Ainge on 98.5 FM’s The Sports Hub’s Toucher and Rich show, talk TPE

[Moranis]

If Jaylen is going to be limited for the near future dealing with nagging knee issues, this season is basically a lost cause already.

All around it's starting to feel like this just isn't meant to be a year in which the Celts seriously compete for anything, due entirely to things outside their control.

Did you really think Boston was going to seriously compete for the title this year?  I mean that honestly because I just never saw this team as a realistic contender if everything went 100% correct, and we know that never happens.

I've said this in many places, but the Celts were a top 5 team on offense and defense last year, even with Hayward missing tons of time and not participating in the playoffs.  They got to Game 6 of the Eastern Conference Finals and the main reason (in my judgment) that they were unable to advance is that their opponent was simply much better at executing in the fourth quarter.  It wasn't a matter of lacking talent. 

My hope was that this team could come back just as strong as they were in the playoffs (again, where Hayward was basically not a factor) and show gradual improvement in their execution through playing together over the course of the season.

So yes, I saw the Celts as a team with a shot at making a deep run to the Finals, but only if things broke in their favor.  I think that's how it is for most very good but not super great teams.

I don't think Boston beats Toronto if those games are in Toronto.  History bears out just how infrequently Boston wins in Toronto and the teams were obviously pretty evenly matched.  So I think Miami, Milwaukee, and Toronto were all better teams in the east last year.  Miami is struggling this year, but I think they will still be as good as they were last year when the playoffs roll around.  Toronto is obviously not as good as they were, but are still in Boston's same general range (they are 1 game back).  Brooklyn is certainly better than Boston (at least from a playoff perspective if not regular season as well) and Philadelphia may very well be (they will clearly finish with a better record, though it is yet to be seen how good they will be in the playoffs).  So Boston is the 4th, 5th, or 6th best team in the East and was always going to be.  They certainly could end up with a better seed than that, as health plays a big part in regular season records (though Indiana could finish as a higher seed also). 

Teams that are consistent contenders quite simply have top end talent that is better than the C's have.  The C's have been a very good regular season team, but in the playoffs you just need the uber elite guys to have any real shot at winning championships.  Even the Bucks, who have the 2-time defending MVP, haven't even made the Finals, because the supporting cast around Giannis just hasn't been good enough and their supporting cast has been better and deeper than Boston's.  Top end talent wins and Boston quite simply doesn't have it.  Hopefully someday Tatum elevates into that class and Brown continues to improve so that he can be a sufficiently talented #2, but until that happens, Boston isn't a contender.

I do love the way you somehow twist Boston beating Toronto with a hampered star player into Toronto being the better team. Only you could reach such a conclusion

Toronto won 5 more games than Boston last year and Boston rarely wins in Toronto (in the regular season or post season).  Those are in fact facts.  The bubble was weird, especially in the playoffs with no traveling or home court advantage.  I don't think Miami beats Milwaukee either if those games are Milwaukee. 

[mobilija]

Moranis, ur facts don't out weigh the facts of who actually won. You can argue for some alternate universe to support ur argument all u want, doesn't change the actual outcome. Boston finished as one of the last 4teams standing last year, they were in contention. Thats the biggest fact.

[Roy H.]

Moranis, ur facts don't out weigh the facts of who actually won. You can argue for some alternate universe to support ur argument all u want, doesn't change the actual outcome. Boston finished as one of the last 4teams standing last year, they were in contention. Thats the biggest fact.

Yes, it’s not really legitimate to say that Toronto is better because they had a better regular season record, while saying Miami is better because they beat us in the playoffs. 

[Moranis]

Moranis, ur facts don't out weigh the facts of who actually won. You can argue for some alternate universe to support ur argument all u want, doesn't change the actual outcome. Boston finished as one of the last 4teams standing last year, they were in contention. Thats the biggest fact.

Yes, it’s not really legitimate to say that Toronto is better because they had a better regular season record, while saying Miami is better because they beat us in the playoffs.

But that isn't what I was saying.  I'm saying I don't put much stock in the outcome of the playoffs last year in the bubble.  I don't think Utah blows a 3-1 against Denver if they were playing games in Utah.  Of course they might never have had a 3-1 lead if they were playing games in Denver.   Same goes for the LA and Denver series.  The games in the bubble, especially the playoff games, were just weird.  I don't think you can put much stock in the results and reach some conclusion as to the actual ability or talent of a team.  That said, the Lakers were the best team last year and while I think the bubble probably helped them, I'm not sure they don't win the title in a more normal close to the season anyway.  I don't think Miami makes the Finals though without the bubble.  They were a good, but not great, team for much of last year and while Butler is a top 10 guy, he isn't a top 5 guy, so even them getting hot at the right time probably isn't enough in a normal season (Butler though clearly makes a difference for them as they are 8-5 with him and 3-9 without him on the season). 

I don't think Boston beats Toronto last year if they have to play 4 games in Toronto and 3 games in Boston.  That is based off the fact that Boston rarely wins games in Toronto and that Toronto was a good team last year (they split the season series).  I think ultimately the home court advantage of the Raptors would have been the deciding factor had home court actually mattered.  I didn't consider either to be a realistic contender though because neither had a top 5 nor even top 10 player. 

I think there are 5-7 realistic contenders this year.  The Lakers, Clippers, Nuggets, Jazz, Bucks, Nets, Sixers (the Nuggets need to start winning and I'm not sure the Jazz are really this good).  I don't see any other team, as currently constructed, having any sort of real shot of making the Finals, let alone winning them without some pretty dramatic injuries or another bubble situation.

[PhoSita]

- Makes arguments relying heavily on playoff outcomes to justify position on how good a team really is

- Argues the Sixers should be taken seriously


Hmmmm

[Moranis]

- Makes arguments relying heavily on playoff outcomes to justify position on how good a team really is

- Argues the Sixers should be taken seriously


Hmmmm

Embiid is playing out of his mind this year (if the season ended today he'd finish 2nd in MVP voting), they have a championship winning new coach, and new players that work better with Embiid and Simmons.  And we can make fun of their playoff struggles all we want, but they were a bounce of a basketball away from beating the Raptors the year they won the title.  I have no idea if they would have beaten Milwaukee that season, but had they done it they certainly could have beaten the injured Warriors (though maybe some of those injuries don't happen if they played the Sixers instead of the Raptors).  Sometimes you just need a little luck (or inversely have some bad luck gets in the way).  All that said, I wouldn't be all that surprised if the Sixers flamed out of the playoffs again because of their history, but they do have a top 5 talent and another All NBA player surrounded by an all star caliber player and well fitting role players.  They aren't the favorites by any stretch, but they don't lack true top end talent either.  They've also been very healthy this year which I do think is one of the reasons they have the best record in the East, but it is also one of the reasons I think they are a real contender as their main rotation actually looks pretty good together.  Doc has seemingly figured out what to do with Embiid and Simmons to maximize their respective strengths and abilities and he has gotten Harris back to his Clippers form.  The bench knows their role and they all do it well.  This isn't the Sixers from last year.  They are a whole new team and one that could make a lot of noise in the playoffs.

[PhoSita]

Look the point here is that the assumptions and leaps of faith you're willing to make with other teams never get extended to your takes on the Celtics.

I know you're capable of spinning out a detailed block text argument for why you like or don't like a team.

Does it ever get turned in favor of the Celtics?

Have you ever thought the Celtics were as good as most fans / pundits thought they were? 

Seriously, when was the last time you liked the Celtics and thought they were good?

[Moranis]

Look the point here is that the assumptions and leaps of faith you're willing to make with other teams never get extended to your takes on the Celtics.

I know you're capable of spinning out a detailed block text argument for why you like or don't like a team.

Does it ever get turned in favor of the Celtics?

Have you ever thought the Celtics were as good as most fans / pundits thought they were? 

Seriously, when was the last time you liked the Celtics and thought they were good?

The Celtics are good, but they aren't great and thus not a realistic contender and haven't been since KG got old.  There is a reason they haven't been to the Finals since 2010.  Maybe I'm not the crazy one I'm portrayed to be.  I mean I was clearly right about Rondo.  I was clearly right about Irving.  I've been saying Tatum was the most important player to the C's success since Irving was on the team.  I was out in front of that one early, but Tatum isn't a MVP caliber player yet.  I absolutely think he could be, but he isn't yet, and he absolutely needs to be for Boston to have realistic title aspirations.  He is also 22 and in his 4th year.  Most players really start hitting their peak in year 6.  Let's see what he and the team looks like then.

Look I get it.  Fans often have unrealistic views of their teams and the players on it and someone like me that is a realist can come off as negative.  I love the Celtics, I want them to win titles, but I can also look at this team and know that it is flawed and not a title contender.  Tatum and Brown aren't yet good enough and the rest of the roster just isn't very good, doesn't fit well together, and lacks size.  The bench is incredibly small and young as well.   And these aren't new things either as it has been this way for years.  In fact the team keeps getting smaller.  I mean it had Horford and Baynes starting with Tatum, Brown, and Irving not that long ago.  That team had size, it had length, and it still wasn't good enough because Irving as a lead player wasn't good enough.  The team just keeps getting smaller.  The bench keeps getting younger.  And the team keeps losing talented players that it replaces with lesser players.  As hard as I was on Irving, he was better than Walker (though as I correctly predicted the team would be better without Irving and his divaness).  Horford and Hayward quite simply weren't replaced at all.  Obviously Tatum and Brown are better now than they were then, but the rest of the team isn't.  It is in fact much worse and Boston has no prime draft picks coming up anymore and none of the other young players look like they will be much more than bench fodder (still early for Nesmith and Pritchard so I'm not counting them).   Sometimes the truth hurts, but someone has to speak it or this just board just becomes a place of green-tinted glasses that loses touch with reality.

[slamtheking]

Look the point here is that the assumptions and leaps of faith you're willing to make with other teams never get extended to your takes on the Celtics.

I know you're capable of spinning out a detailed block text argument for why you like or don't like a team.

Does it ever get turned in favor of the Celtics?

Have you ever thought the Celtics were as good as most fans / pundits thought they were? 

Seriously, when was the last time you liked the Celtics and thought they were good?

The Celtics are good, but they aren't great and thus not a realistic contender and haven't been since KG got old.  There is a reason they haven't been to the Finals since 2010.  Maybe I'm not the crazy one I'm portrayed to be.  I mean I was clearly right about Rondo.  I was clearly right about Irving.  I've been saying Tatum was the most important player to the C's success since Irving was on the team.  I was out in front of that one early, but Tatum isn't a MVP caliber player yet.  I absolutely think he could be, but he isn't yet, and he absolutely needs to be for Boston to have realistic title aspirations.  He is also 22 and in his 4th year.  Most players really start hitting their peak in year 6.  Let's see what he and the team looks like then.

Look I get it.  Fans often have unrealistic views of their teams and the players on it and someone like me that is a realist can come off as negative.  I love the Celtics, I want them to win titles, but I can also look at this team and know that it is flawed and not a title contender.  Tatum and Brown aren't yet good enough and the rest of the roster just isn't very good, doesn't fit well together, and lacks size.  The bench is incredibly small and young as well.   And these aren't new things either as it has been this way for years.  In fact the team keeps getting smaller.  I mean it had Horford and Baynes starting with Tatum, Brown, and Irving not that long ago.  That team had size, it had length, and it still wasn't good enough because Irving as a lead player wasn't good enough.  The team just keeps getting smaller.  The bench keeps getting younger.  And the team keeps losing talented players that it replaces with lesser players.  As hard as I was on Irving, he was better than Walker (though as I correctly predicted the team would be better without Irving and his divaness).  Horford and Hayward quite simply weren't replaced at all.  Obviously Tatum and Brown are better now than they were then, but the rest of the team isn't.  It is in fact much worse and Boston has no prime draft picks coming up anymore and none of the other young players look like they will be much more than bench fodder (still early for Nesmith and Pritchard so I'm not counting them).   Sometimes the truth hurts, but someone has to speak it or this just board just becomes a place of green-tinted glasses that loses touch with reality.

to be fair, the last paragraph is really clear on where you stand and it conveys where many here stand without an anti-Celtic slant.  just an honest appraisal from your viewpoint.  however, this clarity isn't always provided without some extra comments or tone that aren't taken well by others here.   you may not think that's occurring in your posts and I truly don't think that it is your intent but it's there. 

I think you have insights that few here consider which is something I appreciate.  I don't always agree, but I appreciate a different viewpoint.

[Redz]

- Makes arguments relying heavily on playoff outcomes to justify position on how good a team really is

- Argues the Sixers should be taken seriously


Hmmmm

Embiid is playing out of his mind this year (if the season ended today he'd finish 2nd in MVP voting), they have a championship winning new coach, and new players that work better with Embiid and Simmons.  And we can make fun of their playoff struggles all we want, but they were a bounce of a basketball away from beating the Raptors the year they won the title.  I have no idea if they would have beaten Milwaukee that season, but had they done it they certainly could have beaten the injured Warriors (though maybe some of those injuries don't happen if they played the Sixers instead of the Raptors).  Sometimes you just need a little luck (or inversely have some bad luck gets in the way).  All that said, I wouldn't be all that surprised if the Sixers flamed out of the playoffs again because of their history, but they do have a top 5 talent and another All NBA player surrounded by an all star caliber player and well fitting role players.  They aren't the favorites by any stretch, but they don't lack true top end talent either.  They've also been very healthy this year which I do think is one of the reasons they have the best record in the East, but it is also one of the reasons I think they are a real contender as their main rotation actually looks pretty good together.  Doc has seemingly figured out what to do with Embiid and Simmons to maximize their respective strengths and abilities and he has gotten Harris back to his Clippers form.  The bench knows their role and they all do it well.  This isn't the Sixers from last year.  They are a whole new team and one that could make a lot of noise in the playoffs.

Really small point to pick out of a much larger set of points, but even if Kawhi's shot had bounced out that game was heading to OT, so no guarantee there.  Makes my list of Top 10 NBA moments for sure though...

https://youtu.be/ChT3ewZXTfM

[Rondo9]

The truth? This is the same team that made the ECF last year. Just because you have a negative slant doesn’t make you truthful.

[gouki88]

Look the point here is that the assumptions and leaps of faith you're willing to make with other teams never get extended to your takes on the Celtics.

I know you're capable of spinning out a detailed block text argument for why you like or don't like a team.

Does it ever get turned in favor of the Celtics?

Have you ever thought the Celtics were as good as most fans / pundits thought they were? 

Seriously, when was the last time you liked the Celtics and thought they were good?

The Celtics are good, but they aren't great and thus not a realistic contender and haven't been since KG got old.  There is a reason they haven't been to the Finals since 2010.  Maybe I'm not the crazy one I'm portrayed to be.  I mean I was clearly right about Rondo.  I was clearly right about Irving.  I've been saying Tatum was the most important player to the C's success since Irving was on the team.  I was out in front of that one early, but Tatum isn't a MVP caliber player yet.  I absolutely think he could be, but he isn't yet, and he absolutely needs to be for Boston to have realistic title aspirations.  He is also 22 and in his 4th year.  Most players really start hitting their peak in year 6.  Let's see what he and the team looks like then.

Look I get it.  Fans often have unrealistic views of their teams and the players on it and someone like me that is a realist can come off as negative.  I love the Celtics, I want them to win titles, but I can also look at this team and know that it is flawed and not a title contender.  Tatum and Brown aren't yet good enough and the rest of the roster just isn't very good, doesn't fit well together, and lacks size.  The bench is incredibly small and young as well.   And these aren't new things either as it has been this way for years.  In fact the team keeps getting smaller.  I mean it had Horford and Baynes starting with Tatum, Brown, and Irving not that long ago.  That team had size, it had length, and it still wasn't good enough because Irving as a lead player wasn't good enough.  The team just keeps getting smaller.  The bench keeps getting younger.  And the team keeps losing talented players that it replaces with lesser players.  As hard as I was on Irving, he was better than Walker (though as I correctly predicted the team would be better without Irving and his divaness).  Horford and Hayward quite simply weren't replaced at all.  Obviously Tatum and Brown are better now than they were then, but the rest of the team isn't.  It is in fact much worse and Boston has no prime draft picks coming up anymore and none of the other young players look like they will be much more than bench fodder (still early for Nesmith and Pritchard so I'm not counting them).   Sometimes the truth hurts, but someone has to speak it or this just board just becomes a place of green-tinted glasses that loses touch with reality.

Haha, oh boy. It's definitely not your supposed 'realism' that rubs people the wrong way, it's this exact attitude

[RodyTur10]

Look the point here is that the assumptions and leaps of faith you're willing to make with other teams never get extended to your takes on the Celtics.

I know you're capable of spinning out a detailed block text argument for why you like or don't like a team.

Does it ever get turned in favor of the Celtics?

Have you ever thought the Celtics were as good as most fans / pundits thought they were? 

Seriously, when was the last time you liked the Celtics and thought they were good?

The Celtics are good, but they aren't great and thus not a realistic contender and haven't been since KG got old.  There is a reason they haven't been to the Finals since 2010.  Maybe I'm not the crazy one I'm portrayed to be.  I mean I was clearly right about Rondo.  I was clearly right about Irving.  I've been saying Tatum was the most important player to the C's success since Irving was on the team.  I was out in front of that one early, but Tatum isn't a MVP caliber player yet.  I absolutely think he could be, but he isn't yet, and he absolutely needs to be for Boston to have realistic title aspirations.  He is also 22 and in his 4th year.  Most players really start hitting their peak in year 6.  Let's see what he and the team looks like then.

Look I get it.  Fans often have unrealistic views of their teams and the players on it and someone like me that is a realist can come off as negative.  I love the Celtics, I want them to win titles, but I can also look at this team and know that it is flawed and not a title contender.  Tatum and Brown aren't yet good enough and the rest of the roster just isn't very good, doesn't fit well together, and lacks size.  The bench is incredibly small and young as well.   And these aren't new things either as it has been this way for years.  In fact the team keeps getting smaller.  I mean it had Horford and Baynes starting with Tatum, Brown, and Irving not that long ago.  That team had size, it had length, and it still wasn't good enough because Irving as a lead player wasn't good enough.  The team just keeps getting smaller.  The bench keeps getting younger.  And the team keeps losing talented players that it replaces with lesser players.  As hard as I was on Irving, he was better than Walker (though as I correctly predicted the team would be better without Irving and his divaness).  Horford and Hayward quite simply weren't replaced at all.  Obviously Tatum and Brown are better now than they were then, but the rest of the team isn't.  It is in fact much worse and Boston has no prime draft picks coming up anymore and none of the other young players look like they will be much more than bench fodder (still early for Nesmith and Pritchard so I'm not counting them).   Sometimes the truth hurts, but someone has to speak it or this just board just becomes a place of green-tinted glasses that loses touch with reality.

Nothing to add to this. TP.
I'll bet Stevens and some players are also realizing that they're not really good enough yet.

[NKY fan]

Look the point here is that the assumptions and leaps of faith you're willing to make with other teams never get extended to your takes on the Celtics.

I know you're capable of spinning out a detailed block text argument for why you like or don't like a team.

Does it ever get turned in favor of the Celtics?

Have you ever thought the Celtics were as good as most fans / pundits thought they were? 

Seriously, when was the last time you liked the Celtics and thought they were good?

The Celtics are good, but they aren't great and thus not a realistic contender and haven't been since KG got old.  There is a reason they haven't been to the Finals since 2010.  Maybe I'm not the crazy one I'm portrayed to be.  I mean I was clearly right about Rondo.  I was clearly right about Irving.  I've been saying Tatum was the most important player to the C's success since Irving was on the team.  I was out in front of that one early, but Tatum isn't a MVP caliber player yet.  I absolutely think he could be, but he isn't yet, and he absolutely needs to be for Boston to have realistic title aspirations.  He is also 22 and in his 4th year.  Most players really start hitting their peak in year 6.  Let's see what he and the team looks like then.

Look I get it.  Fans often have unrealistic views of their teams and the players on it and someone like me that is a realist can come off as negative.  I love the Celtics, I want them to win titles, but I can also look at this team and know that it is flawed and not a title contender.  Tatum and Brown aren't yet good enough and the rest of the roster just isn't very good, doesn't fit well together, and lacks size.  The bench is incredibly small and young as well.   And these aren't new things either as it has been this way for years.  In fact the team keeps getting smaller.  I mean it had Horford and Baynes starting with Tatum, Brown, and Irving not that long ago.  That team had size, it had length, and it still wasn't good enough because Irving as a lead player wasn't good enough.  The team just keeps getting smaller.  The bench keeps getting younger.  And the team keeps losing talented players that it replaces with lesser players.  As hard as I was on Irving, he was better than Walker (though as I correctly predicted the team would be better without Irving and his divaness).  Horford and Hayward quite simply weren't replaced at all.  Obviously Tatum and Brown are better now than they were then, but the rest of the team isn't.  It is in fact much worse and Boston has no prime draft picks coming up anymore and none of the other young players look like they will be much more than bench fodder (still early for Nesmith and Pritchard so I'm not counting them).   Sometimes the truth hurts, but someone has to speak it or this just board just becomes a place of green-tinted glasses that loses touch with reality.

Moranis,
Can you unearth the thread where we graded Danny’s offseason moves. I can’t find it.
I think I graded his offseason overall C+ but I might have been too generous lol

[celticsclay]

Look the point here is that the assumptions and leaps of faith you're willing to make with other teams never get extended to your takes on the Celtics.

I know you're capable of spinning out a detailed block text argument for why you like or don't like a team.

Does it ever get turned in favor of the Celtics?

Have you ever thought the Celtics were as good as most fans / pundits thought they were? 

Seriously, when was the last time you liked the Celtics and thought they were good?

The Celtics are good, but they aren't great and thus not a realistic contender and haven't been since KG got old.  There is a reason they haven't been to the Finals since 2010.  Maybe I'm not the crazy one I'm portrayed to be.  I mean I was clearly right about Rondo.  I was clearly right about Irving.  I've been saying Tatum was the most important player to the C's success since Irving was on the team.  I was out in front of that one early, but Tatum isn't a MVP caliber player yet.  I absolutely think he could be, but he isn't yet, and he absolutely needs to be for Boston to have realistic title aspirations.  He is also 22 and in his 4th year.  Most players really start hitting their peak in year 6.  Let's see what he and the team looks like then.

Look I get it.  Fans often have unrealistic views of their teams and the players on it and someone like me that is a realist can come off as negative.  I love the Celtics, I want them to win titles, but I can also look at this team and know that it is flawed and not a title contender.  Tatum and Brown aren't yet good enough and the rest of the roster just isn't very good, doesn't fit well together, and lacks size.  The bench is incredibly small and young as well.   And these aren't new things either as it has been this way for years.  In fact the team keeps getting smaller.  I mean it had Horford and Baynes starting with Tatum, Brown, and Irving not that long ago.  That team had size, it had length, and it still wasn't good enough because Irving as a lead player wasn't good enough.  The team just keeps getting smaller.  The bench keeps getting younger.  And the team keeps losing talented players that it replaces with lesser players.  As hard as I was on Irving, he was better than Walker (though as I correctly predicted the team would be better without Irving and his divaness).  Horford and Hayward quite simply weren't replaced at all.  Obviously Tatum and Brown are better now than they were then, but the rest of the team isn't.  It is in fact much worse and Boston has no prime draft picks coming up anymore and none of the other young players look like they will be much more than bench fodder (still early for Nesmith and Pritchard so I'm not counting them).   Sometimes the truth hurts, but someone has to speak it or this just board just becomes a place of green-tinted glasses that loses touch with reality.

Haha, oh boy. It's definitely not your supposed 'realism' that rubs people the wrong way, it's this exact attitude

I mean I just shook my head a lot reading the whole post. I was right about this, and oh by the way I was right about that. And oh yeah, simply put,  I was right about this too. It’s honestly an incredibly obnoxious style of writing and we would all be better off if we could avoid writing posts like that regardless of the content.