Is there a downside to running it back?

[Goldstar88]

The main downside, similar to what we saw happen to Denver this year, is that now that you've won - teams are going to start building their rosters to beat you and you are effectively locked to your roster with no way to make it better if it's proven that you can be beaten.

Denver didn?t run it back, though. They lost players in free agency after winning their championship.

The season they won, Denver's top 5 players in MPG were Jokic, KCP, Jamal Murray, Aaron Gordon, and Michael Porter Jr.

Last season, Denver's top 5 players in MPG were Jokic, KCP, Jamal Murray, Aaron Gordon, and Michael Porter Jr.

It's true Bruce Brown left, but it's also true that they happened to win more regular season games and significantly improved their D whilst playing largely the same style of championship-winning basketball that won them a ring the season before.

For all intents and purposes, I'd say they ran it back.

The starters were all back, but losing Brown and Green were substantial loses. Those two played really well in the playoffs during their championship run.

[Kernewek]

The main downside, similar to what we saw happen to Denver this year, is that now that you've won - teams are going to start building their rosters to beat you and you are effectively locked to your roster with no way to make it better if it's proven that you can be beaten.

Denver didn?t run it back, though. They lost players in free agency after winning their championship.

The season they won, Denver's top 5 players in MPG were Jokic, KCP, Jamal Murray, Aaron Gordon, and Michael Porter Jr.

Last season, Denver's top 5 players in MPG were Jokic, KCP, Jamal Murray, Aaron Gordon, and Michael Porter Jr.

It's true Bruce Brown left, but it's also true that they happened to win more regular season games and significantly improved their D whilst playing largely the same style of championship-winning basketball that won them a ring the season before.

For all intents and purposes, I'd say they ran it back.

Sure, but in total minutes Bruce Brown was third.  In the playoffs he was sixth, but closer to 5th in minutes than he was 7th (the also-departed Jeff Green), playing about 80% as many minutes as number 5 MPJ.  The sixth man in total playoff minutes this year was Christian Braun, who played fewer than half the minutes of number 5 KCP.  Bruce Brown was a significant loss from their title rotation that they were unable to replace internally.

This can co-exist with the fact that they were a better team than the year they won the championship.

The problem is the inherent tautology, right? That a championship roster must be better than the roster that doesn't win a championship.

[keevsnick]

In a lot of ways it doesn't really matter what the answer to this question is. Even if you think complacency could set in due to running it back the C's really don't have much of a choice. The 2nd apron restrictions make it very difficult to shake up the core in any real way. About all the C's can do is a 1 for 1 trade where you take back somebody making less than the guy you send out, and the amount of deals like that where you trade a rotation player and also get better is very tough.

Running it back makes sense because they won, but also becasue they sort of don't have much choice.

[Celtics2021]

The main downside, similar to what we saw happen to Denver this year, is that now that you've won - teams are going to start building their rosters to beat you and you are effectively locked to your roster with no way to make it better if it's proven that you can be beaten.

Denver didn?t run it back, though. They lost players in free agency after winning their championship.

The season they won, Denver's top 5 players in MPG were Jokic, KCP, Jamal Murray, Aaron Gordon, and Michael Porter Jr.

Last season, Denver's top 5 players in MPG were Jokic, KCP, Jamal Murray, Aaron Gordon, and Michael Porter Jr.

It's true Bruce Brown left, but it's also true that they happened to win more regular season games and significantly improved their D whilst playing largely the same style of championship-winning basketball that won them a ring the season before.

For all intents and purposes, I'd say they ran it back.

Sure, but in total minutes Bruce Brown was third.  In the playoffs he was sixth, but closer to 5th in minutes than he was 7th (the also-departed Jeff Green), playing about 80% as many minutes as number 5 MPJ.  The sixth man in total playoff minutes this year was Christian Braun, who played fewer than half the minutes of number 5 KCP.  Bruce Brown was a significant loss from their title rotation that they were unable to replace internally.

This can co-exist with the fact that they were a better team than the year they won the championship.

In the regular season, maybe.  But in the postseason they had to ride their starters due to a complete lack of confidence/effectiveness in their bench.  We see that in the minutes data and we see that in the results.

[Donoghus]

Complacency is certainly the big concern.  However, I think the motivation will still be there for this group.  Jaylen seems very driven and I feel like Tatum still has the sense in proving himself. I actually think him not winning the FMVP could prove to be a positive.  I think having Jrue on this roster will be a great influence.  He has experience in his area and already seems to be instilling a lot on these guys.  I just hope this team shuts off the outside noise about how great they are.

I do expect a step back in regular season wins next year.  I think we potentially see a little more coasting, for lack of a better term, in the regular season.  Emphasis will be on health. 

They got a huge hurdle off their backs last season.  This team is going to be playing with a ton of confidence next season.  Just need them to stay healthy. 

[Vermont Green]

In a lot of ways it doesn't really matter what the answer to this question is. Even if you think complacency could set in due to running it back the C's really don't have much of a choice. The 2nd apron restrictions make it very difficult to shake up the core in any real way. About all the C's can do is a 1 for 1 trade where you take back somebody making less than the guy you send out, and the amount of deals like that where you trade a rotation player and also get better is very tough.

Running it back makes sense because they won, but also because they sort of don't have much choice.

This is true for filling in the pieces around the top guys, but you can always shake it up with trades.  Last off season, they traded Smart, Brogdon, and Williams, all starters or near starter level players.  Sure, letting Svi Mykhailiuk go to make room for a rookie (Scheierman), is not "shaking it up".  But there is nothing stopping the team from trading say White or Holiday or even Brown (contract extension trade restrictions notwithstanding).

This team/roster, as currently constituted, is heavily invested in Guards and Wings, and less so in Bigs.  Trades aren't easy, but for example, it would not be unthinkable to trade say White or Holiday for a starting PF.  You don't do that trade unless the PF coming back is a solid starter.  Or maybe you trade Holiday and get back 2 players, a PF and a wing, for the same money.  That could make you deeper, maybe more balanced, but less top end talent.

I am not suggesting any of these trades are the way to go at this point in time, but they could do it if they wanted.  They have made a conscience decision not to "shake it up" right now, not surprising since they just won a title.  The landscape could be different in a year though.

[trickybilly]

We've perfected the 3 point shooting era so far.

Steph is wild, but teams have figured out you need 5 to 7 guys that shoot above 37 and play way above average D.

Unless there is a new revolution, this take is off.

[cman88]

thing is, Boston is running back a championship winning team that set records that would put them in historical conversations and won the NBA with the best record and east pretty easily.

compare that to teams like the Suns or Milwaukee bucks who have no choice but to run back the same teams that were 1st round exits, had huge issues last year and not much room to improve/fix those issues.

[keevsnick]

In a lot of ways it doesn't really matter what the answer to this question is. Even if you think complacency could set in due to running it back the C's really don't have much of a choice. The 2nd apron restrictions make it very difficult to shake up the core in any real way. About all the C's can do is a 1 for 1 trade where you take back somebody making less than the guy you send out, and the amount of deals like that where you trade a rotation player and also get better is very tough.

Running it back makes sense because they won, but also because they sort of don't have much choice.

This is true for filling in the pieces around the top guys, but you can always shake it up with trades. Last off season, they traded Smart, Brogdon, and Williams, all starters or near starter level players. Sure, letting Svi Mykhailiuk go to make room for a rookie (Scheierman), is not "shaking it up".  But there is nothing stopping the team from trading say White or Holiday or even Brown (contract extension trade restrictions notwithstanding).

This team/roster, as currently constituted, is heavily invested in Guards and Wings, and less so in Bigs.  Trades aren't easy, but for example, it would not be unthinkable to trade say White or Holiday for a starting PF.  You don't do that trade unless the PF coming back is a solid starter.  Or maybe you trade Holiday and get back 2 players, a PF and a wing, for the same money.  That could make you deeper, maybe more balanced, but less top end talent.

I am not suggesting any of these trades are the way to go at this point in time, but they could do it if they wanted.  They have made a conscience decision not to "shake it up" right now, not surprising since they just won a title.  The landscape could be different in a year though.

I'm just going to point out that its ironic to say "you can always shake things up" then reference two trades that the Celtics made last year but literally would not be permitted to do under the new rules.

Literally the only thing the c's can do is trade a high prices guy for one or more lower prices guy. Are there trades like that you COULD do? Sure. But do those trades make sense with the rest of the roster, make sense given what else you might give up or make sense for the other team you'd be trading with? There are VERY FEW of those.

The issue is the c's are in a place where they want to win. if they wanted to shake things up by dumping a guy for draft picks I don't think it would be hard to do, but they are in win now mode and it hard to make player for player trades within current rules  that would make them better.

But even besides all that, they win the title and were 14 games ahead of the two seed in the east. Even if you fear complacency there's just no reason to change anything.

[footey]

I think Coach Joe is the perfect guy to lead the team to battle complacency.  He is not going to rest on laurels.  Not unlike Belichick.

[kraidstar]

I am thrilled with our off-season, and I agree with the strategy so far.  Having everyone locked up next season -- and most guys beyond next season -- is excellent.

But, it there a counterargument?  Does lack of change in the locker room lead to complacency?  Sometimes adding outside players brings a jolt of excitement.

The best example I can think of is the off-season after the Red Sox title in 2018.  The Sox lost a couple of minor free agents and didn't add anybody, focusing on resigning their own free agents.  They went from 108 wins to 84 wins, and missed the playoffs.

They're very different sports, obviously.  But is there a risk in basketball that "if you're not improving, you're going backward"?

The Sox' ERA jumped almost a full run from 2018 to 2019. Evo got hurt early on and needed Tommy John surgery; pretty much everyone else besides E-rod had bad seasons. Porcello's career was in its final gasps. Sale was in the midst of his stretch of mysterious (alcohol-induced?) injuries and poor performance. Price had tired of baseball.

A lot went wrong.

The C's might be tempted to be complacent. But this team is notoriously sensitive to media noise. And I'm sure they've heard the criticism about how they were gifted a title, and how Tatum didn't play like a true superstar.

I expect Tatum and Porzingis in particular to have something to prove. The bench and especially the third string should be motivated. And hopefully Jaylen now has the validation to permanently stop forcing the ball, and look for his teammates instead.

[Vermont Green]

In a lot of ways it doesn't really matter what the answer to this question is. Even if you think complacency could set in due to running it back the C's really don't have much of a choice. The 2nd apron restrictions make it very difficult to shake up the core in any real way. About all the C's can do is a 1 for 1 trade where you take back somebody making less than the guy you send out, and the amount of deals like that where you trade a rotation player and also get better is very tough.

Running it back makes sense because they won, but also because they sort of don't have much choice.

This is true for filling in the pieces around the top guys, but you can always shake it up with trades. Last off season, they traded Smart, Brogdon, and Williams, all starters or near starter level players. Sure, letting Svi Mykhailiuk go to make room for a rookie (Scheierman), is not "shaking it up".  But there is nothing stopping the team from trading say White or Holiday or even Brown (contract extension trade restrictions notwithstanding).

This team/roster, as currently constituted, is heavily invested in Guards and Wings, and less so in Bigs.  Trades aren't easy, but for example, it would not be unthinkable to trade say White or Holiday for a starting PF.  You don't do that trade unless the PF coming back is a solid starter.  Or maybe you trade Holiday and get back 2 players, a PF and a wing, for the same money.  That could make you deeper, maybe more balanced, but less top end talent.

I am not suggesting any of these trades are the way to go at this point in time, but they could do it if they wanted.  They have made a conscience decision not to "shake it up" right now, not surprising since they just won a title.  The landscape could be different in a year though.

I'm just going to point out that its ironic to say "you can always shake things up" then reference two trades that the Celtics made last year but literally would not be permitted to do under the new rules.

Literally the only thing the c's can do is trade a high prices guy for one or more lower prices guy. Are there trades like that you COULD do? Sure. But do those trades make sense with the rest of the roster, make sense given what else you might give up or make sense for the other team you'd be trading with? There are VERY FEW of those.

The issue is the c's are in a place where they want to win. if they wanted to shake things up by dumping a guy for draft picks I don't think it would be hard to do, but they are in win now mode and it hard to make player for player trades within current rules  that would make them better.

But even besides all that, they win the title and were 14 games ahead of the two seed in the east. Even if you fear complacency there's just no reason to change anything.

I don't think we are disagreeing overall.  I get that you can't combine players to do a trade, but you could trade White or Holiday (just for example) so long as you take back less salary.  I am not saying they should do that, or that it would be easy, I am just saying that they could have chosen not to run it back if they wanted.  I was only disagreeing with the part where you said they really don't have much of choice. 

They are choosing run it back.  The smart choice in my mind, at least for this season.  But next season Horford could retire, for example.  They may need to trade a good player in order to bring in another good big, like when they traded Smart for Porzingis.  I know, the rules would not allow exactly that trade, but it is the idea of trading a pretty good guard for an even better big.  They COULD do that if they wanted.

[ozgod]

In a lot of ways it doesn't really matter what the answer to this question is. Even if you think complacency could set in due to running it back the C's really don't have much of a choice. The 2nd apron restrictions make it very difficult to shake up the core in any real way. About all the C's can do is a 1 for 1 trade where you take back somebody making less than the guy you send out, and the amount of deals like that where you trade a rotation player and also get better is very tough.

Running it back makes sense because they won, but also because they sort of don't have much choice.

This is true for filling in the pieces around the top guys, but you can always shake it up with trades. Last off season, they traded Smart, Brogdon, and Williams, all starters or near starter level players. Sure, letting Svi Mykhailiuk go to make room for a rookie (Scheierman), is not "shaking it up".  But there is nothing stopping the team from trading say White or Holiday or even Brown (contract extension trade restrictions notwithstanding).

This team/roster, as currently constituted, is heavily invested in Guards and Wings, and less so in Bigs.  Trades aren't easy, but for example, it would not be unthinkable to trade say White or Holiday for a starting PF.  You don't do that trade unless the PF coming back is a solid starter.  Or maybe you trade Holiday and get back 2 players, a PF and a wing, for the same money.  That could make you deeper, maybe more balanced, but less top end talent.

I am not suggesting any of these trades are the way to go at this point in time, but they could do it if they wanted.  They have made a conscience decision not to "shake it up" right now, not surprising since they just won a title.  The landscape could be different in a year though.

I'm just going to point out that its ironic to say "you can always shake things up" then reference two trades that the Celtics made last year but literally would not be permitted to do under the new rules.

Literally the only thing the c's can do is trade a high prices guy for one or more lower prices guy. Are there trades like that you COULD do? Sure. But do those trades make sense with the rest of the roster, make sense given what else you might give up or make sense for the other team you'd be trading with? There are VERY FEW of those.

The issue is the c's are in a place where they want to win. if they wanted to shake things up by dumping a guy for draft picks I don't think it would be hard to do, but they are in win now mode and it hard to make player for player trades within current rules  that would make them better.

But even besides all that, they win the title and were 14 games ahead of the two seed in the east. Even if you fear complacency there's just no reason to change anything.

Yes it's not to say that trades can't be done, but they will be much more challenging, by design. If it was that easy the Suns would be trading away right now. Basically you have to find someone who impacts winning at the same level as someone in the current squad, and fits in as well with both their teammates and with the current playing philosophy, and where you can make the stringent salary requirements fit. So someone making the same or less amount as an existing player, or aggregated salaries that add up to the same, AND impact winning at an equal or greater level.

Not impossible...you can basically put every player in the league's contract into a spreadsheet model and run a query that says "find me all player or players whose salaries fit into x" then once you have applied those financial constraints you have the pool of "availables" and then you can figure out how well they might fit, how willing teams might be to part with them, and what it would take to get them to do so. But the pool of "availables", of necessity, would be quite smaller once you've applied all those constraints. Certainly not impossible...but not easy either. Certainly not when the easier choice is to run it back. It's a combination that worked, I suspect they will continue with it until it stops working or gets too expensive. Why trade the known for the unknown?

[GreenEnvy]

I don?t see a downside. Yes we have officially become the hunted,  even if we already had been. But can a team build a roster superior to ours? I don?t think so.

Obviously it would be nice to have end-of-bench depth, but you can?t ask for the top-6 that we have AND that.

There really wasn?t a #2 all year long in 2023-24. It was us?. And then everyone else. Nobody close. Even if the gap closes a bit, we are going to see another year of cohesion. Another year that Joe will get better. The weight that was lifted off some of these guys? backs should make them play freer than ever.

I know we are going to get everyone?s best shot all year long. But we are good enough to take it. I don?t know if we do better than 64 wins or only 3 losses in the playoffs, but we should be just as dominant next season.

[keevsnick]

In a lot of ways it doesn't really matter what the answer to this question is. Even if you think complacency could set in due to running it back the C's really don't have much of a choice. The 2nd apron restrictions make it very difficult to shake up the core in any real way. About all the C's can do is a 1 for 1 trade where you take back somebody making less than the guy you send out, and the amount of deals like that where you trade a rotation player and also get better is very tough.

Running it back makes sense because they won, but also because they sort of don't have much choice.

This is true for filling in the pieces around the top guys, but you can always shake it up with trades. Last off season, they traded Smart, Brogdon, and Williams, all starters or near starter level players. Sure, letting Svi Mykhailiuk go to make room for a rookie (Scheierman), is not "shaking it up".  But there is nothing stopping the team from trading say White or Holiday or even Brown (contract extension trade restrictions notwithstanding).

This team/roster, as currently constituted, is heavily invested in Guards and Wings, and less so in Bigs.  Trades aren't easy, but for example, it would not be unthinkable to trade say White or Holiday for a starting PF.  You don't do that trade unless the PF coming back is a solid starter.  Or maybe you trade Holiday and get back 2 players, a PF and a wing, for the same money.  That could make you deeper, maybe more balanced, but less top end talent.

I am not suggesting any of these trades are the way to go at this point in time, but they could do it if they wanted.  They have made a conscience decision not to "shake it up" right now, not surprising since they just won a title.  The landscape could be different in a year though.

I'm just going to point out that its ironic to say "you can always shake things up" then reference two trades that the Celtics made last year but literally would not be permitted to do under the new rules.

Literally the only thing the c's can do is trade a high prices guy for one or more lower prices guy. Are there trades like that you COULD do? Sure. But do those trades make sense with the rest of the roster, make sense given what else you might give up or make sense for the other team you'd be trading with? There are VERY FEW of those.

The issue is the c's are in a place where they want to win. if they wanted to shake things up by dumping a guy for draft picks I don't think it would be hard to do, but they are in win now mode and it hard to make player for player trades within current rules  that would make them better.

But even besides all that, they win the title and were 14 games ahead of the two seed in the east. Even if you fear complacency there's just no reason to change anything.

I don't think we are disagreeing overall.  I get that you can't combine players to do a trade, but you could trade White or Holiday (just for example) so long as you take back less salary. I am not saying they should do that, or that it would be easy, I am just saying that they could have chosen not to run it back if they wanted.  I was only disagreeing with the part where you said they really don't have much of choice. 

They are choosing run it back.  The smart choice in my mind, at least for this season.  But next season Horford could retire, for example.  They may need to trade a good player in order to bring in another good big, like when they traded Smart for Porzingis.  I know, the rules would not allow exactly that trade, but it is the idea of trading a pretty good guard for an even better big.  They COULD do that if they wanted.

Sure, they technically could have. My point is there are so few trades using that formula that make any sense that's they functionally had no real choice especially considering they just won a title.

But ya I don't think we actually disagree much.