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

[Kernewek]

"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. 

KG was 3rd in MVP voting and the best defender on the planet in 08, so yes.

Yet in 2007 he was tied for 9th in MVP voting.

Which is to say, again, that this qualification seems very outcome dependent. The Celts were loaded so KG was seen as a top 5 player because he was the best player / defensive leader on a top team.

MVP voting doesn't have much to do with who are the best players in the world.  As you say it is very outcome and season dependent.  I mean we've seen that here when IT4 finished in the top 5, but he was obviously no where near a top 5 player in the world.  That said, Garnett was a top 5 guy in 2008.  Really only Duncan, James, and Bryant were clearly ahead of him on the pecking order.  He was right there with Howard, Dirk, Nash, Amare, and maybe Paul and Wade in that next group and I believe he was better than all but Howard.  So I'd have had him as the 5th best player in the world.

Just out of curiosity: your metrics for determining the top five in 2008 are what, exactly?

[wdleehi]

"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. 

KG was 3rd in MVP voting and the best defender on the planet in 08, so yes.

Yet in 2007 he was tied for 9th in MVP voting.

Which is to say, again, that this qualification seems very outcome dependent. The Celts were loaded so KG was seen as a top 5 player because he was the best player / defensive leader on a top team.

MVP voting doesn't have much to do with who are the best players in the world.  As you say it is very outcome and season dependent.  I mean we've seen that here when IT4 finished in the top 5, but he was obviously no where near a top 5 player in the world.  That said, Garnett was a top 5 guy in 2008.  Really only Duncan, James, and Bryant were clearly ahead of him on the pecking order.  He was right there with Howard, Dirk, Nash, Amare, and maybe Paul and Wade in that next group and I believe he was better than all but Howard.  So I'd have had him as the 5th best player in the world.

KG was clearly a top player at the time that a title contender could be built around.   


Celtics best hope is that Tatum continues to grow and becomes that level of player.   Whether it is top 5 or top 7 or top 10, doesn't matter.   That top # is based on the talent in the NBA at the time, not some set number.

[footey]

Back to the topic: Getting an elite playmaker. 

Can we find him in the draft at pick 16?  There are some guards that seem interesting at that spot (e.g. Tre Mann of Florida), but will he, or anyone other PG projected to be taken outside of top 10 become an elite playmaker?

Hard to recall an elite playmaker who was drafted outside the top 10, never mind the top 5. Stockton @ 16? Nash @ 15? Anyone else? (Curry an elite player but not an elite playmaker IMO).

Those guys very rarely fall out of the top of the draft.

Dose of reality.

[Celtics2021]

Back to the topic: Getting an elite playmaker. 

Can we find him in the draft at pick 16?  There are some guards that seem interesting at that spot (e.g. Tre Mann of Florida), but will he, or anyone other PG projected to be taken outside of top 10 become an elite playmaker?

Hard to recall an elite playmaker who was drafted outside the top 10, never mind the top 5. Stockton @ 16? Nash @ 15? Anyone else? (Curry an elite player but not an elite playmaker IMO).

Those guys very rarely fall out of the top of the draft.

Dose of reality.

I’m hoping for an elite defensive playmaker as much as anything, be it a guard, wing, or big.  Not just someone who plays solid defense, but someone who is also disruptive.  The game changes so much for us when Rob is playing, and having more of that skill could go a long way.  The J’s are two of the most elite transition players in the NBA, and it’s a lot easier to create transition opportunities with defensive playmakers.  Creating 3-5 more transition opportunities per game would have the same offensive effect as running a slightly better half-court set, and it comes with the added bonus of point reduction on defense.  Smart hasn’t been that type of player this year, and I was hoping Romeo could become someone like that, but he’s not quite there yet.

You can normally find those players in the teens, and if you get lucky you find the one who’s offense develops enough to not be ignored on that end.  I’m still hopeful that Franz Wagner makes it to us at 16, as he’s just such a player.

[Kernewek]

Back to the topic: Getting an elite playmaker. 

Can we find him in the draft at pick 16?  There are some guards that seem interesting at that spot (e.g. Tre Mann of Florida), but will he, or anyone other PG projected to be taken outside of top 10 become an elite playmaker?

Hard to recall an elite playmaker who was drafted outside the top 10, never mind the top 5. Stockton @ 16? Nash @ 15? Anyone else? (Curry an elite player but not an elite playmaker IMO).

Those guys very rarely fall out of the top of the draft.

Dose of reality.

Depending on your definition of elite playmaking and getting more generous with the term as I go and mostly just substituting it with "good point guard":
Tony Parker (taken at 28)
Goran Dragic (taken at 45)
George Hill (taken at 26)
Mark Jackson (taken 18), not to be confused with:
Marc Jackson (taken 37)

[tstorey_97]

Going past the theoretical to the almost real:

Brown
Tatum

These two need a team built around them that exploits their talents.

This team is fine, it's just we are dreaming now.

I wish I could say we build around the J's and Robert, but he's featured 4 different injuries in his brief career and the truth is the truth.

My guess is a point guard who shoots good and passes real good and would not be a developing young guy? Please a veteran who can handle the bright lights?

I think the Celtic's only chance against the Nets is to be big as the Nets are not. Regrettably, the Celtic's front court is not of championship calibre.

Thus the J's + a legit shooting PF + Robert or his backup Center and the mysterious point guard from years gone by who may not be modern enough for today's NBA

Cousy
KC
DJ
Jo Jo
Tiny
Rondo

The above aren't some attempt at a best of list, these guys could pass and shoot and run the floor and combine with superstars and the Celtics don't have that now.

A guard that shoots a lot and scores a lot is a "shooting guard"...the Celtics might need a "point guard" to exploit their J's.

If the Celtics want to win a title or two? They'll need a front court and the Celtics don't have that now.

[Kernewek]

I'm enjoying how you started at knocking theoretical ideas in favour of reality and wound up with a time-travelling Bob Cousey lacing it up for the modern day Celtics.

[RJ87]

Back to the topic: Getting an elite playmaker. 

Can we find him in the draft at pick 16?  There are some guards that seem interesting at that spot (e.g. Tre Mann of Florida), but will he, or anyone other PG projected to be taken outside of top 10 become an elite playmaker?

Hard to recall an elite playmaker who was drafted outside the top 10, never mind the top 5. Stockton @ 16? Nash @ 15? Anyone else? (Curry an elite player but not an elite playmaker IMO).

Those guys very rarely fall out of the top of the draft.

Dose of reality.

Depending on your definition of elite playmaking and getting more generous with the term as I go and mostly just substituting it with "good point guard":
Tony Parker (taken at 28)
Goran Dragic (taken at 45)
George Hill (taken at 26)
Mark Jackson (taken 18), not to be confused with:
Marc Jackson (taken 37)

Rajon Rondo taken at 21.

[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. 

KG was 3rd in MVP voting and the best defender on the planet in 08, so yes.

Yet in 2007 he was tied for 9th in MVP voting.

Which is to say, again, that this qualification seems very outcome dependent. The Celts were loaded so KG was seen as a top 5 player because he was the best player / defensive leader on a top team.

MVP voting doesn't have much to do with who are the best players in the world.  As you say it is very outcome and season dependent.  I mean we've seen that here when IT4 finished in the top 5, but he was obviously no where near a top 5 player in the world.  That said, Garnett was a top 5 guy in 2008.  Really only Duncan, James, and Bryant were clearly ahead of him on the pecking order.  He was right there with Howard, Dirk, Nash, Amare, and maybe Paul and Wade in that next group and I believe he was better than all but Howard.  So I'd have had him as the 5th best player in the world.

Garnett has a very strong case as the best player in the world in '08 ahead of everyone else. Maybe Kobe comes close with his annual playoff improvement, but no one else really was. Duncan was starting his graceful fall out of MVP-calibre superstardom (it took a few years so he still was that sort of guy in '08, just a rung below Garnett and Kobe), LeBron was still putting it together (he started lapping everyone from '09 onwards though) and CP3 was incredible but still a bit raw compared to his peak years as a Clipper.

[Kernewek]

Back to the topic: Getting an elite playmaker. 

Can we find him in the draft at pick 16?  There are some guards that seem interesting at that spot (e.g. Tre Mann of Florida), but will he, or anyone other PG projected to be taken outside of top 10 become an elite playmaker?

Hard to recall an elite playmaker who was drafted outside the top 10, never mind the top 5. Stockton @ 16? Nash @ 15? Anyone else? (Curry an elite player but not an elite playmaker IMO).

Those guys very rarely fall out of the top of the draft.

Dose of reality.

Depending on your definition of elite playmaking and getting more generous with the term as I go and mostly just substituting it with "good point guard":
Tony Parker (taken at 28)
Goran Dragic (taken at 45)
George Hill (taken at 26)
Mark Jackson (taken 18), not to be confused with:
Marc Jackson (taken 37)

Rajon Rondo taken at 21.

Well that's a given isn't it? 

[footey]

Back to the topic: Getting an elite playmaker. 

Can we find him in the draft at pick 16?  There are some guards that seem interesting at that spot (e.g. Tre Mann of Florida), but will he, or anyone other PG projected to be taken outside of top 10 become an elite playmaker?

Hard to recall an elite playmaker who was drafted outside the top 10, never mind the top 5. Stockton @ 16? Nash @ 15? Anyone else? (Curry an elite player but not an elite playmaker IMO).

Those guys very rarely fall out of the top of the draft.

Dose of reality.

Depending on your definition of elite playmaking and getting more generous with the term as I go and mostly just substituting it with "good point guard":
Tony Parker (taken at 28)
Goran Dragic (taken at 45)
George Hill (taken at 26)
Mark Jackson (taken 18), not to be confused with:
Marc Jackson (taken 37)

Rajon Rondo taken at 21.

Good one. Embarrassed I forgot to mention him.

[Big333223]

Lonzo's name has been floating around now for a bit.

I like Kemba. I'm not in the camp that thinks he has to go, I think he's been terrific the second half of this season. But if New Orleans doesn't want to keep him and there's a way for the Celtics to get into a s&t for Lonzo, I think I would do that deal.

With Lonzo and Timelord on the floor together, the ball could really whip around and be great on the defensive end as well.

[wdleehi]

Lonzo's name has been floating around now for a bit.

I like Kemba. I'm not in the camp that thinks he has to go, I think he's been terrific the second half of this season. But if New Orleans doesn't want to keep him and there's a way for the Celtics to get into a s&t for Lonzo, I think I would do that deal.

With Lonzo and Timelord on the floor together, the ball could really whip around and be great on the defensive end as well.

I am against trading away Kemba if another bad contract has to come back or if it costs other assets just to clear him.   He has value on the court. 

[Big333223]

Lonzo's name has been floating around now for a bit.

I like Kemba. I'm not in the camp that thinks he has to go, I think he's been terrific the second half of this season. But if New Orleans doesn't want to keep him and there's a way for the Celtics to get into a s&t for Lonzo, I think I would do that deal.

With Lonzo and Timelord on the floor together, the ball could really whip around and be great on the defensive end as well.

I am against trading away Kemba if another bad contract has to come back or if it costs other assets just to clear him.   He has value on the court.

100%. If New Orleans isn't sold on Lonzo, though, and he could be had in a s&t at a number significantly lower than Kemba's that doesn't seem like a bad contract.

[Moranis]

"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. 

KG was 3rd in MVP voting and the best defender on the planet in 08, so yes.

Yet in 2007 he was tied for 9th in MVP voting.

Which is to say, again, that this qualification seems very outcome dependent. The Celts were loaded so KG was seen as a top 5 player because he was the best player / defensive leader on a top team.

MVP voting doesn't have much to do with who are the best players in the world.  As you say it is very outcome and season dependent.  I mean we've seen that here when IT4 finished in the top 5, but he was obviously no where near a top 5 player in the world.  That said, Garnett was a top 5 guy in 2008.  Really only Duncan, James, and Bryant were clearly ahead of him on the pecking order.  He was right there with Howard, Dirk, Nash, Amare, and maybe Paul and Wade in that next group and I believe he was better than all but Howard.  So I'd have had him as the 5th best player in the world.

Just out of curiosity: your metrics for determining the top five in 2008 are what, exactly?

impact, stats, advanced metrics, eye test, etc.