Danny wants to rebuild and win but it doesnt work that way

[Neurotic Guy]

I have to say that I am very confused by premise that Danny is rebuilding.  In what way is this rebuilding?  Not a single starter has changed and the only 2 contributors seem to be leaving -- Posey and House (and House is still a question mark).  This constitutes rebuilding?

The C's of the 60's had an anchor in Russell and some great players surrounding, however, there were changes year to year. If memory serves, Paul Westphal and Don Chaney were on the 1974 team but not on the 1976 team.  Tiny Archibald was a member of the 1981 team, but not in 1984 or 86.   Hindsight is wonderful but at the time no one knew that DJ would fill Tiny's shoes, or that Charlie Scott would fill Westphal/ Chaney's shoes.  No Max after 1984, but add the oft-injured Walton -- it might not have worked.  Bottom line is that EVERY championship team loses contributors and we HAVEN'T lost any of our starters and still have 2 of our contributors off the bench (Powe and BBD).  Again -- rebuilding?

If Danny hasn't earned any trust after this year, I honestly don't know what he'll need to do to gain the trust. But, I suspect he'll put together a roster that will compete (barring injury) for another championship.  You can't count on a championship every year (just like the 70's and 80's), but to know we'll be competitive for the next couple of years is terrific -- I think Danny will fill out the roster just fine.

[bdm860]

I dont understand what danny truly wants to do. If he wants to make this celtics team a dynasty , its better to give up your young talent for vets, sign guys like posey(make up the luxury tax in the playoffs) or trade one or two of the big three or all of them and rebuild new. You never saw the spurs in the early 2000s do this nor detroit. Even the bulls always had proven vets in their journey to winning 6 in 8 years.

I know this has been said already, but when you keep the core intact that is not rebuilding.  Unless something unforseen happens all 5 starters will be back.  People forget we didn't have enough minutes to go around during the playoffs, how many times did someone say Powe, Davis, Tony Allen, or House should be playing more?  It's nice to have a deep bench as we had last year, but it's not necessary (especially with shorter rotations) and it's definitely not necessary to have the exact same roster.  With only the guys we have under contract right now we have 77.4% of the total playoff minutes coming back.  When you bring back more than 3/4's of the total minutes, no way is that rebuilding.  And if Tony Allen and House come back we'd have 81.1% of the minutes coming back (and with most people thinking House and Tony didn't play enough in the postseason that could easily have been in the mid to upper 80's if they played as much as many thought they should).

Also how can you compare us to the Pistons, saying the Pistons didn't rebuild, the Pistons only won one championship and many think their window is closed.  Why would you want to copy that?

Did some research, and based on total minutes played during the entire playoffs (from stats provided by our good friends at basketball-reference.com that I put in a spreadsheet and did the math myself - so there could be an error or 2 because I am human) here's the % of minutes from players during the playoffs one year that were on the next championship team, besides the Bulls, we are comparable or better off than the other teams: (FYI - James Posey played 9.2% of the minutes this year).

From the Los Angeles Lakers championship teams in 2000, 2001, and 2002, the players that played 70.4% of the minutes in 2000 were on the 2001 team, the players that played 83.3% of the minutes in 2001 were on the 2002 team.

From the San Antonio Spurs championship teams in 1999, 2003, 2005, and 2007, the players that played 39.8% of the minutes in 1999 were on the 2003 team, the players that played 56.1% of the minutes in 2003 were on the 2005 team, and the players that played 84.9% of the minutes in 2005 were on the 2007 team.

From the Chicago Bulls championship teams in 1996, 1997, and 1998, the players that played 93.5% of the minutes in 1995 were also on the 1996 chanpionship team.  Also the players that played 88.6% of the minutes on the 1997 championship team were on the 1998 team.

From the Houston Rockets championship teams in 1994 and 1995, the players that played 73.4% of the minutes in 1994 were also on the 1995 championship team.

So based on total minutes played in the playoffs, we're right in line with the later part of the Lakers and Spurs championships but better than the beginning part of their dynasties, doing better than the Rockets, but are behind the Bulls (but the Bulls were really special).

Also while I was compiling these numbers it was really interesting to see how much certain players minutes fluctuated on different years title teams:

Derek Fisher played 5.8% of the minutes for the Lakers in 2000, 8th highest total on the team, but jumped to 14.9% and 14.1% of the minutes in 2001 and 2002, 3rd highest total in both '01 and '02.

Also Devean George barely played in 2000 and 2001, only playing 0.8% and 0.7% of the minutes in those years, but jumped to 7.1% in 2002.

Glen Rice was third in mintues on the Lakers 2000 team (13.8%), but not on the 2001 or 2002 team.  Ron Harper played 11.6% of the minutes in 2000, but only 1.1% of the minutes in 2001, and not on the 2002 team.

Vernon Maxwell played 15.9% of the minutes in 1994, but only 0.3% in 1995 (but he was suspended or something right?), Otis Thorpe played 15.4% of the minutes in 1994 but was traded for Clyde Drexler who played 15.9% of the minutes in 1995.

Bison Dele played 7.4% of the minutes in 1997, but wasn't on the 1996 or 1998 teams.

Didn't see much of a swing in the minutes of individual players on the Bulls and Rockets teams though (of the players that stayed) and didn't bother with the Spurs because of the gap in years between rings.

So you can really go either way here, the Bulls brought back most of their core, the Rockets not so much, and the Spurs and Lakers gradually brought more of their core back but not as much in the beginning.  Also the Lakers and Spurs developed young players, but the Bulls and Rockets not so much.

NOTE: all my numbers above are based only on total playoff minutes through all rounds.

[Jon]

To the two posters above, bdm860 and Neurotic Guy. 

True, I wouldn't call it rebuilding.  However, I think we're in a fairly unique spot here.  Sure, there were turnover on all championship teams, the big difference, though, was that the core of most of those teams you mentioned weren't in their early-to-mid thirties.  On top of that, most of those title teams replaced their losses with equally capable players.  Tiny Archibald left and Dennis Johnson replaced him.  My question is, where is Posey's replacement?  Furthermore, the Celtics didn't win a title again after '81 until '84.  That's a fear here as well; these Celtics don't have the youth to take a down year. 

Again, shave three years off all three members of the Big Three and I could care less that Posey walked.  He's replaceable.  I just worry if he's replaceable for next year.  Because if they can't replace him next year, it's a chink in their armor it what could be their strongest year (a year under their belt and everyone still relatively young). 

[bdm860]

Now to just add some more numbers from my previous post.  Remeber 2006 Heat/Mavs?  The Heat brought back their top 8 players (based on total playoff minutes) from their 2006 championship team, and overall brought back a total of 97.1% of the total playoff minutes.  Very similar on the Mavs (who should have won the Finals but since Wade was untouchable...), the Mavs brought back their top 7 players, and a total of 87.6% of the playoff minutes returned.  The Mavs and Heat both brought back practically their entire teams the next year from their 2006 Finals appearances and both have completely flamed out since (and that was only 2 years ago!), and I really hope next years C's don't turn out like either of those teams did.  Keeping the same core together does not guarantee repeat sucess.

Let me clarify my posts too.  I in no way think stats tell the whole story.  And the stats I'm pulling only refer to minutes played.  Every team is different, and there were different situations and different players in every team I mentioned.  Also I don't think a player's importance/replaceability (word?) are measured by how many minutes they're on the court.  I just think the numbers I'm pulling are interesting and something to think about when discussing the importance of bringing everybody back.

And Jon, even though you're disagreeing with my post, you get a TP for what I consider an excellent counter point.

[Triboy16]

If i were danny right now i would get two type of players to make up for the loss of posey and house(i think he won't comeback)

1.  a deadly three point shooter. You guys might laugh but salim staudamire is still out there. He is an amazing three point shooter that didn't get much chance with the hawks. He will sign for peanuts at this point

2. Sign a vet. It doesn't matter what position he will play but a proven hard working vet is what we need(for example brent barry would have been perfect)

3. The more i think about it could be worth a try for danny to try to pry away ryan gomes from the wolves. I would try to use 3 to 3.5 million for three years to see if the wolves would match it

4. Otherwise like some of you stated i would sign nachbar to a two year deal worth 6 or 7 million, doubt danny will want to offer more than that, doubt nachbar would settle for a 2 year deal

maybe giddens and bill walker will have to grow up real fast

[CoachBo]

To the two posters above, bdm860 and Neurotic Guy. 

True, I wouldn't call it rebuilding.  However, I think we're in a fairly unique spot here.  Sure, there were turnover on all championship teams, the big difference, though, was that the core of most of those teams you mentioned weren't in their early-to-mid thirties.  On top of that, most of those title teams replaces their losses with equally capable players.  Tiny Archibald left and Dennis Johnson replaced him.  My question is, where is Posey's replacement?  Furthermore, the Celtics didn't win a title again after '81 until '84.  That's a fear here as well; these Celtics don't have the youth to take a down year. 

Again, shave three years off all three members of the Big Three and I could care less that Posey walked.  He's replaceable.  I just worry if he's replaceable for next year.  Because if they can't replace him next year, it's a chink in their armor it what could be their strongest year (a year under their belt and everyone still relatively young). 

TP, Jon.

The problem here is penny-wise and pound-foolish for one of a diminishing number of years when this club is young enough to win a title.

I keep reading here that Danny low-balled Posey with an eye on 2010. I don't believe that for a minute, because he's not that stupid, but if he did, then he's planning for a year when Ray Allen is likey gone and Pierce and Garnett are on the cusp of being too old to compete for a title. Planning for 2010 would equate to diminishing future shots at a title when the window is open, and it would be nothing short of foolish.

It boils down to this: At what price a title?

[crownsy]

sweet 17 this is not like last year. There are no poseys left on the board this late in the free agency game, no pj brown waiting to come out of retirement. Tell me what he could do then

really? that alonzo morning guy is pretty much pulling a pj brown.

and come on, lets not act like posey was a super coveted FA last year. He was a guy seen as a good 8th  man, thats why there was no rush to get him by other teams.

we found a diamond in the rough in posey, no one knows who will find the late round one this year yet.

[Jon]

Now to just add some more numbers from my previous post.  Remeber 2006 Heat/Mavs?  The Heat brought back their top 8 players (based on total playoff minutes) from their 2006 championship team, and overall brought back a total of 97.1% of the total playoff minutes.  Very similar on the Mavs (who should have won the Finals but since Wade was untouchable...), the Mavs brought back their top 7 players, and a total of 87.6% of the playoff minutes returned.  The Mavs and Heat both brought back practically their entire teams the next year from their 2006 Finals appearances and both have completely flamed out since (and that was only 2 years ago!), and I really hope next years C's don't turn out like either of those teams did.  Keeping the same core together does not guarantee repeat sucess.

Let me clarify my posts too.  I in no way think stats tell the whole story.  And the stats I'm pulling only refer to minutes played.  Every team is different, and there were different situations and different players in every team I mentioned.  Also I don't think a player's importance/replaceability (word?) are measured by how many minutes they're on the court.  I just think the numbers I'm pulling are interesting and something to think about when discussing the importance of bringing everybody back.

And Jon, even though you're disagreeing with my post, you get a TP for what I consider an excellent counter point.

Thank you. 

I absolutely agree that bringing back everyone next year wouldn't have guaranteed anything.  However, given that everyone would've had a year under their belts as a team, everyone would've been still relatively young, and the fact that most other elite teams didn't upgrade all that much, I think it would have been just about as ideal of circumstances as possible to win another title. 

We still may.  By no means am I ruling that out.  Giddens, T. Allen, or a FA may end up proving a worthy replacement or someone like Powe, Davis, or even Rondo at the point, will step up so much in what they do that it'll make up for whatever Posey walked away with.  I just don't like Danny rolling the dice on finding a Posey replacement for the sake of future moves in what might be our most dominant year.

If anything, your comparison to Miami somewhat proves my point.  Miami fell off because Shaq got old very quickly and Wade (and others) got hit with the injury bug.  Granted, one of the Big Three could go down next year, ruining our title chances.  But with every year that goes by, the chances of injury or declining skills increase. 

Hopefully Ainge pulls it together either via free agency or with someone internally stepping up.  I think the latter's even possible.  Rondo should be even better than he was last year, the Big Three should play together even better, role players like Powe and Davis should be even better, and from Giddens' scouting report, he sounds a heck of a lot like Posey.  Still, my biggest fear is that the C's fall just short next year losing a game like last year's Game 7 against Cleveland.  And then the next year, someone goes down or Ray declines, and that's it. And then we're sitting here 3 years from now wondering what would've happened had we kept James Posey. 

[Triboy16]

"  Still, my biggest fear is that the C's fall just short next year losing a game like last year's Game 7 against Cleveland.  And then the next year, someone goes down or Ray declines, and that's it. And then we're sitting here 3 years from now wondering what would've happened had we kept James Posey. "

great points. Yeah posey only gets you like 7 or 8 points a game but how many points does he stop also?? he is a 20 + player with the pts he scores and points he doesn't let the other team get.

regret or not , the big three should have seen this coming.

[crownsy]

"  Still, my biggest fear is that the C's fall just short next year losing a game like last year's Game 7 against Cleveland.  And then the next year, someone goes down or Ray declines, and that's it. And then we're sitting here 3 years from now wondering what would've happened had we kept James Posey. "

great points. Yeah posey only gets you like 7 or 8 points a game but how many points does he stop also?? he is a 20 + player with the pts he scores and points he doesn't let the other team get.

regret or not , the big three should have seen this coming.

again, i love james, but he is just not this superstar willing to come off the bench, ala manu, you guys are making him out to be.

hes a very good 6th man, and he'll be hard to replace, but not tying up our MLE for 4 years won't be why we don't win 18 if it doesn't happen.

to me, all this talk about how awful our bench is goign to be is so pointless its beyond belief. i read these exact same things last year, including about posey, who when he was signed, was mostly considered by the blog to be a good value signing, but not much more than a defensive stopper once in awhile to spell pierce. I'm sure now everyone will say they knew all along he'd be an outstanding 6th man, but it isn't true.

there's a reason that we were able to secure him late for a one year deal for short money, because at the time people had questions, as silly as they seem now, about his drive and work ethic. there was alot of talk that he had become content after miami's title. Now, looking back, we all know thats ridiculos, but the point is, bench's can't be predicted before they start playing together, and espically not before thier signed, we still have a bunch of spots to fill.

[Jon]

"  Still, my biggest fear is that the C's fall just short next year losing a game like last year's Game 7 against Cleveland.  And then the next year, someone goes down or Ray declines, and that's it. And then we're sitting here 3 years from now wondering what would've happened had we kept James Posey. "

great points. Yeah posey only gets you like 7 or 8 points a game but how many points does he stop also?? he is a 20 + player with the pts he scores and points he doesn't let the other team get.

regret or not , the big three should have seen this coming.

again, i love james, but he is just not this superstar willing to come off the bench, ala manu, you guys are making him out to be.

hes a very good 6th man, and he'll be hard to replace, but not tying up our MLE for 4 years won't be why we don't win 18 if it doesn't happen.

to me, all this talk about how awful our bench is goign to be is so pointless its beyond belief. i read these exact same things last year, including about posey, who when he was signed, was mostly considered by the blog to be a good value signing, but not much more than a defensive stopper once in awhile to spell pierce. I'm sure now everyone will say they knew all along he'd be an outstanding 6th man, but it isn't true.

there's a reason that we were able to secure him late for a one year deal for short money, because at the time people had questions, as silly as they seem now, about his drive and work ethic. there was alot of talk that he had become content after miami's title. Now, looking back, we all know thats ridiculos, but the point is, bench's can't be predicted before they start playing together, and espically not before thier signed, we still have a bunch of spots to fill.

Well, not to be a total jackass, and I don't know if you can go back in the archives far enough, but I was calling for the C's to sign Posey pretty much as soon as the Garnett deal went down.  And it really didn't surprise me how successful he was.

Still, that's beside the point.  By no means am I predicting gloom and doom, I just worry about it.  And I don't think the reasons not to sign him outweigh the reasons to sign him. 

I mean people talk about salary flexibility, but I just don't see it actually playing out.  This whole myth of 2010 having significant cap room is based on the idea that they'd renounce not only Ray Allen, but also Rajon Rondo.  And even if they were to do that, they'd actually have to land a free agent that was good enough not only to replace Allen and Rondo, but actually exceed what they did to make it worthwhile, which is extremely unlikely. 

To me, the C's long term plan should be to build up as much young talent as possible and to limit contracts to not extend beyond KG's.  Then, when the Big Three leave, the C's will hopefully have some room to surround Perk, Rondo, and whoever else emerges with some talent.  Posey at 4 years didn't inhibit that plan.

So while the C's could be fine without Posey, I think they'd have a better shot at winning it with him.  And I don't understand why a team with a limited time frame to win a title messes with it's chances at success when it really doesn't inhibit many long term goals. 

[crownsy]

"  Still, my biggest fear is that the C's fall just short next year losing a game like last year's Game 7 against Cleveland.  And then the next year, someone goes down or Ray declines, and that's it. And then we're sitting here 3 years from now wondering what would've happened had we kept James Posey. "

great points. Yeah posey only gets you like 7 or 8 points a game but how many points does he stop also?? he is a 20 + player with the pts he scores and points he doesn't let the other team get.

regret or not , the big three should have seen this coming.

again, i love james, but he is just not this superstar willing to come off the bench, ala manu, you guys are making him out to be.

hes a very good 6th man, and he'll be hard to replace, but not tying up our MLE for 4 years won't be why we don't win 18 if it doesn't happen.

to me, all this talk about how awful our bench is goign to be is so pointless its beyond belief. i read these exact same things last year, including about posey, who when he was signed, was mostly considered by the blog to be a good value signing, but not much more than a defensive stopper once in awhile to spell pierce. I'm sure now everyone will say they knew all along he'd be an outstanding 6th man, but it isn't true.

there's a reason that we were able to secure him late for a one year deal for short money, because at the time people had questions, as silly as they seem now, about his drive and work ethic. there was alot of talk that he had become content after miami's title. Now, looking back, we all know thats ridiculos, but the point is, bench's can't be predicted before they start playing together, and espically not before thier signed, we still have a bunch of spots to fill.

Well, not to be a total jackass, and I don't know if you can go back in the archives far enough, but I was calling for the C's to sign Posey pretty much as soon as the Garnett deal went down.  And it really didn't surprise me how successful he was.

Still, that's beside the point.  By no means am I predicting gloom and doom, I just worry about it.  And I don't think the reasons not to sign him outweigh the reasons to sign him. 

I mean people talk about salary flexibility, but I just don't see it actually playing out.  This whole myth of 2010 having significant cap room is based on the idea that they'd renounce not only Ray Allen, but also Rajon Rondo.  And even if they were to do that, they'd actually have to land a free agent that was good enough not only to replace Allen and Rondo, but actually exceed what they did to make it worthwhile, which is extremely unlikely. 

To me, the C's long term plan should be to build up as much young talent as possible and to limit contracts to not extend beyond KG's.  Then, when the Big Three leave, the C's will hopefully have some room to surround Perk, Rondo, and whoever else emerges with some talent.  Posey at 4 years didn't inhibit that plan.

So while the C's could be fine without Posey, I think they'd have a better shot at winning it with him.  And I don't understand why a team with a limited time frame to win a title messes with it's chances at success when it really doesn't inhibit many long term goals. 

good call then, and i know some people were on the posey train early, thats why i said most.

also, i think were confusing salary cap flexablity. the flexablity im talking about isn't the ablity to sign anyone huge in 2010, we'll still be over cap. the flexablity im talking about is the MLE. if you tie the MLE up for 4 years, and a few bench players don't work out, your toast, because you can't sign anyone for over the minimum. If you keep the MLE on short deals, then you can re-evaluate your bench every year.

I could care less about posey impacting us in some crazy quest to sign dwade in 2010, thats not the flexablity i'm talking about. the flexablity im talking about is when we need some new legs on the bench, and we have the MLE avalable to get it done, instead of tied up in one player for 4 years.

[cordobes]

"  Still, my biggest fear is that the C's fall just short next year losing a game like last year's Game 7 against Cleveland.  And then the next year, someone goes down or Ray declines, and that's it. And then we're sitting here 3 years from now wondering what would've happened had we kept James Posey. "

great points. Yeah posey only gets you like 7 or 8 points a game but how many points does he stop also?? he is a 20 + player with the pts he scores and points he doesn't let the other team get.

regret or not , the big three should have seen this coming.

again, i love james, but he is just not this superstar willing to come off the bench, ala manu, you guys are making him out to be.

hes a very good 6th man, and he'll be hard to replace, but not tying up our MLE for 4 years won't be why we don't win 18 if it doesn't happen.

to me, all this talk about how awful our bench is goign to be is so pointless its beyond belief. i read these exact same things last year, including about posey, who when he was signed, was mostly considered by the blog to be a good value signing, but not much more than a defensive stopper once in awhile to spell pierce. I'm sure now everyone will say they knew all along he'd be an outstanding 6th man, but it isn't true.

there's a reason that we were able to secure him late for a one year deal for short money, because at the time people had questions, as silly as they seem now, about his drive and work ethic. there was alot of talk that he had become content after miami's title. Now, looking back, we all know thats ridiculos, but the point is, bench's can't be predicted before they start playing together, and espically not before thier signed, we still have a bunch of spots to fill.

Well, not to be a total jackass, and I don't know if you can go back in the archives far enough, but I was calling for the C's to sign Posey pretty much as soon as the Garnett deal went down.  And it really didn't surprise me how successful he was.

Still, that's beside the point.  By no means am I predicting gloom and doom, I just worry about it.  And I don't think the reasons not to sign him outweigh the reasons to sign him. 

I mean people talk about salary flexibility, but I just don't see it actually playing out.  This whole myth of 2010 having significant cap room is based on the idea that they'd renounce not only Ray Allen, but also Rajon Rondo.  And even if they were to do that, they'd actually have to land a free agent that was good enough not only to replace Allen and Rondo, but actually exceed what they did to make it worthwhile, which is extremely unlikely. 

To me, the C's long term plan should be to build up as much young talent as possible and to limit contracts to not extend beyond KG's.  Then, when the Big Three leave, the C's will hopefully have some room to surround Perk, Rondo, and whoever else emerges with some talent.  Posey at 4 years didn't inhibit that plan.

So while the C's could be fine without Posey, I think they'd have a better shot at winning it with him.  And I don't understand why a team with a limited time frame to win a title messes with it's chances at success when it really doesn't inhibit many long term goals. 

good call then, and i know some people were on the posey train early, thats why i said most.

also, i think were confusing salary cap flexablity. the flexablity im talking about isn't the ablity to sign anyone huge in 2010, we'll still be over cap. the flexablity im talking about is the MLE. if you tie the MLE up for 4 years, and a few bench players don't work out, your toast, because you can't sign anyone for over the minimum. If you keep the MLE on short deals, then you can re-evaluate your bench every year.

I could care less about posey impacting us in some crazy quest to sign dwade in 2010, thats not the flexablity i'm talking about. the flexablity im talking about is when we need some new legs on the bench, and we have the MLE avalable to get it done, instead of tied up in one player for 4 years.

I think you are misunderstanding how the MLE works. You have the MLE available every season, as long as the team is over the salary cap. For example, you can use the MLE to give a 4 year contract this year, use it again next off-season to give two 3 years contracts (splitting it), etc. The only thing to be considered are budgetary restrictions. But if Ainge offered Posey the MLE for 3 years, as has been reported, I don't thin the aforementioned restrictions played a big role.

[BballTim]

I mean people talk about salary flexibility, but I just don't see it actually playing out.  This whole myth of 2010 having significant cap room is based on the idea that they'd renounce not only Ray Allen, but also Rajon Rondo.  And even if they were to do that, they'd actually have to land a free agent that was good enough not only to replace Allen and Rondo, but actually exceed what they did to make it worthwhile, which is extremely unlikely. 

  Danny Ainge was talking about how signing Posey to a 4 year MLE would limit our flexibility. Don't you think he has a good idea what he's talking about?

[Roy Hobbs]

I mean people talk about salary flexibility, but I just don't see it actually playing out.  This whole myth of 2010 having significant cap room is based on the idea that they'd renounce not only Ray Allen, but also Rajon Rondo.  And even if they were to do that, they'd actually have to land a free agent that was good enough not only to replace Allen and Rondo, but actually exceed what they did to make it worthwhile, which is extremely unlikely. 

  Danny Ainge was talking about how signing Posey to a 4 year MLE would limit our flexibility. Don't you think he has a good idea what he's talking about?

I'm sure he does.  However, I also think that Danny at times "spins" news and/or is less than candid.  I think you have to take everything you hear from an NBA front office with a grain of salt.