The biggest problem for the current Celtics team is lack of an elite playmaker

[Moranis]

There are 5 really legit contenders this year

Lakers - top 5 player, arguably another top 5 player
Clippers - top 5 player, top 15 player
Nets - top 5 player, arguably another top 5 player, arguably another top 15 player
Sixers - arguably top 5 player, top 20 player, all star level 3rd
Bucks - top 5 player, arguably 2 other top 20 players

You see the theme.  You need a top 5 player or at least arguably a top 5 player. 

I think just about everyone would agree the top 3 players are Giannis, Lebron, and KD.  Most people would have Kawhi at 4.  As for the 5th spot, I think you could make reasonable arguments for Embiid, Harden, Davis, Jokic, and Curry.  The simple reality is, unless you have 1 of those 9 players (Doncic is rising as well), you don't have much of a chance of actually winning a title. 

[PhoSita]

Something that stood out to me yesterday watching the Mavs and today watching the Hawks --- primary ballhandler has the ball top of the key, starts a drive going right around a pick, and then makes an on point cross court pass to the far corner to a wide open shooter.  Cash.

I don't think the Celts have a guy who can make that play.

[gouki88]

Something that stood out to me yesterday watching the Mavs and today watching the Hawks --- primary ballhandler has the ball top of the key, starts a drive going right around a pick, and then makes an on point cross court pass to the far corner to a wide open shooter.  Cash.

I don't think the Celts have a guy who can make that play.

There are barely a handful of guys who can make that pass really. Doncic, Young, LeBron, Harden, Jokic, maybe Jimmy Butler? We're pretty thin on elite passers, but we've got a lot of solid not great passers.

[PhoSita]

There are 5 really legit contenders this year

Lakers - top 5 player, arguably another top 5 player
Clippers - top 5 player, top 15 player
Nets - top 5 player, arguably another top 5 player, arguably another top 15 player
Sixers - arguably top 5 player, top 20 player, all star level 3rd
Bucks - top 5 player, arguably 2 other top 20 players

You see the theme.  You need a top 5 player or at least arguably a top 5 player. 

I think just about everyone would agree the top 3 players are Giannis, Lebron, and KD.  Most people would have Kawhi at 4.  As for the 5th spot, I think you could make reasonable arguments for Embiid, Harden, Davis, Jokic, and Curry.  The simple reality is, unless you have 1 of those 9 players (Doncic is rising as well), you don't have much of a chance of actually winning a title.

Problems I have with this argument

(1) It's an outcome dependent argument ... contenders are teams with top 5 players.  Well what often causes players to be seen as top 5 guys when before they were regarded as being outside that group?  Winning a title.

(2) Even accepting your entire argument, it's not an actionable principle if you want your team to win a title.  If your best player is not in that top 5 group and it seems unlikely that they ever will be, what are you supposed to do?  Give up?  Tank and hope the next guy you draft who turns into a star ends up having a higher ceiling?  There's no real way for a team in the Celtics' position to plan to acquire a guy who arguably belongs -- or could eventually belong -- in that top 5 group.

(3) Any team that makes it into a Finals series has a decent chance of winning a title.  Maybe it won't seem that way after they lose in 4 or 5 games.  But last year you saw a Heat team that was a dark horse contender at best made a run thanks to some good luck and getting hot at the right time.  If Bam and Dragic hadn't gotten hurt at the start of that series, and they had some late game plays turn in their favor, they might have had a decent shot at winning. 


If you don't have a guy in that top 5 conversation, being that dark horse contender a la the Heat is probably the best you can hope for.  But there are much worse things you can be than a very good team with a puncher's chance at making a run if the basketball gods see fit to bless you with some good fortune.

[Moranis]

There are 5 really legit contenders this year

Lakers - top 5 player, arguably another top 5 player
Clippers - top 5 player, top 15 player
Nets - top 5 player, arguably another top 5 player, arguably another top 15 player
Sixers - arguably top 5 player, top 20 player, all star level 3rd
Bucks - top 5 player, arguably 2 other top 20 players

You see the theme.  You need a top 5 player or at least arguably a top 5 player. 

I think just about everyone would agree the top 3 players are Giannis, Lebron, and KD.  Most people would have Kawhi at 4.  As for the 5th spot, I think you could make reasonable arguments for Embiid, Harden, Davis, Jokic, and Curry.  The simple reality is, unless you have 1 of those 9 players (Doncic is rising as well), you don't have much of a chance of actually winning a title.

Problems I have with this argument

(1) It's an outcome dependent argument ... contenders are teams with top 5 players.  Well what often causes players to be seen as top 5 guys when before they were regarded as being outside that group?  Winning a title.

(2) Even accepting your entire argument, it's not an actionable principle if you want your team to win a title.  If your best player is not in that top 5 group and it seems unlikely that they ever will be, what are you supposed to do?  Give up?  Tank and hope the next guy you draft who turns into a star ends up having a higher ceiling?  There's no real way for a team in the Celtics' position to plan to acquire a guy who arguably belongs -- or could eventually belong -- in that top 5 group.

(3) Any team that makes it into a Finals series has a decent chance of winning a title.  Maybe it won't seem that way after they lose in 4 or 5 games.  But last year you saw a Heat team that was a dark horse contender at best made a run thanks to some good luck and getting hot at the right time.  If Bam and Dragic hadn't gotten hurt at the start of that series, and they had some late game plays turn in their favor, they might have had a decent shot at winning. 


If you don't have a guy in that top 5 conversation, being that dark horse contender a la the Heat is probably the best you can hope for.  But there are much worse things you can be than a very good team with a puncher's chance at making a run if the basketball gods see fit to bless you with some good fortune.

(1) The argument is based on the fact that historically there have been 3 champions (some would argue 4 or 5) in the entire history of the league that don't have a top 5 player.  The simple reality is you just need those guys to win titles and to realistically compete for them.  Even many of the Finals losers fall into that category of having a top 5 player.  It isn't that the outcome determines who the top 5 players are, it is that the top 5 players determine that outcome because the top 5 players win and win a lot.  Basketball, more than any other sport, is one where 1 mega player can alter the entire dynamic and success of the team. 

(2) you do the best you can and hope you end up with those runs, but I do think on some level teams would often be better off cutting bait earlier than going with what they have, if the goal is to win a title. That is what the Sonics/Thunder did (traded Allen and all other veterans and ended up with like 10 1st round picks in 5 years to build a team) and slightly more recently what Hinkie did (that was obviously discussed a lot here).  I know he went more extreme than most, but he realized the Iguodala team was never going to win, so he cut bait and now they have a MVP candidate and a DPOY candidate. Also, it should be noted that winning the championship isn't necessarily the goal for all teams.  Many teams would be quite happy with a multi-year run of playoff appearances and some moderate success (at least for a little while).

(3) that is true, any team making the Finals can obviously win the title, but I also think the Heat's run was a bit of a fluke.  I don't know that they make that run without the bubble, but even if they do, they do actually fit quite well with the random title winning teams that don't have a top 5 player i.e. a top 10ish player, a defensive monster in the paint, and a lot of very strong depth.  Those teams though were all a couple of seasons of peak play and not sustained runs in contention.  That can certainly be a strategy to take if you team doesn't end up with a top 5 guy, but it will end in disappointment almost every time.

[mr. dee]

Brad needs to make plays for Timelord on the high post. He also needs to lock Smart as a facilitator, but he lack the backbone to specifically assign him as a specialist.

[tenn_smoothie]

"There's no real way for a team in the Celtics' position to plan to acquire a guy who arguably belongs -- or could eventually belong -- in that top 5 group.

Celts did it with Kevin Garnett.

[Somebody]

There are 5 really legit contenders this year

Lakers - top 5 player, arguably another top 5 player
Clippers - top 5 player, top 15 player
Nets - top 5 player, arguably another top 5 player, arguably another top 15 player
Sixers - arguably top 5 player, top 20 player, all star level 3rd
Bucks - top 5 player, arguably 2 other top 20 players

You see the theme.  You need a top 5 player or at least arguably a top 5 player. 

I think just about everyone would agree the top 3 players are Giannis, Lebron, and KD.  Most people would have Kawhi at 4.  As for the 5th spot, I think you could make reasonable arguments for Embiid, Harden, Davis, Jokic, and Curry.  The simple reality is, unless you have 1 of those 9 players (Doncic is rising as well), you don't have much of a chance of actually winning a title.

Problems I have with this argument

(1) It's an outcome dependent argument ... contenders are teams with top 5 players.  Well what often causes players to be seen as top 5 guys when before they were regarded as being outside that group?  Winning a title.

(2) Even accepting your entire argument, it's not an actionable principle if you want your team to win a title.  If your best player is not in that top 5 group and it seems unlikely that they ever will be, what are you supposed to do?  Give up?  Tank and hope the next guy you draft who turns into a star ends up having a higher ceiling?  There's no real way for a team in the Celtics' position to plan to acquire a guy who arguably belongs -- or could eventually belong -- in that top 5 group.

(3) Any team that makes it into a Finals series has a decent chance of winning a title.  Maybe it won't seem that way after they lose in 4 or 5 games.  But last year you saw a Heat team that was a dark horse contender at best made a run thanks to some good luck and getting hot at the right time.  If Bam and Dragic hadn't gotten hurt at the start of that series, and they had some late game plays turn in their favor, they might have had a decent shot at winning. 


If you don't have a guy in that top 5 conversation, being that dark horse contender a la the Heat is probably the best you can hope for.  But there are much worse things you can be than a very good team with a puncher's chance at making a run if the basketball gods see fit to bless you with some good fortune.

I mean there are plenty of teams who have contended for a title without a 'top 5' player. The 70s Bullets (still don't think Hayes and Dandridge are on that level despite Hayes technically being a contender for top 5 in '78 and Dandridge being that guy for the Bullets in '79), late 70s/early 80s Sonics, the late 80s/early 90s Pistons, the early 90s Blazers, the mid-90s Sonics, the Knicks teams at different points in the 90s after Ewing left his peak in the early 90s, the Pacers at various points in the 90s/00s, the Blazers again at the turn of the millennium, the early 2000s Kings, the Pistons again in the mid-late 2000s, the 2010s Spurs before Kawhi exploded at around 2017 (people forget that Duncan entered his post-prime years at around '09ish), the Paul George Pacers for a brief two-year stint in 2013/2014 where they almost knocked out some fantastic Heat teams and then the 2020 Heat and Celtics squads are all examples of squads who didn't have that type of next level guy but had teams that weren't far off from winning the title or actually won it all.

Looking at the 2000s Pistons and 2010s Spurs, I don't think it's unrealistic to have a 4-5 year window with the Jays if enough support is around them (whether it's talent, coaching, front office, etc).

[PhoSita]

"There's no real way for a team in the Celtics' position to plan to acquire a guy who arguably belongs -- or could eventually belong -- in that top 5 group.

Celts did it with Kevin Garnett.

Was Garnett really in that group at that point? KG in 2007 was 14th in ppg, 13th in WS, 8th in PER.  Garnett was 3-4 years removed from winning MVP. 


Anyway, the thing about the Garnett example is that Ainge basically tried to do that again with Anthony Davis.  Guess what? It got completely torpedoed because Klutch got to AD before the Celts ever had a chance to try to trade for him, and that dream was dead before it ever really got close to coming true.

I'm pretty pessimistic now that a team like the Celts can really depend on planning to acquire a top player like that. Because top players now more than ever dictate where they end up, and a player of that caliber is not going to want to end up on the Celtics.

I suppose you could look back to the Kawhi trade as a more recent example and say that if a team like Toronto can do it then the Celtics certainly can.  I would agree with that, but that was just a single season and then he was gone.  To me getting one or even two seasons of a top guy is not enough to orient your team-building plans around.  Too much can go wrong in a season or two.  To really contend you need to be able to have a guy locked up to build around for a few years if not more.  If you put everything one season or even two, it's going to set you up for desperation in a bad way.

[PhoSita]

(2) you do the best you can and hope you end up with those runs, but I do think on some level teams would often be better off cutting bait earlier than going with what they have, if the goal is to win a title. That is what the Sonics/Thunder did (traded Allen and all other veterans and ended up with like 10 1st round picks in 5 years to build a team) and slightly more recently what Hinkie did (that was obviously discussed a lot here).  I know he went more extreme than most, but he realized the Iguodala team was never going to win, so he cut bait and now they have a MVP candidate and a DPOY candidate. Also, it should be noted that winning the championship isn't necessarily the goal for all teams.  Many teams would be quite happy with a multi-year run of playoff appearances and some moderate success (at least for a little while).

Question is, how much do you value a single season of having that top 5 guy?  How many seasons of a "good but not great" roster is a single season with a top 5 guy worth?

I look at this and say okay, sure.  If your team cares about nothing except winning a title, then it might make sense, once you realize that none of the guys you have is capable of being that top guy, to take bigger risks. 

So in the Celtics context, that would look like being willing to trade a guy like Jaylen Brown for maybe just a season or a season and a half of Kawhi or James Harden.  Then if you don't win a title with that guy and he leaves, you're basically in a position with Jayson Tatum where he's got a few years left on his deal but you've already blown your wad and now maybe you have to trade him and begin a rebuild in earnest, or else consign yourself to being a lower seeded playoff team until he leaves.

Personally if I could choose between 4-5 years of a well-built, balanced roster around two second/third tier stars or 1-2 years of a top heavy roster with one MVP type guy and a second All-NBA guy, I would take the first option.  Maybe it's something like 4-5 times a 5-10% chance at a title versus 1-2 times a 30-40% chance at a title.  That would favor the second option, probably. But in terms of my experience as a fan, I'd rather have a team I can be invested in and not be thinking and talking about that one guy's impending free agency for pretty much the whole time he's on the team, even as they're contending.


Of course, then you have the third option of "shallow, too-young, not-quite-functional yet still capped-out roster built around two perennial All-Stars, neither of whom is in that MVP conversation."  That's where the Celts are at and it's ... not ideal.

[RockinRyA]

"There's no real way for a team in the Celtics' position to plan to acquire a guy who arguably belongs -- or could eventually belong -- in that top 5 group.

Celts did it with Kevin Garnett.

our situation now is a lot different than our situation with KG. With KG we had a top 5 draft pick that we used to trade for ray allen, had mid level bad contracts to trade, have a bunch of youngsters who had somewhat proven they belong and the cap situation as well. Right now there's no real way of acquiring such a guy.

[moiso]

I often think a pass first PG would help us a lot.

Chris Paul...or Ja

Ja is untouchable unless we offer Tatum and Chris Paul is 36, injury-prone and on a max contract. Neither are the answer. Ja Morant has also quickly become a very overrated basketball player. Basically did not improve upon his rookie season and is a fringe All-Star player at best right now. Fox to me is much more preferable to Ja

Ja wasn't very assertive this year for some reason and his numbers stagnated.  He seems to be raising his level of play in the play in/playoffs again this year.  I think Ja is still figuring out how good he can be day in and day out.  I like Fox a lot too, but I still think Morant will be a great player.

Paul seems perfect for a couple years but it's like deja vu with the playoff injuries.  It wasn't a hamstring this time but once the playoffs come it's always something. 

[Somebody]

"There's no real way for a team in the Celtics' position to plan to acquire a guy who arguably belongs -- or could eventually belong -- in that top 5 group.

Celts did it with Kevin Garnett.

Was Garnett really in that group at that point? KG in 2007 was 14th in ppg, 13th in WS, 8th in PER.  Garnett was 3-4 years removed from winning MVP. 


Anyway, the thing about the Garnett example is that Ainge basically tried to do that again with Anthony Davis.  Guess what? It got completely torpedoed because Klutch got to AD before the Celts ever had a chance to try to trade for him, and that dream was dead before it ever really got close to coming true.

I'm pretty pessimistic now that a team like the Celts can really depend on planning to acquire a top player like that. Because top players now more than ever dictate where they end up, and a player of that caliber is not going to want to end up on the Celtics.

I suppose you could look back to the Kawhi trade as a more recent example and say that if a team like Toronto can do it then the Celtics certainly can.  I would agree with that, but that was just a single season and then he was gone.  To me getting one or even two seasons of a top guy is not enough to orient your team-building plans around.  Too much can go wrong in a season or two.  To really contend you need to be able to have a guy locked up to build around for a few years if not more.  If you put everything one season or even two, it's going to set you up for desperation in a bad way.

Garnett was definitely that type of guy even in the 'lost years'. Despite having a nagging thigh injury, he was still a box and non-box titan: he was 8th in PI RAPM and 9th in BPM (it's the sadly the best publicly-available pure box stat out there nowadays with PIPM being taken off the internet). He didn't set the world on fire during those years, but when you consider that he dragged Minnesota around the .500 mark while playing with some of the worst supporting casts ever and dealing with niggling injuries here and there, it's not difficult to chalk up his APM and BPM values as being deflated due to the situation around him and have him up there with the MVPs of those years. This argument is especially compelling when you consider that Garnett lapped the league in PI RAPM and finished 4th in BPM in '08 in a good situation, while accolade lovers will also note that he was very close to winning an MVP/DPOY double.

[arctic 3.0]

This team might just need time. TIMELORD, TATUM, JB are all on their way up. If they all continue to improve there you are!

Those three still need a PG.

I agree, Tatum and brown are or may soon be top 10 talent. Timelord is has the potential to be an elite center.
We need to find out long term point guard. Preferably a “in the flow” facilitator, and knock down shooter.
 It sure who that will be.
With the rise of Halliburton, maybe fox is tradable? (Haven’t seen a lot of him... Does he got the bill? At any rate Sac isn’t going to give him away. I think we have just enough room left in the TE to absorb his contract. But who goes out?
Brogdan would be great, but contract is steep.
Others?

[wdleehi]

Since the Celtics have been as far or further then alot of those players with Kemba, what does it say about this theory?


I think the Celtics need better role players at shooting and passing.   It is team passing not the high assist pg.