 against the Warriors in the WCF
'16: 1-4 against the Warriors in the first round
'17: 2-4 against San Antonio in the Semis
'18: 3-4 against the Warriors In the WCF
'19: 2-4 against the Warriors in the Semis
'20: 1-4 against the Lakers in the Semis

What's the old saying, almost only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades? At a certain point, if you can't make it to the NBA Finals you self-evidently cannot be good enough to win them.

Milwaukee is a special case so far but save this year they've shown solid incremental improvement around Giannis. Time will tell with them.

[Somebody]

The Celts are one move away in the sense that every team that lacks a clear cut MVP player is one major move away.



The easiest way for this roster to pop would be if one of the guys they've drafted in the last few years makes an unexpected leap.

Otherwise, we know what we've got. Tatum is a signature star in the NBA, an All NBA fixture for years to come, but not yet a top 5 guy. Kemba and Brown are very nice secondary stars who may or may not make All Star.  Smart is an elite defensive role player.  Mixed bag of role players and young guys otherwise.


The Celts enter this next season in much the same position they were in at the end of their bubble playoff run. That's both good and bad.

How many teams with clear cut MVP players are legit contenders?

Giannis hasn’t made a Finals. Harden and Westbrook didn’t make it since ascending to MVP-level players.

Teams with MVP’s are sometimes further away than a team like ours. Look at the flurry of moves Milwaukee made after running away with the best record.

1. Making the finals or being unable to do so doesn't really determine whether a team is a title contender or not. Milwaukee had two fantastic seasons by smashing indicators that are more reliable than playoff wins that have a ton of variance while Houston had some really good years with Harden as their centrepiece (they almost beat one of the most dominant teams of all time), those teams were absolutely good enough to win NBA titles.

I think there's merit to this, but I also think that you can be a very good team without being a title contender.  Ultimately, in order for a team to hit that bar they would actually have to put themselves into title contention.

Houston's "very good years" with Harden resulted in more first round playoff exits than Conference Finals appearances. As memory serves, with the exception of the WCF loss to the Warriors three years ago, none of their exits were particularly competitive:

'13: 2-4 against the Thunder in the first round
'14: 2-4 against the Trail Blazers in the first round
'15: 1-4 against the Warriors in the WCF
'16: 1-4 against the Warriors in the first round
'17: 2-4 against San Antonio in the Semis
'18: 3-4 against the Warriors In the WCF
'19: 2-4 against the Warriors in the Semis
'20: 1-4 against the Lakers in the Semis

What's the old saying, almost only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades? At a certain point, if you can't make it to the NBA Finals you self-evidently cannot be good enough to win them.

Milwaukee is a special case so far but save this year they've shown solid incremental improvement around Giannis. Time will tell with them.

Their run from '17 to '19 were title contending years imo, Harden really started hitting his stride in '17. Pushing some fantastic teams to 6 games or more is competitive.

Btw the bolded can only start to hold true with dozens or even hundreds of simulations, it is very much possible for a title contender to lose in the conference semifinals or finals to other really good teams in a few years. Heck, it's even possible for a team that's good enough to win an NBA title to lose to an eighth seed (see the '07 Mavericks)!

[Darth_Yoda]

Think Clippers would move Kabengele?

Would be a good 5th or so big man with potential to be a great starter in a small ball center lineup.

[Kernewek]

The Celts are one move away in the sense that every team that lacks a clear cut MVP player is one major move away.



The easiest way for this roster to pop would be if one of the guys they've drafted in the last few years makes an unexpected leap.

Otherwise, we know what we've got. Tatum is a signature star in the NBA, an All NBA fixture for years to come, but not yet a top 5 guy. Kemba and Brown are very nice secondary stars who may or may not make All Star.  Smart is an elite defensive role player.  Mixed bag of role players and young guys otherwise.


The Celts enter this next season in much the same position they were in at the end of their bubble playoff run. That's both good and bad.

How many teams with clear cut MVP players are legit contenders?

Giannis hasn’t made a Finals. Harden and Westbrook didn’t make it since ascending to MVP-level players.

Teams with MVP’s are sometimes further away than a team like ours. Look at the flurry of moves Milwaukee made after running away with the best record.

1. Making the finals or being unable to do so doesn't really determine whether a team is a title contender or not. Milwaukee had two fantastic seasons by smashing indicators that are more reliable than playoff wins that have a ton of variance while Houston had some really good years with Harden as their centrepiece (they almost beat one of the most dominant teams of all time), those teams were absolutely good enough to win NBA titles.

I think there's merit to this, but I also think that you can be a very good team without being a title contender.  Ultimately, in order for a team to hit that bar they would actually have to put themselves into title contention.

Houston's "very good years" with Harden resulted in more first round playoff exits than Conference Finals appearances. As memory serves, with the exception of the WCF loss to the Warriors three years ago, none of their exits were particularly competitive:

'13: 2-4 against the Thunder in the first round
'14: 2-4 against the Trail Blazers in the first round
'15: 1-4 against the Warriors in the WCF
'16: 1-4 against the Warriors in the first round
'17: 2-4 against San Antonio in the Semis
'18: 3-4 against the Warriors In the WCF
'19: 2-4 against the Warriors in the Semis
'20: 1-4 against the Lakers in the Semis

What's the old saying, almost only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades? At a certain point, if you can't make it to the NBA Finals you self-evidently cannot be good enough to win them.

Milwaukee is a special case so far but save this year they've shown solid incremental improvement around Giannis. Time will tell with them.

Their run from '17 to '19 were title contending years imo, Harden really started hitting his stride in '17. Pushing some fantastic teams to 6 games or more is competitive.

Btw the bolded can only start to hold true with dozens or even hundreds of simulations, it is very much possible for a title contender to lose in the conference semifinals or finals to other really good teams in a few years. Heck, it's even possible for a team that's good enough to win an NBA title to lose to an eighth seed (see the '07 Mavericks)!

Sure. I just don't think Harden in Houston qualifies, even if we shorten the window.

San Antonio with Duncan is the platonic ideal of what you would expect to see: from '97 to '13 they had multiple deep playoff runs, three first-round outs, and five titles in seven finals appearances. LeBron's Heat (or really "any team with LeBron James" for the last 10 years or so) and Golden State with 4+ straight finals appearances, Chicago with Jordan obviously, Los Angeles with Kobe & Shaq in the late '90s to the turn of the century (and a minor reprise after the Gasol trade), so on and so forth.

The obvious rejoinder here is that yes, of course, winning distorts the history of the season... but this isn't football - you don't get a prize for the regular season. For me, Harden on the Rockets is about on par with Iverson with the 76ers.  Good team, just not really good enough.

[BMark]

Given the level of competition in the top-heavy East I think the goal should be HCA based upon the roster the Cs currently have.

[Moranis]

The Celts are one move away in the sense that every team that lacks a clear cut MVP player is one major move away.



The easiest way for this roster to pop would be if one of the guys they've drafted in the last few years makes an unexpected leap.

Otherwise, we know what we've got. Tatum is a signature star in the NBA, an All NBA fixture for years to come, but not yet a top 5 guy. Kemba and Brown are very nice secondary stars who may or may not make All Star.  Smart is an elite defensive role player.  Mixed bag of role players and young guys otherwise.


The Celts enter this next season in much the same position they were in at the end of their bubble playoff run. That's both good and bad.

How many teams with clear cut MVP players are legit contenders?

Giannis hasn’t made a Finals. Harden and Westbrook didn’t make it since ascending to MVP-level players.

Teams with MVP’s are sometimes further away than a team like ours. Look at the flurry of moves Milwaukee made after running away with the best record.

1. Making the finals or being unable to do so doesn't really determine whether a team is a title contender or not. Milwaukee had two fantastic seasons by smashing indicators that are more reliable than playoff wins that have a ton of variance while Houston had some really good years with Harden as their centrepiece (they almost beat one of the most dominant teams of all time), those teams were absolutely good enough to win NBA titles.

I think there's merit to this, but I also think that you can be a very good team without being a title contender.  Ultimately, in order for a team to hit that bar they would actually have to put themselves into title contention.

Houston's "very good years" with Harden resulted in more first round playoff exits than Conference Finals appearances. As memory serves, with the exception of the WCF loss to the Warriors three years ago, none of their exits were particularly competitive:

'13: 2-4 against the Thunder in the first round
'14: 2-4 against the Trail Blazers in the first round
'15: 1-4 against the Warriors in the WCF
'16: 1-4 against the Warriors in the first round
'17: 2-4 against San Antonio in the Semis
'18: 3-4 against the Warriors In the WCF
'19: 2-4 against the Warriors in the Semis
'20: 1-4 against the Lakers in the Semis

What's the old saying, almost only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades? At a certain point, if you can't make it to the NBA Finals you self-evidently cannot be good enough to win them.

Milwaukee is a special case so far but save this year they've shown solid incremental improvement around Giannis. Time will tell with them.

Their run from '17 to '19 were title contending years imo, Harden really started hitting his stride in '17. Pushing some fantastic teams to 6 games or more is competitive.

Btw the bolded can only start to hold true with dozens or even hundreds of simulations, it is very much possible for a title contender to lose in the conference semifinals or finals to other really good teams in a few years. Heck, it's even possible for a team that's good enough to win an NBA title to lose to an eighth seed (see the '07 Mavericks)!

Sure. I just don't think Harden in Houston qualifies, even if we shorten the window.

San Antonio with Duncan is the platonic ideal of what you would expect to see: from '97 to '13 they had multiple deep playoff runs, three first-round outs, and five titles in seven finals appearances. LeBron's Heat (or really "any team with LeBron James" for the last 10 years or so) and Golden State with 4+ straight finals appearances, Chicago with Jordan obviously, Los Angeles with Kobe & Shaq in the late '90s to the turn of the century (and a minor reprise after the Gasol trade), so on and so forth.

The obvious rejoinder here is that yes, of course, winning distorts the history of the season... but this isn't football - you don't get a prize for the regular season. For me, Harden on the Rockets is about on par with Iverson with the 76ers.  Good team, just not really good enough.

Houston was the 2nd best team in the world for a 2 to 3 year period.  They weren't better than the Warriors, but no one was.  Had the injuries to Durant, Klay, etc. happened earlier, Houston probably wins the title that Toronto won. 

That said there is a difference between a MVP caliber player/season and an all time great ceiling raising player.  To be a consistent long term contender you need the ceiling raising player, guys like Lebron, Duncan, Shaq, Jordan, Bird, Magic, Kareem, etc.  To be a contender over a couple of seasons, you don't need that sort of player.  A player like Harden fits that latter category.  Where in the right scenario he could be the best player on a contender or even title winner.  I think Kawhi is more in that mold.  I don't think he is a guy that you can count on for a decade, but certainly, as we saw in Toronto, can be the best player on a title team.  Giannis it is still undecided if he is a ceiling raiser like a Lebron or a MVP player more like Harden/Kawhi (I believe he will break through and be more like Lebron than Harden, but it could still go either way).  I think Curry and Durant are both in the Lebron category (though obviously not as good as him), but you don't anchor a 5 year contender (like Curry) if you aren't a ceiling raiser (and we've seen Durant lead several teams to the finals as the best player both in OKC and GS).  Then there are the guys more like Davis (or going back a few years Wade), who I think are much better suited as a #2 type guy.  Great player, but not the guy that is going to put a team on his back and carry it over the course of a season or multiple seasons.  We saw in New Orleans that Davis just wasn't that type of player. 

[Kernewek]

The Celts are one move away in the sense that every team that lacks a clear cut MVP player is one major move away.



The easiest way for this roster to pop would be if one of the guys they've drafted in the last few years makes an unexpected leap.

Otherwise, we know what we've got. Tatum is a signature star in the NBA, an All NBA fixture for years to come, but not yet a top 5 guy. Kemba and Brown are very nice secondary stars who may or may not make All Star.  Smart is an elite defensive role player.  Mixed bag of role players and young guys otherwise.


The Celts enter this next season in much the same position they were in at the end of their bubble playoff run. That's both good and bad.

How many teams with clear cut MVP players are legit contenders?

Giannis hasn’t made a Finals. Harden and Westbrook didn’t make it since ascending to MVP-level players.

Teams with MVP’s are sometimes further away than a team like ours. Look at the flurry of moves Milwaukee made after running away with the best record.

1. Making the finals or being unable to do so doesn't really determine whether a team is a title contender or not. Milwaukee had two fantastic seasons by smashing indicators that are more reliable than playoff wins that have a ton of variance while Houston had some really good years with Harden as their centrepiece (they almost beat one of the most dominant teams of all time), those teams were absolutely good enough to win NBA titles.

I think there's merit to this, but I also think that you can be a very good team without being a title contender.  Ultimately, in order for a team to hit that bar they would actually have to put themselves into title contention.

Houston's "very good years" with Harden resulted in more first round playoff exits than Conference Finals appearances. As memory serves, with the exception of the WCF loss to the Warriors three years ago, none of their exits were particularly competitive:

'13: 2-4 against the Thunder in the first round
'14: 2-4 against the Trail Blazers in the first round
'15: 1-4 against the Warriors in the WCF
'16: 1-4 against the Warriors in the first round
'17: 2-4 against San Antonio in the Semis
'18: 3-4 against the Warriors In the WCF
'19: 2-4 against the Warriors in the Semis
'20: 1-4 against the Lakers in the Semis

What's the old saying, almost only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades? At a certain point, if you can't make it to the NBA Finals you self-evidently cannot be good enough to win them.

Milwaukee is a special case so far but save this year they've shown solid incremental improvement around Giannis. Time will tell with them.

Their run from '17 to '19 were title contending years imo, Harden really started hitting his stride in '17. Pushing some fantastic teams to 6 games or more is competitive.

Btw the bolded can only start to hold true with dozens or even hundreds of simulations, it is very much possible for a title contender to lose in the conference semifinals or finals to other really good teams in a few years. Heck, it's even possible for a team that's good enough to win an NBA title to lose to an eighth seed (see the '07 Mavericks)!

Sure. I just don't think Harden in Houston qualifies, even if we shorten the window.

San Antonio with Duncan is the platonic ideal of what you would expect to see: from '97 to '13 they had multiple deep playoff runs, three first-round outs, and five titles in seven finals appearances. LeBron's Heat (or really "any team with LeBron James" for the last 10 years or so) and Golden State with 4+ straight finals appearances, Chicago with Jordan obviously, Los Angeles with Kobe & Shaq in the late '90s to the turn of the century (and a minor reprise after the Gasol trade), so on and so forth.

The obvious rejoinder here is that yes, of course, winning distorts the history of the season... but this isn't football - you don't get a prize for the regular season. For me, Harden on the Rockets is about on par with Iverson with the 76ers.  Good team, just not really good enough.

Houston was the 2nd best team in the world for a 2 to 3 year period.  They weren't better than the Warriors, but no one was.  Had the injuries to Durant, Klay, etc. happened earlier, Houston probably wins the title that Toronto won.   

This is a wonderful hypothetical delivered as an assertion

I assume you are ready with all manner of glorious discussion points regarding points per possession, pace, wins per 100 games, strength of schedule, ORtg/DRtg differential and all sorts of other filigree to disguise the fact that Houston, having claimed the #1 seed in the West once in the regular season (the same year they got bounced by Golden state in the WCF), were the undisputed second chair for multiple seasons.

Let me save you your time. I don't agree with that assertion. They had one great year. They had a few good years. Ultimately they always lost as they played: with a complete absence of grace,  joy, and any redeeming aesthetic quality.

That said there is a difference between a MVP caliber player/season and an all time great ceiling raising player.  To be a consistent long term contender you need the ceiling raising player, guys like Lebron, Duncan, Shaq, Jordan, Bird, Magic, Kareem, etc.  To be a contender over a couple of seasons, you don't need that sort of player.  A player like Harden fits that latter category.  Where in the right scenario he could be the best player on a contender or even title winner.  I think Kawhi is more in that mold.  I don't think he is a guy that you can count on for a decade, but certainly, as we saw in Toronto, can be the best player on a title team.  Giannis it is still undecided if he is a ceiling raiser like a Lebron or a MVP player more like Harden/Kawhi (I believe he will break through and be more like Lebron than Harden, but it could still go either way).  I think Curry and Durant are both in the Lebron category (though obviously not as good as him), but you don't anchor a 5 year contender (like Curry) if you aren't a ceiling raiser (and we've seen Durant lead several teams to the finals as the best player both in OKC and GS).  Then there are the guys more like Davis (or going back a few years Wade), who I think are much better suited as a #2 type guy.  Great player, but not the guy that is going to put a team on his back and carry it over the course of a season or multiple seasons.  We saw in New Orleans that Davis just wasn't that type of player.

This, however, I agree with entirely.

[CFAN38]

I don't pretend to have a firm grasp on future cap scenarios but I did read that the Cs will have room to add a Max player in 2023. This is really a long shot but its plausible that DA tries to play the long game and bring Beal, Brown, Tatum and maybe/hopefully Smart together as a future core. 

[Big333223]

It all depends on the J's. If Tatum and Brown continue to develop, Tatum might be an MVP candidate and Brown might be an all star. If those things come to pass and Kemba is healthy, there's a nice roster of contributing players behind them (Smart, Thompson, Theis, Teague). There's also some young guys who might still contribute (Nesmith, Timelord, Langford) and if one of those guys break out then, yeah, we could be adding a vet wing away from a title.

There's a lot of "ifs" there but no crazy predictions.