I'm treating these games as extension of preseason

[rocknrollforyoursoul]

"I'm treating these games as an extension of preseason"

... too bad that these games, unlike actual preseason, count in the standings.

[tonydelk]

"I'm treating these games as an extension of preseason"

... too bad that these games, unlike actual preseason, count in the standings.

It definitely seems its going to take a while for the C's Defensive Chemistry to really pick it up.  The C's need Kemba's scoring in a bad way.  I think by game 15 we will see a much improved team.  The problem is that the C's have a brutal schedule to start the season and if the losses pile up they may not be able to make up for it when the schedule gets easier and it doesn't get that much easier.  If the C's don't get it together quickly this may be a 3-5 seed which will be very tough to navigate in the playoffs.  The C's will need to be playing unreal ball at the end of the season and hopefully the Cavs and other bad teams keep stealing games from the Nets and Bucks etc.

[PhoSita]

"I'm treating these games as an extension of preseason"

... too bad that these games, unlike actual preseason, count in the standings.

True, but we've seen recently, especially without as many (or any) fans in the stands, where you are at in the standings doesn't necessarily matter that much.


Getting to the playoffs as healthy as possible is really the main goal for this team.  At that point it'll be time to see how good they can really be.

[PhoSita]

This team is worse than any team of the last 3 years.  There is no Horford or Hayward on the roster (Walker is a lesser version of Irving so a downgrade there). 

Hayward contributed basically nothing to the most recent playoff run.  He was out the first two rounds and then was real bad in the ECF.


I do think that the 2017 version of Al Horford is exactly the guy this team needs right now.


The point is that in each of the past several years when the team has gone deep in the playoffs, I remember hearing the same stuff (i.e. they're doomed, they need to choose a path, they're not good enough, they're going to lose early in the playoffs forever). 


I think there's plenty of recent evidence to suggest we all ought to be humble about predicting whether this team is good enough to go far in the playoffs.

[Moranis]

This team is worse than any team of the last 3 years.  There is no Horford or Hayward on the roster (Walker is a lesser version of Irving so a downgrade there). 

Hayward contributed basically nothing to the most recent playoff run.  He was out the first two rounds and then was real bad in the ECF.


I do think that the 2017 version of Al Horford is exactly the guy this team needs right now.


The point is that in each of the past several years when the team has gone deep in the playoffs, I remember hearing the same stuff (i.e. they're doomed, they need to choose a path, they're not good enough, they're going to lose early in the playoffs forever). 


I think there's plenty of recent evidence to suggest we all ought to be humble about predicting whether this team is good enough to go far in the playoffs.

To be fair, I have consistently said the failure to pick a direction meant Boston wasn't going to win a title or even be a real contender, and Boston hasn't been one of those.  Depending on how the season shakes out, Boston might very well make the ECF again this year (match-ups will be important), but team still won't be a contender as presently constructed.  Enough talent for a nice regular season and a fun little post-season run, but not enough talent to actually win.  That has absolutely been the case the last 4 years, is the case this year, and will continue to be the case going forward with a major move of some kind.

[W8ting2McHale]

I don’t get why people continually make light of getting to the ECF. We haven’t kicked the door in yet, but any team that makes it to the ECF IS a contender.

Maybe I am wrong, but I can’t remember any team EVER winning a championship that didn’t make it to the conference final?

Don’t you have to play in the conference final to play for a championship? Isn’t that part of the process?

If it is, then you can’t discount reaching the ECF. They don’t just invite the “real contenders” to play for the championship like, say College Football does.

The Celtics haven’t made it past the ECF, but a few different bounces of the ball and they would have. They were contending. They are contenders.

A lot of you seem to misconstrue “favorite” for “contender.” It’s NOT the same thing. The Celtics haven’t been the favorites to win it all, but they have been contenders.

[PhoSita]

To be fair, I have consistently said the failure to pick a direction meant Boston wasn't going to win a title or even be a real contender, and Boston hasn't been one of those. 

Depending on how the season shakes out, Boston might very well make the ECF again this year (match-ups will be important), but team still won't be a contender as presently constructed.  Enough talent for a nice regular season and a fun little post-season run, but not enough talent to actually win.  That has absolutely been the case the last 4 years, is the case this year, and will continue to be the case going forward with a major move of some kind.

If we're going to set the bar this high for what makes a team a "real" contender, then we're basically just shuffling deck chairs until we have a clear cut MVP candidate (i.e. top 5ish player) plus another top 20 player.  We've seen that for the most part that is what it takes to be more than a dark horse / second tier contender.

Long ago, I reached the conclusion that you can't really *plan* to end up in that position.  Unless you're the Lakers.  Every other team has to basically do everything right and get really lucky to have a guy under contract who is in the MVP conversation and also have a top 20 guy.

Not to mention that even once you get that in place, you have to have good chemistry, a decent enough supporting cast to make it through a long season and playoff run, and you need to have luck with injuries.

I think you can plan to build a very good team around a couple of perennial All-Star type talents and try to maximize your chances to have a break out season due to some luck or one or two of your supporting guys breaking out unexpectedly.



You could make the argument that Harden is a MVP candidate  every season, Tatum is a top 20 guy, and that those two together would make you a "real" contender.  But the team would have an extremely threadbare supporting cast, there would be major chemistry issues, and you'd only get a couple bites at the apple.  I think you'd basically be guaranteeing that Tatum leaves in a few years, too, irrespective of whether you win a title.


I'd rather just ride or die with Jayson and Jaylen, see what Ainge and co. can do to manage and improve the supporting cast around them, and see what Brad can do to maximize the rosters he's given.

At the end of the day, they may never be a "real" contender in any given season, but I think they'll be far more enjoyable and if they do make it to the Finals or even win a title, the culmination of that story will make it so much more significant.


Anyway, I reject the "real" contender framing just because I think it sets up an unrealistic standard for what we're "allowed" to enjoy as fans or regard as a "good" team.  I think if you have that mindset, you're almost never going to be particularly happy with the product on the floor unless the team happens to have that generation's LeBron, Bird, Jordan, Kobe, Duncan etc on the floor.  And again, unless you're the Lakers, most teams only get a guy like that once in a lifetime.


I guess my philosophy is that it makes a lot more sense to try to build a team like the 00s Mavericks (very good team built around one top 5-15 player that stayed really good for a long time) instead of feeling that it's necessary to put together the Bron/Wade Heat or the Curry/Durant Warriors in order to be a "real" contender. 

I also think that looking at the team building process that way is a lot healthier from a fan standpoint.


Personally I think it's a lot of fun to watch a team make a run to the ECF or the Finals even if it doesn't end in a title.  I think that only gets stale if you don't see any signs of steady improvement.  If it truly stagnates, I think that would sour things for the players, too.  At that point you do need to shake things up (see: what the Raptors did trading Derozan for a year of Kawhi).  Like it did with the Raptors, that can pay off, even though it's risky to put it all on one season (see: four bounces game winner).

[rocknrollforyoursoul]

"I'm treating these games as an extension of preseason"

... too bad that these games, unlike actual preseason, count in the standings.

True, but we've seen recently, especially without as many (or any) fans in the stands, where you are at in the standings doesn't necessarily matter that much.


Getting to the playoffs as healthy as possible is really the main goal for this team.  At that point it'll be time to see how good they can really be.

Ha, where have I heard this before? I mean, technically this is true—for every team, including Boston—but it's sad that "Just wait til we get healthy!" has become this team's mantra. Though not as sad as the fact that, well, the team is never healthy.

[PAOBoston]

"I'm treating these games as an extension of preseason"

... too bad that these games, unlike actual preseason, count in the standings.

True, but we've seen recently, especially without as many (or any) fans in the stands, where you are at in the standings doesn't necessarily matter that much.


Getting to the playoffs as healthy as possible is really the main goal for this team.  At that point it'll be time to see how good they can really be.

Ha, where have I heard this before? I mean, technically this is true—for every team, including Boston—but it's sad that "Just wait til we get healthy!" has become this team's mantra. Though not as sad as the fact that, well, the team is never healthy.

We have been saying this for like 3 years. This team will never be healthy. Someone is always hurt.

[SparzWizard]

"I'm treating these games as an extension of preseason"

... too bad that these games, unlike actual preseason, count in the standings.

True, but we've seen recently, especially without as many (or any) fans in the stands, where you are at in the standings doesn't necessarily matter that much.


Getting to the playoffs as healthy as possible is really the main goal for this team.  At that point it'll be time to see how good they can really be.

Ha, where have I heard this before? I mean, technically this is true—for every team, including Boston—but it's sad that "Just wait til we get healthy!" has become this team's mantra. Though not as sad as the fact that, well, the team is never healthy.

We were kinda healthy and lost to the underdog #5 seed Miami Heat.

[Darth_Yoda]

"I'm treating these games as an extension of preseason"

... too bad that these games, unlike actual preseason, count in the standings.

True, but we've seen recently, especially without as many (or any) fans in the stands, where you are at in the standings doesn't necessarily matter that much.


Getting to the playoffs as healthy as possible is really the main goal for this team.  At that point it'll be time to see how good they can really be.

Ha, where have I heard this before? I mean, technically this is true—for every team, including Boston—but it's sad that "Just wait til we get healthy!" has become this team's mantra. Though not as sad as the fact that, well, the team is never healthy.

We were kinda healthy and lost to the underdog #5 seed Miami Heat.

Lost sue to being outcoached

[PhoSita]

"I'm treating these games as an extension of preseason"

... too bad that these games, unlike actual preseason, count in the standings.

True, but we've seen recently, especially without as many (or any) fans in the stands, where you are at in the standings doesn't necessarily matter that much.


Getting to the playoffs as healthy as possible is really the main goal for this team.  At that point it'll be time to see how good they can really be.

Ha, where have I heard this before? I mean, technically this is true—for every team, including Boston—but it's sad that "Just wait til we get healthy!" has become this team's mantra. Though not as sad as the fact that, well, the team is never healthy.

Yes, it is frustrating that the dynamic is so often "let's see what they can do when they're healthy."

But in this case we're not talking about some fantasy version the team we've never seen before.

We saw just a couple months ago what the team looks like with the four main guys all available to play major minutes. It looks really good.

[rocknrollforyoursoul]

"I'm treating these games as an extension of preseason"

... too bad that these games, unlike actual preseason, count in the standings.

True, but we've seen recently, especially without as many (or any) fans in the stands, where you are at in the standings doesn't necessarily matter that much.


Getting to the playoffs as healthy as possible is really the main goal for this team.  At that point it'll be time to see how good they can really be.

Ha, where have I heard this before? I mean, technically this is true—for every team, including Boston—but it's sad that "Just wait til we get healthy!" has become this team's mantra. Though not as sad as the fact that, well, the team is never healthy.

Yes, it is frustrating that the dynamic is so often "let's see what they can do when they're healthy."

But in this case we're not talking about some fantasy version the team we've never seen before.

We saw just a couple months ago what the team looks like with the four main guys all available to play major minutes. It looks really good.

I agree that when all four were available and healthy, they looked really good, but that didn't happen often. And now that "four" is down to about "two and a half"—Hayward's gone, and Kemba's knee will, IMO, continue to be a major issue the rest of his Celtics tenure. That TPE could net us a really good and valuable player, but it wouldn't surprise me in the least to see Danny clutch greedily to it until the offseason and just be content with yet another season of "incremental development."

[Somebody]

To be fair, I have consistently said the failure to pick a direction meant Boston wasn't going to win a title or even be a real contender, and Boston hasn't been one of those. 

Depending on how the season shakes out, Boston might very well make the ECF again this year (match-ups will be important), but team still won't be a contender as presently constructed.  Enough talent for a nice regular season and a fun little post-season run, but not enough talent to actually win.  That has absolutely been the case the last 4 years, is the case this year, and will continue to be the case going forward with a major move of some kind.

If we're going to set the bar this high for what makes a team a "real" contender, then we're basically just shuffling deck chairs until we have a clear cut MVP candidate (i.e. top 5ish player) plus another top 20 player.  We've seen that for the most part that is what it takes to be more than a dark horse / second tier contender.

Long ago, I reached the conclusion that you can't really *plan* to end up in that position.  Unless you're the Lakers.  Every other team has to basically do everything right and get really lucky to have a guy under contract who is in the MVP conversation and also have a top 20 guy.

Not to mention that even once you get that in place, you have to have good chemistry, a decent enough supporting cast to make it through a long season and playoff run, and you need to have luck with injuries.

I think you can plan to build a very good team around a couple of perennial All-Star type talents and try to maximize your chances to have a break out season due to some luck or one or two of your supporting guys breaking out unexpectedly.



You could make the argument that Harden is a MVP candidate  every season, Tatum is a top 20 guy, and that those two together would make you a "real" contender.  But the team would have an extremely threadbare supporting cast, there would be major chemistry issues, and you'd only get a couple bites at the apple.  I think you'd basically be guaranteeing that Tatum leaves in a few years, too, irrespective of whether you win a title.


I'd rather just ride or die with Jayson and Jaylen, see what Ainge and co. can do to manage and improve the supporting cast around them, and see what Brad can do to maximize the rosters he's given.

At the end of the day, they may never be a "real" contender in any given season, but I think they'll be far more enjoyable and if they do make it to the Finals or even win a title, the culmination of that story will make it so much more significant.


Anyway, I reject the "real" contender framing just because I think it sets up an unrealistic standard for what we're "allowed" to enjoy as fans or regard as a "good" team.  I think if you have that mindset, you're almost never going to be particularly happy with the product on the floor unless the team happens to have that generation's LeBron, Bird, Jordan, Kobe, Duncan etc on the floor.  And again, unless you're the Lakers, most teams only get a guy like that once in a lifetime.


I guess my philosophy is that it makes a lot more sense to try to build a team like the 00s Mavericks (very good team built around one top 5-15 player that stayed really good for a long time) instead of feeling that it's necessary to put together the Bron/Wade Heat or the Curry/Durant Warriors in order to be a "real" contender. 

I also think that looking at the team building process that way is a lot healthier from a fan standpoint.


Personally I think it's a lot of fun to watch a team make a run to the ECF or the Finals even if it doesn't end in a title.  I think that only gets stale if you don't see any signs of steady improvement.  If it truly stagnates, I think that would sour things for the players, too.  At that point you do need to shake things up (see: what the Raptors did trading Derozan for a year of Kawhi).  Like it did with the Raptors, that can pay off, even though it's risky to put it all on one season (see: four bounces game winner).

Eh you don't have to get an MVP candidate and an All-NBA sidekick in order to be a real title contender. Plenty of teams have won or competed for championships without having a true MVP calibre player - the 70s Celtics/Sonics /Bullets, the 80s/90s Pistons, the 90s Blazers/Pacers, the 2000s Kings/Nets/Pistons and the 2010s Spurs come to mind. We can absolutely compete for a title if Brown and Tatum both develop into top 10-20 players, but what we're doing right now is hoping that Tatum becomes a top 5 guy while shackling Brown - a team with a fringe top 15-20 player pretending that he's an MVP candidate is going to look **** next to genuine title contenders.

[Moranis]

To be fair, I have consistently said the failure to pick a direction meant Boston wasn't going to win a title or even be a real contender, and Boston hasn't been one of those. 

Depending on how the season shakes out, Boston might very well make the ECF again this year (match-ups will be important), but team still won't be a contender as presently constructed.  Enough talent for a nice regular season and a fun little post-season run, but not enough talent to actually win.  That has absolutely been the case the last 4 years, is the case this year, and will continue to be the case going forward with a major move of some kind.

If we're going to set the bar this high for what makes a team a "real" contender, then we're basically just shuffling deck chairs until we have a clear cut MVP candidate (i.e. top 5ish player) plus another top 20 player.  We've seen that for the most part that is what it takes to be more than a dark horse / second tier contender.

Long ago, I reached the conclusion that you can't really *plan* to end up in that position.  Unless you're the Lakers.  Every other team has to basically do everything right and get really lucky to have a guy under contract who is in the MVP conversation and also have a top 20 guy.

Not to mention that even once you get that in place, you have to have good chemistry, a decent enough supporting cast to make it through a long season and playoff run, and you need to have luck with injuries.

I think you can plan to build a very good team around a couple of perennial All-Star type talents and try to maximize your chances to have a break out season due to some luck or one or two of your supporting guys breaking out unexpectedly.



You could make the argument that Harden is a MVP candidate  every season, Tatum is a top 20 guy, and that those two together would make you a "real" contender.  But the team would have an extremely threadbare supporting cast, there would be major chemistry issues, and you'd only get a couple bites at the apple.  I think you'd basically be guaranteeing that Tatum leaves in a few years, too, irrespective of whether you win a title.


I'd rather just ride or die with Jayson and Jaylen, see what Ainge and co. can do to manage and improve the supporting cast around them, and see what Brad can do to maximize the rosters he's given.

At the end of the day, they may never be a "real" contender in any given season, but I think they'll be far more enjoyable and if they do make it to the Finals or even win a title, the culmination of that story will make it so much more significant.


Anyway, I reject the "real" contender framing just because I think it sets up an unrealistic standard for what we're "allowed" to enjoy as fans or regard as a "good" team.  I think if you have that mindset, you're almost never going to be particularly happy with the product on the floor unless the team happens to have that generation's LeBron, Bird, Jordan, Kobe, Duncan etc on the floor.  And again, unless you're the Lakers, most teams only get a guy like that once in a lifetime.


I guess my philosophy is that it makes a lot more sense to try to build a team like the 00s Mavericks (very good team built around one top 5-15 player that stayed really good for a long time) instead of feeling that it's necessary to put together the Bron/Wade Heat or the Curry/Durant Warriors in order to be a "real" contender. 

I also think that looking at the team building process that way is a lot healthier from a fan standpoint.


Personally I think it's a lot of fun to watch a team make a run to the ECF or the Finals even if it doesn't end in a title.  I think that only gets stale if you don't see any signs of steady improvement.  If it truly stagnates, I think that would sour things for the players, too.  At that point you do need to shake things up (see: what the Raptors did trading Derozan for a year of Kawhi).  Like it did with the Raptors, that can pay off, even though it's risky to put it all on one season (see: four bounces game winner).

Eh you don't have to get an MVP candidate and an All-NBA sidekick in order to be a real title contender. Plenty of teams have won or competed for championships without having a true MVP calibre player - the 70s Celtics/Sonics /Bullets, the 80s/90s Pistons, the 90s Blazers/Pacers, the 2000s Kings/Nets/Pistons and the 2010s Spurs come to mind. We can absolutely compete for a title if Brown and Tatum both develop into top 10-20 players, but what we're doing right now is hoping that Tatum becomes a top 5 guy while shackling Brown - a team with a fringe top 15-20 player pretending that he's an MVP candidate is going to look **** next to genuine title contenders.

Dave Cowens not only won the MVP, he finished in the top 4, for 4 straight seasons (and was 7th the year before he won it).  Pretty hard to say he wasn't a MVP caliber player.

The Bullets had MVP Wes Unseld and 3-time, top 5 MVP finisher Elvin Hayes.  Dandridge also finished in the top 5 once. 

I'll give you the 70's Sonics.

The Pistons had 5 different players that received MVP votes and only 1, was a 1 season wonder (Laimbeer finished 12th one year).  Thomas finished in the top 5 in MVP voting and both Dumars and Rodman had top 10 MVP vote getting seasons.  Aguirre finished as high as 11. 

Drexler finished 2nd one year, had a top 5, and top 6 appearance as well.  Pretty hard to say he wasn't a MVP caliber player.

The Pacers made the Finals once, didn't win, in a very odd year.  Though no MVP caliber player.

Both Webber and Peja had top 5 MVP seasons and they never even made the Finals.

The Nets were led by Jason Kidd.  Not sure how anyone could claim he wasn't a MVP caliber player, you know since he got votes in 8 different seasons and finished as high as 2nd. 

I get that Wallace was terrible offensively, but he was so good defensively that he ended up in the top 10 in MVP voting 3 times along with the 4 DPOY.  Billups finished 5th and 6th (along with two others seasons of getting votes).  Even Rasheed had 2 seasons of receiving votes.  They certainly didn't have a super duper star, but the Pistons had a lot more talent then they've been given credit for having. 

The Spurs, come on.  Putting TD aside (though he did finish 12th their last title year), Parker finished 5th and 6th in consecutive seasons leading up to the title (that year he tied TD for 12th) and he had 7 seasons garnering MVP votes, despite playing with TD all those years.  Manu also had 3 seasons of MVP votes finishing as high as 8th in 2011. 


There is a difference between a MVP caliber player and the Super Duper Gold Medal Superstars.  You can win without the Gold Medal Superstar, it is rare, but it happens.  It is almost impossible to win a championship without a consistent top 5ish player and a lot of champions have 2 of those guys.