At times, hard to stay positive over the off season moves

[nickagneta]

One thing I want to chime in on regarding mock draft positioning and perceived talent is that so, so, so many of the mock drafts that come out are based on the opinion that the teams will choose based on need and not based on best available talent.

Hence, many, many, many times tons of big guys are projected high in the draft because good big man talent is so hard to find. The same holds true for other positions during other years.

So the point I think I'm trying to make is that saying that someone had top 15-20 pick talent based on mock drafts that year is a load of crap. That doesn't mean that that person was a top 15-20 talent. It only means that during that year based on needs of teams, he was projected to go somewhere between 15-20.

Heck that doesn't even get into the quality of any given draft. The year Kenyon Martin went #1 that draft class was awful from a quality standpoint. Saying that someone drafted that year in the top 10 had more talent than someone who was drafted 10-20 in 2007 would be ridiculous as the 2007 class was loaded with talent and the year KMart came out it wasn't.

So I think it is very deceptive to make the claim that we got a lot more talent based on where two guys were drafted and where two other guys were once perceived to be drafted.

POB was drafted high in a draft with bad big men. Miles was rightfully drafted high but is now severely injured. Much of his talent was based on his athleticism. If his athleticism is hampered by injury then obviously he must right now be much less talented than he once was. The same holds true for Walker. Who cares where his talent was once perceived to position him in a certain draft years ago. Right now his injury which hampers his athleticism which hampers his talent puts him at a 2nd round draft talent and there are only so many truly good talents that come out of the second round.

My point ultimately being, everyone has talent. Everyone may have been rated higher talent wise than they currently are. But what matters isn't what they were once rated at talent wise it is where they currently are talent wise. And currently, talent wise, they are all a lot worse than once perceived and it is possible those perceptions were wrong.

So let's stick with what we actually know about these guys and what we currently know is that one guy is one of the very few top 10 picks ever not to be given a qualifying offer after their second year. Another we know has been declared physically unable to ever perform again in the NBA by several doctors. Yet another we know had great upside but is now a 2nd round rookie draftee that just finished getting his third major knee surgery. And yet another was on three separate college teams and was a problem child on all three but put up some okay numbers, finally at a mid major conference and has yet to prove he can be a consistent good team mate.

For me, that's just not a lot to be positive about when looking at the off season moves.

I still think this team is the team to beat. But that has more to do with position 1-8 on the roster and not from who will be taking up positions 9-15 on the roster.

...the key phrase is "what we know"...don't you think that Ainge has a bit more access to more detailed and more vital information on these guys, or are you convinces that these were "desperate moves" made because Ainge "struck out" on getting the players he "really wanted."

I don't rely on 2nd hand information for assessing players and Ainge sure as hell doesn't...the team invests millions in its players and hundreds of thousands in scouting analysis...they didn't "gamble" on all of these guys as much as most are making out...

...and all these guys were considered high-upside players at one point because of their elite physical ability...the digression of that perception to its current state has everything to do with factors aside from raw physical prowess and its pretty obvious if you look at it. Miles, POB, Walker, and Giddens are elite level athletes who all impressed on the court sometime in the not-so-distant past...the fact that they all weren't drafted higher or retained, or whatever has a ton to do with issues aside from talent and simple google search can show you what was being written about these guys locally and nationally...

If they were as mediocre as many are making out, Ainge wouldn't have taken them over safer, more low-risk alternatives...there were TONS of other players available at 30 who came with less perceived risk and there were many free agents that could have been had if the team felt like parting with more than the minimum--which it surely would have done if it felt ALL the acquisitions were so risky and limited in potential...

...its just illogical to assume that such risk was taken on such low-level talent...you don't take big risk without the potential for big reward...

Here is the key phrase that throws some water on the fire that is your position.

"If they were as mediocre as many are making out, Ainge wouldn't have taken them over safer, more low-risk alternatives"

Why is it a given in your mind that they aren't mediocre simply because Danny Ainge decided to take a chance on them? Why is it that in your mind Danny Ainge and his staff is beyond the ability to be wrong when gauging a player's readiness, talent, or lack thereof? I think that he put so much faith into players the caliber of Raef LaFrentz, Mark Blount, Jiri Welsch, Orien Greene, Gerald Green and various others is proof that Danny Ainge's ability to gauge talent and make moves should be questioned.

I don't particularly care what stats or numbers or decisions that Danny has or has made. Is he more qualified to make those decisions? Yes. Does it mean that he is infallible and that I and others are wrong? No.

Nick, with all due respect, you keep taking names and not looking at the context of the decision to acquire them:

LaFrentz: post-knee surgery had just had his best season as a pro. then he got signed to a long term deal by Dallas and lost playing time the following year to Dirk Nowitzki, who had just broken out as a player. LaFrentz wanted out, as did Antoine Walker. the team's salary cap situation wasn't going to allow Ainge to simply let Antoine go for nothing in exchange because they couldn't replace him on the FA market.

Instead of bowing to Walker's contact extension demands, Ainge traded him for a F/C who was a season removed from having his best year. Raef was smart, could shoot from the perimeter, run half-court offense from the high post, and his deal didn't exceed the current length of time the Celtics would be over the cap, so it didn't effect the team's ability to pursue free agents.

Ainge knew he didn't have close to a contender, so he took the chance on Raef's knee and got 2 out of 3 solid years from him before moving him for a shorter deal and a prospect, (Ratliff, Telfair)...Raef wasn't a "mistake" that cost the team anything, he was a calculated risk in the greater scheme of his rebuilding-while-remaining-competitive plan, and provided steady veteran leadership on the court and in the locker room until his time was past.

Jiri Welsch was a part of the Raef deal, coming off a brilliant summer league performance. Many teams were intrigued by him at the time, but he was hardly a make-or-break part of the trade. Good prospect with solid upside who had little impact on anything, nor was he the primary target of Ainge and being counted on for anything much more than increasing the talent pool-an asset that led to a Cleveland 1st rounder, which turned into Delonte West, which in turn helped facilitate the Ray Allen deal....piece of the puzzle, not some "whiff" on talent that had to be "fixed" later.

Mark Blount was a FA the year Ainge came in and took over-he had to rely entirely on reports form incumbent GM Chris Wallace, and up until he was re-signed, Blount was one of the hardest workers on the team, a self-made pro who was admired and respected by the team. Ainge was also under tremendous pressure to retain Blount, after Jim O'Brian quit,the public outcry was definingly in favor of re-signing Blount. Based on the reports on his work ethic, his production that season, and the demand for him to be retained, Ainge signed him....we all know how Blount acted after that. Ainge never misjudged his talent, he didn't have time to study Blount's character and it cost him. Even then, Blount was still just a piece, one that Ainge thought would hold value enough to move,which he did later in the Davis/Wally deal.

Orien Greene and Gerald Green are already well-documented. Gerald was never evaluated by the Celtics because he was projected top 5 all year. When he fell, they took him. Relative to what was available at 18 it was the right decision. Hakim Warrick would have been nice, but Ainge was already targeting Ryan Gomes, who was more polished and a surer thing. Ainge saw that he could get both Gomes and Green in the draft, thus increasing his pool of assets yet again, and he did so.

Orien was picked in the DEEP in the 2nd round. He was a highly decorated HS player who was forced to play SG/SF at Florida. As a long shot late in the 2nd round Ainge gave a promise-his last of his tenure-and tried to get out of it when he saw that Amir Johnson was going to slip to him. Couldn't get out of the commitment, but again, we're talking about a pick in an area of the draft where almost nobody sticks...Johnson is the only player worth anything from that spot on in that draft.

No, Ainge is not infallible, but every move he's made had been made with the purpose of moving toward building a champion and very few of his moves have not helped to further that cause. Some moves haven't paid the dividend expected-Blount, Banks, LaFrentz-but the "worst case" factored into each still allowed for Ainge to move those players for better "chips" that helped to perpetuate his goal of building a winner, so I find it hard to argue with his results.

...and when it comes to evaluating young and unproven players like O'Bryant, Walker, Giddens--his track record is perhaps unparalleled in the league...Ainge hits the nail on the head with rookies at like an 80+ percent clip, and i consider O'Bryant to be a de-facto "rookie" because of his lack of playing time in the NBA.

With all due respect back, I remember what occurred and why certain trades were made. It is easy in retrospect to say that "x move" while not successful allowed us to have "player A" which when moved in "y move" allowed us to get "player B" which although not successful eventually allowed us to obtain "player C" in "move z" which worked for us in last year's championship.

But if each move is looked at as an individual move and how that move affected the team immediately and during the time that that player was on the team, those moves as a whole were bad.

A set of circumstances came about through shear luck that allowed Danny Ainge to turn those mistakes and the good talent received in the draft because we were bad and had advantageous drafting positions into Ray Allen and Kevin Garnett who then allowed us to sign James Posey and Eddie House because they may not have otherwise signed with us. Danny took advantage of that luck. Good GM's will.

But never in the history of basketball has a team had a turnaround ever happen like what happened last year. Much of that is attributable to pure luck at being able to have those trades available and taking the initiative to do the trades. So I tend not to give Danny as much credit as some.

But obviously we will not agree on these points and that's fine. I understand your point of view, even if I don't agree with it. Perhaps you understand mine a bit more now.

TP's to BBallTim and BillfromBoston on their excellent points and good debate.

[BballTim]

With all due respect back, I remember what occurred and why certain trades were made. It is easy in retrospect to say that "x move" while not successful allowed us to have "player A" which when moved in "y move" allowed us to get "player B" which although not successful eventually allowed us to obtain "player C" in "move z" which worked for us in last year's championship.

But if each move is looked at as an individual move and how that move affected the team immediately and during the time that that player was on the team, those moves as a whole were bad.

A set of circumstances came about through shear luck that allowed Danny Ainge to turn those mistakes and the good talent received in the draft because we were bad and had advantageous drafting positions into Ray Allen and Kevin Garnett who then allowed us to sign James Posey and Eddie House because they may not have otherwise signed with us. Danny took advantage of that luck. Good GM's will.

  While I'd agree that some of the convoluted scenarios (we picked up Davis and signed Blount, which led to Wally which led to Ray) is over the top, you can't realistically divorce the Theo/Telfair acquisitions from the KG trade. You also can't divorce the Raef trade with drafting West and Tony Allen. Ainge talked up the importance of getting extra draft picks and chips at the time of the trade.

[cordobes]

Historically, players tend to perform better in the NBA if they were chosen earlier in the draft. Players picked in the lottery tend to be All-Stars more than those picked in the 20-30 range; players picked in the 20-30 tend to hang in the league more frequently than those picked in the 2nd round, etc. That's why it's a good predictive instrument. On the other hand, I don't think that the position of the players in mock drafts before their 1st college season or similar indications are so good. As we all know, there are exceptions.

"If they were as mediocre as many are making out, Ainge wouldn't have taken them over safer, more low-risk alternatives"

Well, in all fairness, Ainge indeed tried to sign some veterans, safer more low-risk alternatives. I believe this shows he's not very confortable with the present scenario. In fact, I believe that, at some point before the playoffs, some veterans will be added to the present roster.

But the main point in this issue is that no discussion is possible using an argumentum ad verecundiam, an argument by authority. It's a fallacy. One thing is saying "Ainge has a good track-record, so one can be positive about the value of these players". With that I agree. Other is saying "Ainge has a good track-record, so one must be positive about the value of this roster". I don't agree with that because we don't even know if Ainge is in fact that positive. For once, we all know he's not sure about O'Bryant being ready to contribute in the playoffs or that BBD can backup the 5.

I liked PJ Brown and regarded him as a valuable role player. He was a good addition to the squad and I thought he was rightfully the first big off the bench.

I also thought the C's would be fine with Davis and Powe in the playoffs prior to the PJ addition. So while it's a loss the C's have decent cover for him.

I would like to see a backup big with length acquired though. The C's will likely face longer opponents next season with Phily, Orlando, Cleveland looking dangerous in the East and with several Western teams with good bigs, especially the Lakers with Bynum returning. It doesn't necessarily need to be a replacement for PJ, a first big off the bench ... but I would like someone who can be the fourth of fifth big in the rotation to fill that need, someone who's capable. That hasn't been filled yet.

Very well written. I fully agree with this, except that I never thought that Powe and BBD would be enough to the playoffs (and I still don't).

Ok so even if you're proven wrong you won't admit it.  Great post.

Sorry, I don't understand your remark. Proven wrong on what?

[crownsy]

Historically, players tend to perform better in the NBA if they were chosen earlier in the draft. Players picked in the lottery tend to be All-Stars more than those picked in the 20-30 range; players picked in the 20-30 tend to hang in the league more frequently than those picked in the 2nd round, etc. That's why it's a good predictive instrument. On the other hand, I don't think that the position of the players in mock drafts before their 1st college season or similar indications are so good. As we all know, there are exceptions.

"If they were as mediocre as many are making out, Ainge wouldn't have taken them over safer, more low-risk alternatives"

Well, in all fairness, Ainge indeed tried to sign some veterans, safer more low-risk alternatives. I believe this shows he's not very confortable with the present scenario. In fact, I believe that, at some point before the playoffs, some veterans will be added to the present roster.

But the main point in this issue is that no discussion is possible using an argumentum ad verecundiam, an argument by authority. It's a fallacy. One thing is saying "Ainge has a good track-record, so one can be positive about the value of these players". With that I agree. Other is saying "Ainge has a good track-record, so one must be positive about the value of this roster". I don't agree with that because we don't even know if Ainge is in fact that positive. For once, we all know he's not sure about O'Bryant being ready to contribute in the playoffs or that BBD can backup the 5.

I liked PJ Brown and regarded him as a valuable role player. He was a good addition to the squad and I thought he was rightfully the first big off the bench.

I also thought the C's would be fine with Davis and Powe in the playoffs prior to the PJ addition. So while it's a loss the C's have decent cover for him.

I would like to see a backup big with length acquired though. The C's will likely face longer opponents next season with Phily, Orlando, Cleveland looking dangerous in the East and with several Western teams with good bigs, especially the Lakers with Bynum returning. It doesn't necessarily need to be a replacement for PJ, a first big off the bench ... but I would like someone who can be the fourth of fifth big in the rotation to fill that need, someone who's capable. That hasn't been filled yet.

Very well written. I fully agree with this, except that I never thought that Powe and BBD would be enough to the playoffs (and I still don't).

Ok so even if you're proven wrong you won't admit it.  Great post.

Sorry, I don't understand your remark. Proven wrong on what?

I think he's hitting on that even after the playoffs, where powe in particular was huge in several series, you still don't think there good enough for the playoffs.

not sure you ment it that way, but it looks like a pretty big denail the way you wrote it.

[cordobes]

Historically, players tend to perform better in the NBA if they were chosen earlier in the draft. Players picked in the lottery tend to be All-Stars more than those picked in the 20-30 range; players picked in the 20-30 tend to hang in the league more frequently than those picked in the 2nd round, etc. That's why it's a good predictive instrument. On the other hand, I don't think that the position of the players in mock drafts before their 1st college season or similar indications are so good. As we all know, there are exceptions.

"If they were as mediocre as many are making out, Ainge wouldn't have taken them over safer, more low-risk alternatives"

Well, in all fairness, Ainge indeed tried to sign some veterans, safer more low-risk alternatives. I believe this shows he's not very confortable with the present scenario. In fact, I believe that, at some point before the playoffs, some veterans will be added to the present roster.

But the main point in this issue is that no discussion is possible using an argumentum ad verecundiam, an argument by authority. It's a fallacy. One thing is saying "Ainge has a good track-record, so one can be positive about the value of these players". With that I agree. Other is saying "Ainge has a good track-record, so one must be positive about the value of this roster". I don't agree with that because we don't even know if Ainge is in fact that positive. For once, we all know he's not sure about O'Bryant being ready to contribute in the playoffs or that BBD can backup the 5.

I liked PJ Brown and regarded him as a valuable role player. He was a good addition to the squad and I thought he was rightfully the first big off the bench.

I also thought the C's would be fine with Davis and Powe in the playoffs prior to the PJ addition. So while it's a loss the C's have decent cover for him.

I would like to see a backup big with length acquired though. The C's will likely face longer opponents next season with Phily, Orlando, Cleveland looking dangerous in the East and with several Western teams with good bigs, especially the Lakers with Bynum returning. It doesn't necessarily need to be a replacement for PJ, a first big off the bench ... but I would like someone who can be the fourth of fifth big in the rotation to fill that need, someone who's capable. That hasn't been filled yet.

Very well written. I fully agree with this, except that I never thought that Powe and BBD would be enough to the playoffs (and I still don't).

Ok so even if you're proven wrong you won't admit it.  Great post.

Sorry, I don't understand your remark. Proven wrong on what?

I think he's hitting on that even after the playoffs, where powe in particular was huge in several series, you still don't think there good enough for the playoffs.

not sure you ment it that way, but it looks like a pretty big denail the way you wrote it.

Powe was huge in some games but horrid in some others. I've said this all along during the playoffs, there was no point keeping him on the floor in his off-nights. Nah, I don't think we'd have done it without PJ.

[crownsy]

Historically, players tend to perform better in the NBA if they were chosen earlier in the draft. Players picked in the lottery tend to be All-Stars more than those picked in the 20-30 range; players picked in the 20-30 tend to hang in the league more frequently than those picked in the 2nd round, etc. That's why it's a good predictive instrument. On the other hand, I don't think that the position of the players in mock drafts before their 1st college season or similar indications are so good. As we all know, there are exceptions.

"If they were as mediocre as many are making out, Ainge wouldn't have taken them over safer, more low-risk alternatives"

Well, in all fairness, Ainge indeed tried to sign some veterans, safer more low-risk alternatives. I believe this shows he's not very confortable with the present scenario. In fact, I believe that, at some point before the playoffs, some veterans will be added to the present roster.

But the main point in this issue is that no discussion is possible using an argumentum ad verecundiam, an argument by authority. It's a fallacy. One thing is saying "Ainge has a good track-record, so one can be positive about the value of these players". With that I agree. Other is saying "Ainge has a good track-record, so one must be positive about the value of this roster". I don't agree with that because we don't even know if Ainge is in fact that positive. For once, we all know he's not sure about O'Bryant being ready to contribute in the playoffs or that BBD can backup the 5.

I liked PJ Brown and regarded him as a valuable role player. He was a good addition to the squad and I thought he was rightfully the first big off the bench.

I also thought the C's would be fine with Davis and Powe in the playoffs prior to the PJ addition. So while it's a loss the C's have decent cover for him.

I would like to see a backup big with length acquired though. The C's will likely face longer opponents next season with Phily, Orlando, Cleveland looking dangerous in the East and with several Western teams with good bigs, especially the Lakers with Bynum returning. It doesn't necessarily need to be a replacement for PJ, a first big off the bench ... but I would like someone who can be the fourth of fifth big in the rotation to fill that need, someone who's capable. That hasn't been filled yet.

Very well written. I fully agree with this, except that I never thought that Powe and BBD would be enough to the playoffs (and I still don't).

Ok so even if you're proven wrong you won't admit it.  Great post.

Sorry, I don't understand your remark. Proven wrong on what?

I think he's hitting on that even after the playoffs, where powe in particular was huge in several series, you still don't think there good enough for the playoffs.

not sure you ment it that way, but it looks like a pretty big denail the way you wrote it.

Powe was huge in some games but horrid in some others. I've said this all along during the playoffs, there was no point keeping him on the floor in his off-nights. Nah, I don't think we'd have done it without PJ.

right, but powe was your 8th man. how many teams in the playoffs get any standout games out of that spot, never mind great games in 3 seprate series (hawks, pistons, lakers) out of thier 8th man?

little spoiled to expect even half of what powe and davis did out of aguably the 9th and 10th spots on the bench.

[cordobes]

Honestly, I'm confused. I was proven wrong on what?

[BballTim]

Honestly, I'm confused. I was proven wrong on what?

  I'd just let it go. Personally, defending myself against one person's interpretation of another person's criticism make my head hurt.

[cordobes]

Honestly, I'm confused. I was proven wrong on what?

  I'd just let it go. Personally, defending myself against one person's interpretation of another person's criticism make my head hurt.

Honestly, I'm not defending myself, I'm just curious.

[Birdbrain]

Of course you realize what I meant but, I would suggest that Powe played pretty well in last year's playoffs for someone off the bench.  You obviously don't so we'll just have agree to disagree.  And Baby will be fine as well although he wasn't really needed in last years Playoffs it's pretty clear he can play pretty well against good competition (see Pistons).  It doesn't take someone doing it for me to know they can.  But it's not the same for everyone.

[BballTim]

  I'll play "who's on first" too (no offense to Who...)

  I took "Very well written. I fully agree with this, except that I never thought that Powe and BBD would be enough to the playoffs (and I still don't)." to mean that even with Powe and BBD playing, we wouldn't have won without also having PJ on the team. Which was true last year.

[Birdbrain]

Yeah the savior of the C's PJ Brown.....

[cordobes]

Of course you realize what I meant but, I would suggest that Powe played pretty well in last year's playoffs for someone off the bench.  You obviously don't so we'll just have agree to disagree.  And Baby will be fine as well although he wasn't really needed in last years Playoffs it's pretty clear he can play pretty well against good competition (see Pistons).  It doesn't take someone doing it for me to know they can.  But it's not the same for everyone.

What I said was exactly what Ainge said a few days ago: that he wouldn't be confortable entering the playoffs with our current big men. I still can't understand when I was proven wrong: we won it last year with Powe and BBD as the first bigs from the bench, is that it? PJ was there and I think that fact was huge for us. If you're saying we'd have won it all even without PJ, that's your opinion; but it doesn't prove me wrong.

[gpap]

If there was another written thread similar to this, then I apologize for being redundant.

However, as a big C's fan hoping that we are embarking on a new dynasty ala the 60's, 70's and 80s, this summer's acquistions stink.

Granted, I am a MUCH bigger fan of acquiring the proven veteran than the young unknown that so many other fans rave about. 

However, having said that, let's call it the way it is.  Danny Ainge appears to be reverting back to playing it cheap and acquiring young, unproven talent that no one knows about and injury prone talent as well (Darius Miles.)

For some reason, Ainge never thought to realize that losing James Posey was a big loss and that he needs to be replaced. Alot has been moved about how Tony Allen can be that player, but let's be honest, T.Allen is not the player that James Posey is.

Then, what about replacing PJ Brown? There was a post written by either a moderator or fan about how the only reliable guy of the bench last year was Posey. Are you kidding? PJ's experience was HUGE in the postseason.

Plus, let's also be honest with Kendrick Perkins. People are huge fans of him, mainly well...because he's young. But, Perkins is NOT a legitimate, top-tier center. Perkins game is rather one-dimensonial. He's a decent rebounder and aggresive. But he isn't mobile.

You NEED a veteran center with experience to supplant Perkins. Also, if Darius Miles hasn't been healthy in two years, then were does Danny Ainge see the word he and so many fans love so much...potential?

[Chris]

Plus, let's also be honest with Kendrick Perkins. People are huge fans of him, mainly well...because he's young. But, Perkins is NOT a legitimate, top-tier center. Perkins game is rather one-dimensonial. He's a decent rebounder and aggresive. But he isn't mobile.

In My opinion, that isn't being honest...it is being wrong.  But you are entitled  to you opinion. 

Perkins made the leap last year to become one of the top defensive centers in the league...some might even argue that he became the best (especially if you are counting guys like Duncan as PFs).

Perkins is not the fastest player in the world, but he is incredibly mobile on the defensive end.  He was absolutely incredible last year at blitzing the perimeter, and then actually sticking with the switches on the perimeter.  To me, that is mobile enough.

He is a liability offensively though, and that can be an issue if you want him on the floor at the end of games (although he showed a good deal of improvement by the end of the year).  But when you look around the league, you will notice that there are very few (as in less than 4 or 5) centers who are above average both offensively and defensively.  So you simply are not going to do better than Perk there.

I do agree that they still have a glaring hole behind Perk, but considering what was available, I have no problem with them taking a chance with O'Bryant, and then trying to fill the hole later in the season, either through a trade or a FA signing (like PJ).