Danny has quite a bit of blame to fail us to repeat

[wdleehi]

I agree that Ainge gambled in the offseason with the MLE signings, trying to get Posey at a cheaper price and then trying to get Maggette, and that by taking these risks he lost out on the opportunity to sign Pietrus and other lower profile but also effective free agents.

So in that sense I agree that he took risks that he shouldn't have.

But many in this thread seem upset about the gambles that didnt pay off but wanted other risk gambles that paid off elsewhere.

The reason the Birdman signed for a minimum deal at a franchise that according to some sources was not even his top choice should tell everyone how much of a gamble most people familiar with his situation thought he was.

As I've said, my problem was to gamble by forming a roster full of question marks (the so-called "low risk, high reward" signings) and with evident flaws that could have been covered. The fact that the gamble didn't work leaves me absolutely indifferent; I don't like to assess moves with the benefit of hindsight (if KG had his knee injury last season and not this one, would that make trading for him a bad move? Of course not, it was the right one).

Yeah, see, I think Danny's logic last summer was relatively sound.  He felt that he was in a position to take a risk on a couple low risk, high reward guys, with the knowledge that even if none of them panned out (which happened), he still had a good chance to bring in reinforcements late in the season...and even if THAT didn't pan out, I think he genuinely believed that he had a team that could still win the championship. 

To me, that logic made much more sense than signing less risky players, who would have possibly helped a little more, but would not have made a big difference come playoff time.

Of course the real mistake Danny made was thinking that the combination of backup wings he brought in could handle things. Other than the injuries, the lack of a competent backup to spell Pierce and Allen all season long is what submarined this team's chances (although again, it was a moot point once KG went down).

I actually think Danny did a good job with the big men.  If they did not have so many injuries, a rotation of Perk, Garnett, Davis, Powe, and Scal is pretty [dang] good.  I know people wanted more length, but not many teams have more than 2 quality 7 footers (Perk plays like a 7 footer with his length), and not many teams have 3 players as good as Powe, Davis, and Scal coming off the bench in the front court.  Yeah, Davis and Powe were still getting better throughout the season, but by the time the postseason came around (which is all that really matters), they both were top notch backup big men, and Scal was as solid as ever.

Yeah, they got exposed a little once the injuries started happening, but team is not exposed when two of their top 3 big men (and for much of the season, 3 of their top 5) are out with injuries.  Anyone using that as a reason to complain about Ainge is just being greedy IMO.

I said this before the season.


The Celtics took alot of chances on low risk, big reward guys.  

The problem was as a collection off the bench, they became big risk, low reward.  There was a big risk that not enough of them would pan out, and if they did, they would have been a passable bench, nothing more.



I still believe it came down to two miscalculations.

1) Posey was not going to get the extra years.  If Ainge though that, he would have looked elsewhere

2) PJ Brown retiring.  

[wdleehi]

How do you grade out an F when the team hits 62 wins, loses out in the semi's to a tough Orlando team, and is without 2 major components that log major minutes ?

I don't get it.

When you allow a an important factor of you championship team get weaker.

The 62 wins and getting to Orlando, thats from the work he did before this offseason. 



He gets an F because we have seen what Ainge's ability as a GM has been, and this offseason was not up to what he can do.

[winsomme]

I agree that Ainge gambled in the offseason with the MLE signings, trying to get Posey at a cheaper price and then trying to get Maggette, and that by taking these risks he lost out on the opportunity to sign Pietrus and other lower profile but also effective free agents.

So in that sense I agree that he took risks that he shouldn't have.

But many in this thread seem upset about the gambles that didnt pay off but wanted other risk gambles that paid off elsewhere.

The reason the Birdman signed for a minimum deal at a franchise that according to some sources was not even his top choice should tell everyone how much of a gamble most people familiar with his situation thought he was.

As I've said, my problem was to gamble by forming a roster full of question marks (the so-called "low risk, high reward" signings) and with evident flaws that could have been covered. The fact that the gamble didn't work leaves me absolutely indifferent; I don't like to assess moves with the benefit of hindsight (if KG had his knee injury last season and not this one, would that make trading for him a bad move? Of course not, it was the right one).

Yeah, see, I think Danny's logic last summer was relatively sound.  He felt that he was in a position to take a risk on a couple low risk, high reward guys, with the knowledge that even if none of them panned out (which happened), he still had a good chance to bring in reinforcements late in the season...and even if THAT didn't pan out, I think he genuinely believed that he had a team that could still win the championship. 

To me, that logic made much more sense than signing less risky players, who would have possibly helped a little more, but would not have made a big difference come playoff time.

Of course the real mistake Danny made was thinking that the combination of backup wings he brought in could handle things. Other than the injuries, the lack of a competent backup to spell Pierce and Allen all season long is what submarined this team's chances (although again, it was a moot point once KG went down).

I actually think Danny did a good job with the big men.  If they did not have so many injuries, a rotation of Perk, Garnett, Davis, Powe, and Scal is pretty [dang] good.  I know people wanted more length, but not many teams have more than 2 quality 7 footers (Perk plays like a 7 footer with his length), and not many teams have 3 players as good as Powe, Davis, and Scal coming off the bench in the front court.  Yeah, Davis and Powe were still getting better throughout the season, but by the time the postseason came around (which is all that really matters), they both were top notch backup big men, and Scal was as solid as ever.

Yeah, they got exposed a little once the injuries started happening, but team is not exposed when two of their top 3 big men (and for much of the season, 3 of their top 5) are out with injuries.  Anyone using that as a reason to complain about Ainge is just being greedy IMO.

I see what you're saying. the safety net in the plan was that even without any major moves, this team was good enough to win another Title.

but again, lack of depth IMO puts a strain on that safety net because it just puts too much burden on GPA to play major minutes all season AND stay healthy and fresh for the playoffs.

[Chris]

How do you grade out an F when the team hits 62 wins, loses out in the semi's to a tough Orlando team, and is without 2 major components that log major minutes ?

I don't get it.

When you allow a an important factor of you championship team get weaker.

The 62 wins and getting to Orlando, thats from the work he did before this offseason. 



He gets an F because we have seen what Ainge's ability as a GM has been, and this offseason was not up to what he can do.

I think it depends on how you look at it.  I agree that he gets an F for the offseason...but I think he gets a B+ for the actual team he put on the floor. 

Personally, I don't agree with the idea of grading GM's for a single offseason, when they have been with a team for years, in the same way I don't believe in grading a coach for a game, or short string of games, when they coached for the whole season.  I think a coach should be graded on his work for the season as a hole, and a GM should be graded on the team he puts on the floor.

There are always exceptions, like when a coach takes over midseason, or when a GM is in his first couple years, and has not had enough time to rework his team the way he wants to...but neither of those are relevant here.

I understand others feel that judging on smaller sample sizes is the way to do it, and I don't begrudge them...but I think we should all be clear on what specifically we are judging them on, since there are very different debates to be had, if someone is really giving Danny an F for the team he ultimately put on the floor, or an A for this past offseason.

[wdleehi]

How do you grade out an F when the team hits 62 wins, loses out in the semi's to a tough Orlando team, and is without 2 major components that log major minutes ?

I don't get it.

When you allow a an important factor of you championship team get weaker.

The 62 wins and getting to Orlando, thats from the work he did before this offseason. 



He gets an F because we have seen what Ainge's ability as a GM has been, and this offseason was not up to what he can do.

I think it depends on how you look at it.  I agree that he gets an F for the offseason...but I think he gets a B+ for the actual team he put on the floor. 

Personally, I don't agree with the idea of grading GM's for a single offseason, when they have been with a team for years, in the same way I don't believe in grading a coach for a game, or short string of games, when they coached for the whole season.  I think a coach should be graded on his work for the season as a hole, and a GM should be graded on the team he puts on the floor.

There are always exceptions, like when a coach takes over midseason, or when a GM is in his first couple years, and has not had enough time to rework his team the way he wants to...but neither of those are relevant here.

I understand others feel that judging on smaller sample sizes is the way to do it, and I don't begrudge them...but I think we should all be clear on what specifically we are judging them on, since there are very different debates to be had, if someone is really giving Danny an F for the team he ultimately put on the floor, or an A for this past offseason.

I am just looking at this offseason for the grade.  Like I said, his previous work (for which we compare this offseason too, lead to a title last year and 62 wins this year) was top notch. 

[Chris]

By the way, one thing I do feel incredibly confident in, is the fact that Danny learned his lesson after last year.  I don't think he is going to be waiting for someone to fall in their laps during the season this year.  With the combination of the struggles the C's had, and more importantly, just how good the Cavs have gotten, I expect Danny to really make a splash this year, and fill holes quickly.

I think he will be like Bill Belichick the year after losing to the Colts with no viable recievers.  He will completely revitalize the team in the offseason, and prepare them to make a run at knocking down the Cavs one (or two) last times before the Lebron dynasty truly takes hold.

Of course, this all goes out the window if Wyc tightens the purse strings too much...but we will cross that bridge when we come to it.

[wdleehi]

By the way, one thing I do feel incredibly confident in, is the fact that Danny learned his lesson after last year.  I don't think he is going to be waiting for someone to fall in their laps during the season this year.  With the combination of the struggles the C's had, and more importantly, just how good the Cavs have gotten, I expect Danny to really make a splash this year, and fill holes quickly.

I think he will be like Bill Belichick the year after losing to the Colts with no viable recievers.  He will completely revitalize the team in the offseason, and prepare them to make a run at knocking down the Cavs one (or two) last times before the Lebron dynasty truly takes hold.

Of course, this all goes out the window if Wyc tightens the purse strings too much...but we will cross that bridge when we come to it.

Which means he could do some heavy trade shopping with a player like Ray Allen.

[winsomme]

By the way, one thing I do feel incredibly confident in, is the fact that Danny learned his lesson after last year.  I don't think he is going to be waiting for someone to fall in their laps during the season this year.  With the combination of the struggles the C's had, and more importantly, just how good the Cavs have gotten, I expect Danny to really make a splash this year, and fill holes quickly.

I think he will be like Bill Belichick the year after losing to the Colts with no viable recievers.  He will completely revitalize the team in the offseason, and prepare them to make a run at knocking down the Cavs one (or two) last times before the Lebron dynasty truly takes hold.

Of course, this all goes out the window if Wyc tightens the purse strings too much...but we will cross that bridge when we come to it.

Thank You, Chris. TP!!

I made this exact argument somewhere back during the beginnings of this whole "DAs offseason" debate about the effects of leaving key roster holes even on great teams...

the fact was that as good as the Pats were and as much as they were still SB contenders in the 07 season, it was a mistake to not give Brady better receivers...a mistake quickly corrected the following season.

I agree that Danny will be more aggressive and thankfully there really are some interesting prospects to fill our holes....

[winsomme]

Of course, this all goes out the window if Wyc tightens the purse strings too much...but we will cross that bridge when we come to it.

after watching that mid-season Wyc interview, I think Wyc also sees the effects of not filling out the bench better.

spending more on bench players isn't only a "money going out" situation. when you strengthen your bench, you also increase your chances of winning another Title....and that has the obvious money making elements to it.

[jdpapa3]

OK, outside of the Birdman and Barnes, who could he have gotten that would've greatly helped this team?

[Chris]

By the way, one thing I do feel incredibly confident in, is the fact that Danny learned his lesson after last year.  I don't think he is going to be waiting for someone to fall in their laps during the season this year.  With the combination of the struggles the C's had, and more importantly, just how good the Cavs have gotten, I expect Danny to really make a splash this year, and fill holes quickly.

I think he will be like Bill Belichick the year after losing to the Colts with no viable recievers.  He will completely revitalize the team in the offseason, and prepare them to make a run at knocking down the Cavs one (or two) last times before the Lebron dynasty truly takes hold.

Of course, this all goes out the window if Wyc tightens the purse strings too much...but we will cross that bridge when we come to it.

Which means he could do some heavy trade shopping with a player like Ray Allen.

That will be interesting.  I think he will be listening to all offers, but I really doubt someone will blow him away enough to pull the trigger on that. 

Essentially, for him to trade Ray Allen, it would likely have to be for a player (or players) who are actually more productive, and do not have contracts that are worth more than the players are.  I do not see him taking on a guy who is actually overpaid, just to get someone with a longer contract.

I think they are completely fine with having Allen play out the year, and using the MLE, LLE, vet minimum, and their other expiring contracts (Tony, Scal, Eddie), and possibly other assets...some worth more than others (resigned Davis, Walker, Giddens, Draft picks...since they will be able to trade their 2010 pick after draft day) to infuse the team with new talent. 

No one knows exactly how the market will play out, but it will potentially be a real buyers market, both with FA's and trades.  So a team like the C's, who can put together enough expiring contracts to take on about 10.8 million salary (if I did the math right), without giving up Ray, could be major players.

[winsomme]

By the way, one thing I do feel incredibly confident in, is the fact that Danny learned his lesson after last year.  I don't think he is going to be waiting for someone to fall in their laps during the season this year.  With the combination of the struggles the C's had, and more importantly, just how good the Cavs have gotten, I expect Danny to really make a splash this year, and fill holes quickly.

I think he will be like Bill Belichick the year after losing to the Colts with no viable recievers.  He will completely revitalize the team in the offseason, and prepare them to make a run at knocking down the Cavs one (or two) last times before the Lebron dynasty truly takes hold.

Of course, this all goes out the window if Wyc tightens the purse strings too much...but we will cross that bridge when we come to it.

Which means he could do some heavy trade shopping with a player like Ray Allen.

That will be interesting.  I think he will be listening to all offers, but I really doubt someone will blow him away enough to pull the trigger on that. 

Essentially, for him to trade Ray Allen, it would likely have to be for a player (or players) who are actually more productive, and do not have contracts that are worth more than the players are.  I do not see him taking on a guy who is actually overpaid, just to get someone with a longer contract.

I think they are completely fine with having Allen play out the year, and using the MLE, LLE, vet minimum, and their other expiring contracts (Tony, Scal, Eddie), and possibly other assets...some worth more than others (resigned Davis, Walker, Giddens, Draft picks...since they will be able to trade their 2010 pick after draft day) to infuse the team with new talent. 

No one knows exactly how the market will play out, but it will potentially be a real buyers market, both with FA's and trades.  So a team like the C's, who can put together enough expiring contracts to take on about 10.8 million salary (if I did the math right), without giving up Ray, could be major players.

one thing that makes me a little nervous were those comments Danny made about the franchise waiting too long with the original Big 3 in the 80s.

I hope he is not feeling a replay of that happening with GPA. I think these guys need another serious run at a Title together.

[Chris]

By the way, one thing I do feel incredibly confident in, is the fact that Danny learned his lesson after last year.  I don't think he is going to be waiting for someone to fall in their laps during the season this year.  With the combination of the struggles the C's had, and more importantly, just how good the Cavs have gotten, I expect Danny to really make a splash this year, and fill holes quickly.

I think he will be like Bill Belichick the year after losing to the Colts with no viable recievers.  He will completely revitalize the team in the offseason, and prepare them to make a run at knocking down the Cavs one (or two) last times before the Lebron dynasty truly takes hold.

Of course, this all goes out the window if Wyc tightens the purse strings too much...but we will cross that bridge when we come to it.

Which means he could do some heavy trade shopping with a player like Ray Allen.

That will be interesting.  I think he will be listening to all offers, but I really doubt someone will blow him away enough to pull the trigger on that. 

Essentially, for him to trade Ray Allen, it would likely have to be for a player (or players) who are actually more productive, and do not have contracts that are worth more than the players are.  I do not see him taking on a guy who is actually overpaid, just to get someone with a longer contract.

I think they are completely fine with having Allen play out the year, and using the MLE, LLE, vet minimum, and their other expiring contracts (Tony, Scal, Eddie), and possibly other assets...some worth more than others (resigned Davis, Walker, Giddens, Draft picks...since they will be able to trade their 2010 pick after draft day) to infuse the team with new talent. 

No one knows exactly how the market will play out, but it will potentially be a real buyers market, both with FA's and trades.  So a team like the C's, who can put together enough expiring contracts to take on about 10.8 million salary (if I did the math right), without giving up Ray, could be major players.

one thing that makes me a little nervous were those comments Danny made about the franchise waiting too long with the original Big 3 in the 80s.

I hope he is not feeling a replay of that happening with GPA. I think these guys need another serious run at a Title together.

I think this is always in the back of his mind, but I also think Danny has proven to be a very patient GM lately, and he will not pull the trigger unless it is a move that makes the team better in the present AND future.

[Kuberski33]

after watching that mid-season Wyc interview, I think Wyc also sees the effects of not filling out the bench better.

I think a valid criticism would be the way they misjudged on Tony Allen.  They needed him to step up and take his game to the next level.  Instead he failed miserably.  

[waltzero]

I think it was ownership all along that decided to go with the bargain version of a title defense. Penny wise, pound foolish...it's pretty silly to pay Kev so much but not pay a few more guys to get all the way. Yeah our core is/was the best but with the bargain bench they were worn out by playoff time.

Yes, even with Kevin playing some or a lot, I think we would have been too thin this year based on health.

Every single one of our starters should have been on the injured list going into the Orlando series. Pagliuca mentions it in today's Boston Herald article that they were all injured. Rondo: ankle sprains, Ray: ham issue, Paul: bone spurs, Perk: needs shoulder surgery again.

That wasn't just from Kevin not playing. We need bench players we are going to put on the court or we don't need them. Without them, we can forget about winning 18 with Garnett. We need them on the court in the regular season to limit wear and tear, and then we need them to play 15-25 a night, and to not give up on them and put our starters back in just to squeeze out a regular season win. Long minutes are for the playoffs only and even that isn't a great idea with this core.

We just can not win a title without backups when our core is over 30 and we ask our guys to play so hard on defense every game.