Author Topic: At times, hard to stay positive over the off season moves  (Read 95713 times)

0 Members and 0 Guests are viewing this topic.

Re: At times, hard to stay positive over the off season moves
« Reply #105 on: August 25, 2008, 03:02:06 AM »

Offline BballTim

  • Dave Cowens
  • ***********************
  • Posts: 23724
  • Tommy Points: 1123
No player is a sure thing on a new team no matter how much success and experience they have! Rememeber Karl Malone and Gary Payton.

This post is still wack!

Everyone starts from scratch next year!


Posey was a sure thing.  You had a good idea what he would provide night to night.  PJ was a sure thing in the playoffs.


On the Celtics bench, only House fits that description right now.  Sure, there are bad games, but they are not the tragedies other bench players can and did have.



Powe is close to being a sure thing. 

  Posey's defense was a sure thing in the playoffs. His offense was very up and down. PJ wasn't that great offensively or defensively.

Re: At times, hard to stay positive over the off season moves
« Reply #106 on: August 25, 2008, 03:12:22 AM »

Offline BballTim

  • Dave Cowens
  • ***********************
  • Posts: 23724
  • Tommy Points: 1123
Great piece I agree.

However most "critics" on here have declared that Tony Allen should be included on the list of "Unproven Players". Their on the TA haterade.

The only thing I disagree with is backup center. BBD is only 6'7(he's listed much higher) and Powe is 6'8.

Other than that I happier with this season's offeseason roster compared to last years. Well obviously because no one really knew what James Posey was all about at the time.


TA is inconsistent.  And the many times he was bad last year, it was really bad.  He hurt the team out there when he was off. 


  According to the numbers from 82games he hurt the team less than most of our subs when he played.

Re: At times, hard to stay positive over the off season moves
« Reply #107 on: August 25, 2008, 03:33:30 AM »

Offline Who

  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 52807
  • Tommy Points: 2568
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.

It'll be interesting to see how Powe and Davis progress/develop, that could be a big swing factor.

Re: At times, hard to stay positive over the off season moves
« Reply #108 on: August 25, 2008, 07:36:41 AM »

Offline CoachBo

  • NCE
  • Paul Silas
  • ******
  • Posts: 6069
  • Tommy Points: 336
Great piece I agree.

However most "critics" on here have declared that Tony Allen should be included on the list of "Unproven Players". Their on the TA haterade.

The only thing I disagree with is backup center. BBD is only 6'7(he's listed much higher) and Powe is 6'8.

Other than that I happier with this season's offeseason roster compared to last years. Well obviously because no one really knew what James Posey was all about at the time.


TA is inconsistent.  And the many times he was bad last year, it was really bad.  He hurt the team out there when he was off. 


  According to the numbers from 82games he hurt the team less than most of our subs when he played.

Those stat sites don't - and can't - measure intangible elements critical to a player's value. Tony has played "basketball stupid" in the past.

You want to be careful considering those sites as the definitive measure of a player's worth. I guarantee you that coaches don't.
Coined the CelticsBlog term, "Euromistake."

Re: At times, hard to stay positive over the off season moves
« Reply #109 on: August 25, 2008, 10:11:42 AM »

Offline BballTim

  • Dave Cowens
  • ***********************
  • Posts: 23724
  • Tommy Points: 1123
Great piece I agree.

However most "critics" on here have declared that Tony Allen should be included on the list of "Unproven Players". Their on the TA haterade.

The only thing I disagree with is backup center. BBD is only 6'7(he's listed much higher) and Powe is 6'8.

Other than that I happier with this season's offeseason roster compared to last years. Well obviously because no one really knew what James Posey was all about at the time.


TA is inconsistent.  And the many times he was bad last year, it was really bad.  He hurt the team out there when he was off. 


  According to the numbers from 82games he hurt the team less than most of our subs when he played.

Those stat sites don't - and can't - measure intangible elements critical to a player's value. Tony has played "basketball stupid" in the past.

You want to be careful considering those sites as the definitive measure of a player's worth. I guarantee you that coaches don't.

  I never said that those sites are the definitive measure of a player's worth. But while coaches don't use these numbers as the sole measure of a player's worth, they don't completely discount them as you seem to. If the numbers that Tony puts up don't reflect his contribution there's usually at least some kind of explanation, such as he gets a lot of minutes in blowouts or he subs in for a weak starter so his relative plus-minus is overly high or his sample size is small or the like. But it's possible that he doesn't "hurt the team" as much as some think, or that his "basketball stupid" play that you notice doesn't overshadow other contributions (such as strong defense) that he makes.

Re: At times, hard to stay positive over the off season moves
« Reply #110 on: August 25, 2008, 03:40:57 PM »

Offline BillfromBoston

  • Author
  • Al Horford
  • Posts: 498
  • Tommy Points: 79
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...

Re: At times, hard to stay positive over the off season moves
« Reply #111 on: August 25, 2008, 04:28:16 PM »

Offline nickagneta

  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 48121
  • Tommy Points: 8800
  • President of Jaylen Brown Fan Club
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.


Re: At times, hard to stay positive over the off season moves
« Reply #112 on: August 25, 2008, 04:36:37 PM »

Offline BballTim

  • Dave Cowens
  • ***********************
  • Posts: 23724
  • Tommy Points: 1123
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.

  You seem to be saying that you can't claim that a person has talent because of where they are drafted or were expected to be drafted, but you can claim that they don't have talent based on where they are drafted. You're just trying to put the new players in as bad a light as possible. Was Walker a second round pick because people were worried that he might have future knee problems, because people were worried he might not be healthy this season, because some teams that were interested in him didn't get a chance to work him out, or because everyone decided that he has no more talent than a mid-40s draft pick? And how much time did he miss this summer due to his "major knee surgery"? A few weeks?

Re: At times, hard to stay positive over the off season moves
« Reply #113 on: August 25, 2008, 05:59:19 PM »

Offline nickagneta

  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 48121
  • Tommy Points: 8800
  • President of Jaylen Brown Fan Club
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.

  You seem to be saying that you can't claim that a person has talent because of where they are drafted or were expected to be drafted, but you can claim that they don't have talent based on where they are drafted. You're just trying to put the new players in as bad a light as possible. Was Walker a second round pick because people were worried that he might have future knee problems, because people were worried he might not be healthy this season, because some teams that were interested in him didn't get a chance to work him out, or because everyone decided that he has no more talent than a mid-40s draft pick? And how much time did he miss this summer due to his "major knee surgery"? A few weeks?
What I am saying is that just because a player was once predicted by someone to be drafted in the top....whatever, 10, 15 or 20 players....one year doesn't mean that they are extremely talented.

1.) The evaluation of just how talented they were could have been wrong and they didn't belong being thought of so highly.

2.) The could have been thought to be drafted so high because of the need of a specific team. Just because a team needed a player where his skills pigeonholed him into being desirable to that team makes him talent wise at the level that he was picked at. If the third team in the draft is deperate for a big man and takes a center, that doesn't make that guy the third most talented player in that draft. He might very well be the 20th best player in the draft that just so happened to be the best center in the draft. He very well could have been the 50th best player, talent wise, in that draft.

3.) Just because that player that was drafted third that year was drafted third doesn't make in a better talent or as good of a talent as that of a player chosen anywhere else in another draft. Some drafts are strong and deep, other woefully lacking quality NBA players.

So what I am trying to say is that claiming that the four players in question were once well thought of in a mock draft years ago means nothing when trying to relate just how talented they are. What is important is what is known of them now and how they measure up now to other players that would be available to the team.

Others argue that it is the extraneous circumstances that make them more or less valuable and that their talent is beyond question. I say that is rubbish. Injuries will make a very talented player less talented if they are able physically to do the things they once did. Mental makeup is also a part of talent. Saying that aplayer has all the talent in the world but not the brain or mental makeup to transition that talent into production needs to be included in the evaluation of his talent. I just can't see how it could not be.

That is what I am saying. I hope that clears that up.

Re: At times, hard to stay positive over the off season moves
« Reply #114 on: August 26, 2008, 09:08:55 AM »

Offline BballTim

  • Dave Cowens
  • ***********************
  • Posts: 23724
  • Tommy Points: 1123
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.

  You seem to be saying that you can't claim that a person has talent because of where they are drafted or were expected to be drafted, but you can claim that they don't have talent based on where they are drafted. You're just trying to put the new players in as bad a light as possible. Was Walker a second round pick because people were worried that he might have future knee problems, because people were worried he might not be healthy this season, because some teams that were interested in him didn't get a chance to work him out, or because everyone decided that he has no more talent than a mid-40s draft pick? And how much time did he miss this summer due to his "major knee surgery"? A few weeks?
What I am saying is that just because a player was once predicted by someone to be drafted in the top....whatever, 10, 15 or 20 players....one year doesn't mean that they are extremely talented.

1.) The evaluation of just how talented they were could have been wrong and they didn't belong being thought of so highly.

2.) The could have been thought to be drafted so high because of the need of a specific team. Just because a team needed a player where his skills pigeonholed him into being desirable to that team makes him talent wise at the level that he was picked at. If the third team in the draft is deperate for a big man and takes a center, that doesn't make that guy the third most talented player in that draft. He might very well be the 20th best player in the draft that just so happened to be the best center in the draft. He very well could have been the 50th best player, talent wise, in that draft.

3.) Just because that player that was drafted third that year was drafted third doesn't make in a better talent or as good of a talent as that of a player chosen anywhere else in another draft. Some drafts are strong and deep, other woefully lacking quality NBA players.

So what I am trying to say is that claiming that the four players in question were once well thought of in a mock draft years ago means nothing when trying to relate just how talented they are. What is important is what is known of them now and how they measure up now to other players that would be available to the team.

Others argue that it is the extraneous circumstances that make them more or less valuable and that their talent is beyond question. I say that is rubbish. Injuries will make a very talented player less talented if they are able physically to do the things they once did. Mental makeup is also a part of talent. Saying that aplayer has all the talent in the world but not the brain or mental makeup to transition that talent into production needs to be included in the evaluation of his talent. I just can't see how it could not be.

That is what I am saying. I hope that clears that up.

  What you're saying is clear. But you're still doing what you're accusing others. Here's one of your quotes:

  "So what I am trying to say is that claiming that the four players in question were once well thought of in a mock draft years ago means nothing when trying to relate just how talented they are. What is important is what is known of them now and how they measure up now to other players that would be available to the team."

  And I agree with this. We don't know how talented they are, how they'll fit into the team, or how they'll match up to other players that were available to the team. These are things that, as you state, can't determine from either their actual (POB) or projected (Walker) draft positions. We do seem to know, however, that we've taken a significant step back that will, according to some, lessen our chances of repeating or,according to a few, practically eliminate our chances. But you also say:

  "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."

  What's your evidence of this? What parts of Giddens or Walker's game are a lot worse than they were in the past? Do you have any evidence of severe decline in their stats? Have you personally observed this decline? Or are you just basing your opinion of their current talent level on where they were drafted?

Re: At times, hard to stay positive over the off season moves
« Reply #115 on: August 26, 2008, 10:34:23 AM »

Offline BillfromBoston

  • Author
  • Al Horford
  • Posts: 498
  • Tommy Points: 79
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.

Re: At times, hard to stay positive over the off season moves
« Reply #116 on: August 26, 2008, 11:20:47 AM »

Offline cordobes

  • NCE
  • Ray Allen
  • ***
  • Posts: 3556
  • Tommy Points: 576
  • Basketball is like chess, only without the dice
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.

Quote
"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).

Re: At times, hard to stay positive over the off season moves
« Reply #117 on: August 26, 2008, 11:25:06 AM »

Offline cordobes

  • NCE
  • Ray Allen
  • ***
  • Posts: 3556
  • Tommy Points: 576
  • Basketball is like chess, only without the dice
"...not even bringing back Posey at any cost - would have guaranteed a title."

                                                         Fan from VT

No truer statement could be made.

Agree. But not even signing Tim Duncan would have guaranteed a title. NBA titles can't be guaranteed. The logic behind that statement is true but useless: not even having Pierce will guarantee a title, so why not trading him for expirings and some youth?

What can be done is to maximize the chances of winning the title in any given year.

If we had brought back Posey for the next season, we would be maximizing our chances of winning the title next season. I don't think Ainge disagrees with this, btw.

Re: At times, hard to stay positive over the off season moves
« Reply #118 on: August 26, 2008, 11:52:57 AM »

Offline BballTim

  • Dave Cowens
  • ***********************
  • Posts: 23724
  • Tommy Points: 1123
"...not even bringing back Posey at any cost - would have guaranteed a title."

                                                         Fan from VT

No truer statement could be made.

Agree. But not even signing Tim Duncan would have guaranteed a title. NBA titles can't be guaranteed. The logic behind that statement is true but useless: not even having Pierce will guarantee a title, so why not trading him for expirings and some youth?

What can be done is to maximize the chances of winning the title in any given year.

If we had brought back Posey for the next season, we would be maximizing our chances of winning the title next season. I don't think Ainge disagrees with this, btw.

  "We wouldn't be maximizing our chances for repeating,we'd be increasing them, but the increase wouldn't be enough to justify overpaying Posey" is probably closer to Ainge's thoughts.

Re: At times, hard to stay positive over the off season moves
« Reply #119 on: August 26, 2008, 12:23:42 PM »

Offline Birdbrain

  • Jim Loscutoff
  • **
  • Posts: 2939
  • Tommy Points: 235
  • 36 charges and counting..
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.

Quote
"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.
Little Fockers 1.5/10
Gulliver's Travels 1/10
Grown Ups -20/10
Tron Legacy 6.5/10