Doc Rivers and more on building a winner

[BballTim]

I don't think when the season started that anyone in the organization pictured Perk being able to play and be as effective as he was for 10-12 minutes more per game. He had been a foul machine and basically did nothing all summer due to his shoulder injury. So while it worked out that Perk and Baby and Rondo took steps forward in their games, the degree to which they move forward had to have been completely unexpected and hence not planned on before the season.

  Hard to say what they expected. Getting more minutes from Perk and Rondo in the playoffs was a large part of my "why we can be just as good as we were last year even though the bench is worse" argument last summer (along with improved chemistry and championship experience). I would think that if it occurred to me it wouldn't come as a surprise to them. I will admit that I probably only expected an extra 6-8 from Perk and not necessarily 10-12.

don't you think that Perk's continued shoulder problems makes it even more imperative to have a backup big that can rebound and protect the basket?

and made it an unnecessary risk to go into this past season planning on him and KG to take up that the slack for that deficiency in the bench?

  Sure, we can use a good backup big but you have to realize whoever we get will be crap compared to Perk.

i don't agree...i think Za, Sheed, Dice wouldn't be crap.

  Fine. Stick any of them on Dwight Howard for 36 minutes and see where we end up. Especially Zaza, that defensive superstar.

36 mins on DH? that's your measuring stick?

When we're going to probably play them in the playoffs, sure.

But even if their low post defense isn't as good as Perk, who cares. You need depth.

36 MPG? where is that coming from?

let's keep the goal posts still shall we....first it's "anybody that we could add to our bench as a big is crap compared to Perk" and now it's "well they couldn't guard Dwight  Howard for 36 mins"....

  What goal posts? You said "Perk's continued shoulder problems makes it even more imperative to have a backup big". That doesn't mean we might need someone to play for Perk if he's out with an injury?

umm, no. it means you need to lessen the load he carries. something i have repeatedly pointed out.

your point about our lack of a long backup big is in part play Perk more minutes. my counterpoint was it's unwise given Perk shoulder problems to be adding to his responsibilities.

  It COULD mean that. Again, be more specific before you go with "moving the goalposts".

[winsomme]

what exactly is the argument against bringing in a legit backup center?

Sure KG can play more there and Perk can play more minutes in general, but why do you want to be forced into these situations because you have no other option on the bench when both these guys have reasons to not be adding to their responsibilities?

  Who's arguing against bringing in a legit backup center?

well, i suppose the people who don't see it as a clear need (last year or this) and thought Mikki Moore fit the bill.

  Ok, if you can't differentiate between "not having a legit backup center isn't necessarily an insurmountable obstacle" and "we shouldn't try and bring in a legit backup center" then I see what you mean. And I must have missed all the posts from people who felt that Moore played well enough to fit that bill.

well i was talking about at the time of the signing...and yes there were plenty of people who thought Mikki was just what we needed.

but i also believe you said you would be fine bringing back this same big man rotation for next sesaon in one of these threads...

  Sure. Some people probably thought Mikki was what we needed before he spent any time on the roster without much knowledge of how he'd play. I guess you're impressed with yourself for being part of the "we want Joe Smith and not Mikki Moore" crowd, even though Smith wanted to go to Cleveland and not Boston. Congratulations on that call.

  And what I probably said was that I wouldn't want to go through the season with a KG/Perk/Powe/Davis but if we went into the playoffs with that group we could still win it all. Do you disagree with this? Do you think that other people who think we could have won this year if we were healthy like Nick or Roy (or maybe even yourself) are arguing against bringing in a legit backup center? Come on.

similarly, we could win with holes in the bench, that doesn't make it okay or sensible to leave those holes unfilled - especially when the spots were fillable.

  Aside from the fact that I don't think these spots were as easily fillable as some people do, this seems eerily like my position, which you've been attacking repeatedly. You think we could win the title with holes on the bench, but you think that we should still try and fill those holes. I think we could still win the title with holes on our bench but that makes me an Ainge apologist who thinks there's no reason at all to try and add to our bench. Go figure.

structurally similar, but the as always, the difference is in the details.

first, yes, the holes were fillable.

second, at the end of the day, it's about likelihood. sure it was possible to win a Title, but the chances of winning would be much greater with those fillable holes filled.

as for how the season actually played out, if the holes had been filled, we'd still be playing (something I believe you conceded) and we'd still have a shot at KG coming back.

as for next season, with a now even smaller window with GPA, the need to fill those holes to increase the likelihood of a Title run is even greater.

[guava_wrench]

Posey is irrelevant. Of course we will miss everyone we gave up if KG gets injured!

We don't need to spend to make a team that is 20 games better than any other team. The best case scenario is spending the minimum needed to get a championship. When your most important player on defense goes down, you are screwed. That's just the way it is. Posey would no have brought us another banner without KG, so I'm glad we saved the money.

[winsomme]

I don't think when the season started that anyone in the organization pictured Perk being able to play and be as effective as he was for 10-12 minutes more per game. He had been a foul machine and basically did nothing all summer due to his shoulder injury. So while it worked out that Perk and Baby and Rondo took steps forward in their games, the degree to which they move forward had to have been completely unexpected and hence not planned on before the season.

  Hard to say what they expected. Getting more minutes from Perk and Rondo in the playoffs was a large part of my "why we can be just as good as we were last year even though the bench is worse" argument last summer (along with improved chemistry and championship experience). I would think that if it occurred to me it wouldn't come as a surprise to them. I will admit that I probably only expected an extra 6-8 from Perk and not necessarily 10-12.

don't you think that Perk's continued shoulder problems makes it even more imperative to have a backup big that can rebound and protect the basket?

and made it an unnecessary risk to go into this past season planning on him and KG to take up that the slack for that deficiency in the bench?

  Sure, we can use a good backup big but you have to realize whoever we get will be crap compared to Perk.

i don't agree...i think Za, Sheed, Dice wouldn't be crap.

  Fine. Stick any of them on Dwight Howard for 36 minutes and see where we end up. Especially Zaza, that defensive superstar.

36 mins on DH? that's your measuring stick?

When we're going to probably play them in the playoffs, sure.

But even if their low post defense isn't as good as Perk, who cares. You need depth.

36 MPG? where is that coming from?

let's keep the goal posts still shall we....first it's "anybody that we could add to our bench as a big is crap compared to Perk" and now it's "well they couldn't guard Dwight  Howard for 36 mins"....

  What goal posts? You said "Perk's continued shoulder problems makes it even more imperative to have a backup big". That doesn't mean we might need someone to play for Perk if he's out with an injury?

umm, no. it means you need to lessen the load he carries. something i have repeatedly pointed out.

your point about our lack of a long backup big is in part play Perk more minutes. my counterpoint was it's unwise given Perk shoulder problems to be adding to his responsibilities.

  It COULD mean that. Again, be more specific before you go with "moving the goalposts".

I have made this point REPEATEDLY on this topic including TWICE in this thread. I think I have been very specific about not filling holes by increasing responsibilities for Perk (or KG for that matter) due to health concerns.

[BballTim]

what exactly is the argument against bringing in a legit backup center?

Sure KG can play more there and Perk can play more minutes in general, but why do you want to be forced into these situations because you have no other option on the bench when both these guys have reasons to not be adding to their responsibilities?

  Who's arguing against bringing in a legit backup center?

well, i suppose the people who don't see it as a clear need (last year or this) and thought Mikki Moore fit the bill.

  Ok, if you can't differentiate between "not having a legit backup center isn't necessarily an insurmountable obstacle" and "we shouldn't try and bring in a legit backup center" then I see what you mean. And I must have missed all the posts from people who felt that Moore played well enough to fit that bill.

well i was talking about at the time of the signing...and yes there were plenty of people who thought Mikki was just what we needed.

but i also believe you said you would be fine bringing back this same big man rotation for next sesaon in one of these threads...

  Sure. Some people probably thought Mikki was what we needed before he spent any time on the roster without much knowledge of how he'd play. I guess you're impressed with yourself for being part of the "we want Joe Smith and not Mikki Moore" crowd, even though Smith wanted to go to Cleveland and not Boston. Congratulations on that call.

  And what I probably said was that I wouldn't want to go through the season with a KG/Perk/Powe/Davis but if we went into the playoffs with that group we could still win it all. Do you disagree with this? Do you think that other people who think we could have won this year if we were healthy like Nick or Roy (or maybe even yourself) are arguing against bringing in a legit backup center? Come on.

similarly, we could win with holes in the bench, that doesn't make it okay or sensible to leave those holes unfilled - especially when the spots were fillable.

  Aside from the fact that I don't think these spots were as easily fillable as some people do, this seems eerily like my position, which you've been attacking repeatedly. You think we could win the title with holes on the bench, but you think that we should still try and fill those holes. I think we could still win the title with holes on our bench but that makes me an Ainge apologist who thinks there's no reason at all to try and add to our bench. Go figure.

structurally similar, but the as always, the difference is in the details.

first, yes, the holes were fillable.

second, at the end of the day, it's about likelihood. sure it was possible to win a Title, but the chances of winning would be much greater with those fillable holes filled.

as for how the season actually played out, if the holes had been filled, we'd still be playing (something I believe you conceded) and we'd still have a shot at KG coming back.

  The chances of KG coming back and making a big contribution are, by all accounts, practically nil. If you can find quotes or any evidence that contradicts this, fine. Otherwise, your argument reduces to "we'd have gone farther in the playoffs with a better bench" which is close to the opposite of your "winning titles is all that matters" mantra.

[RAcker]

Can we just turn this into a "Mikki Moore was a useless waste of flesh" thread? The only hole this guy filled was in the PF column.   

[winsomme]

what exactly is the argument against bringing in a legit backup center?

Sure KG can play more there and Perk can play more minutes in general, but why do you want to be forced into these situations because you have no other option on the bench when both these guys have reasons to not be adding to their responsibilities?

  Who's arguing against bringing in a legit backup center?

well, i suppose the people who don't see it as a clear need (last year or this) and thought Mikki Moore fit the bill.

  Ok, if you can't differentiate between "not having a legit backup center isn't necessarily an insurmountable obstacle" and "we shouldn't try and bring in a legit backup center" then I see what you mean. And I must have missed all the posts from people who felt that Moore played well enough to fit that bill.

well i was talking about at the time of the signing...and yes there were plenty of people who thought Mikki was just what we needed.

but i also believe you said you would be fine bringing back this same big man rotation for next sesaon in one of these threads...

  Sure. Some people probably thought Mikki was what we needed before he spent any time on the roster without much knowledge of how he'd play. I guess you're impressed with yourself for being part of the "we want Joe Smith and not Mikki Moore" crowd, even though Smith wanted to go to Cleveland and not Boston. Congratulations on that call.

  And what I probably said was that I wouldn't want to go through the season with a KG/Perk/Powe/Davis but if we went into the playoffs with that group we could still win it all. Do you disagree with this? Do you think that other people who think we could have won this year if we were healthy like Nick or Roy (or maybe even yourself) are arguing against bringing in a legit backup center? Come on.

similarly, we could win with holes in the bench, that doesn't make it okay or sensible to leave those holes unfilled - especially when the spots were fillable.

  Aside from the fact that I don't think these spots were as easily fillable as some people do, this seems eerily like my position, which you've been attacking repeatedly. You think we could win the title with holes on the bench, but you think that we should still try and fill those holes. I think we could still win the title with holes on our bench but that makes me an Ainge apologist who thinks there's no reason at all to try and add to our bench. Go figure.

structurally similar, but the as always, the difference is in the details.

first, yes, the holes were fillable.

second, at the end of the day, it's about likelihood. sure it was possible to win a Title, but the chances of winning would be much greater with those fillable holes filled.

as for how the season actually played out, if the holes had been filled, we'd still be playing (something I believe you conceded) and we'd still have a shot at KG coming back.

  The chances of KG coming back and making a big contribution are, by all accounts, practically nil. If you can find quotes or any evidence that contradicts this, fine. Otherwise, your argument reduces to "we'd have gone farther in the playoffs with a better bench" which is close to the opposite of your "winning titles is all that matters" mantra.

well, the reports continue to be "no structural damage" and "return at KGs discretion."

the factual elements of the story were that surgery was postponed till after the playoffs...

why do you postpone surgery if there is no chance of a return?

[BballTim]

what exactly is the argument against bringing in a legit backup center?

Sure KG can play more there and Perk can play more minutes in general, but why do you want to be forced into these situations because you have no other option on the bench when both these guys have reasons to not be adding to their responsibilities?

  Who's arguing against bringing in a legit backup center?

well, i suppose the people who don't see it as a clear need (last year or this) and thought Mikki Moore fit the bill.

  Ok, if you can't differentiate between "not having a legit backup center isn't necessarily an insurmountable obstacle" and "we shouldn't try and bring in a legit backup center" then I see what you mean. And I must have missed all the posts from people who felt that Moore played well enough to fit that bill.

well i was talking about at the time of the signing...and yes there were plenty of people who thought Mikki was just what we needed.

but i also believe you said you would be fine bringing back this same big man rotation for next sesaon in one of these threads...

  Sure. Some people probably thought Mikki was what we needed before he spent any time on the roster without much knowledge of how he'd play. I guess you're impressed with yourself for being part of the "we want Joe Smith and not Mikki Moore" crowd, even though Smith wanted to go to Cleveland and not Boston. Congratulations on that call.

  And what I probably said was that I wouldn't want to go through the season with a KG/Perk/Powe/Davis but if we went into the playoffs with that group we could still win it all. Do you disagree with this? Do you think that other people who think we could have won this year if we were healthy like Nick or Roy (or maybe even yourself) are arguing against bringing in a legit backup center? Come on.

similarly, we could win with holes in the bench, that doesn't make it okay or sensible to leave those holes unfilled - especially when the spots were fillable.

  Aside from the fact that I don't think these spots were as easily fillable as some people do, this seems eerily like my position, which you've been attacking repeatedly. You think we could win the title with holes on the bench, but you think that we should still try and fill those holes. I think we could still win the title with holes on our bench but that makes me an Ainge apologist who thinks there's no reason at all to try and add to our bench. Go figure.

structurally similar, but the as always, the difference is in the details.

first, yes, the holes were fillable.

second, at the end of the day, it's about likelihood. sure it was possible to win a Title, but the chances of winning would be much greater with those fillable holes filled.

as for how the season actually played out, if the holes had been filled, we'd still be playing (something I believe you conceded) and we'd still have a shot at KG coming back.

  The chances of KG coming back and making a big contribution are, by all accounts, practically nil. If you can find quotes or any evidence that contradicts this, fine. Otherwise, your argument reduces to "we'd have gone farther in the playoffs with a better bench" which is close to the opposite of your "winning titles is all that matters" mantra.

well, the reports continue to be "no structural damage" and "return at KGs discretion."

the factual elements of the story were that surgery was postponed till after the playoffs...

why do you postpone surgery if there is no chance of a return?

  In case he gets well enough to play. Again, was there any sign that was happening within the next few days?

[winsomme]

what exactly is the argument against bringing in a legit backup center?

Sure KG can play more there and Perk can play more minutes in general, but why do you want to be forced into these situations because you have no other option on the bench when both these guys have reasons to not be adding to their responsibilities?

  Who's arguing against bringing in a legit backup center?

well, i suppose the people who don't see it as a clear need (last year or this) and thought Mikki Moore fit the bill.

  Ok, if you can't differentiate between "not having a legit backup center isn't necessarily an insurmountable obstacle" and "we shouldn't try and bring in a legit backup center" then I see what you mean. And I must have missed all the posts from people who felt that Moore played well enough to fit that bill.

well i was talking about at the time of the signing...and yes there were plenty of people who thought Mikki was just what we needed.

but i also believe you said you would be fine bringing back this same big man rotation for next sesaon in one of these threads...

  Sure. Some people probably thought Mikki was what we needed before he spent any time on the roster without much knowledge of how he'd play. I guess you're impressed with yourself for being part of the "we want Joe Smith and not Mikki Moore" crowd, even though Smith wanted to go to Cleveland and not Boston. Congratulations on that call.

  And what I probably said was that I wouldn't want to go through the season with a KG/Perk/Powe/Davis but if we went into the playoffs with that group we could still win it all. Do you disagree with this? Do you think that other people who think we could have won this year if we were healthy like Nick or Roy (or maybe even yourself) are arguing against bringing in a legit backup center? Come on.

similarly, we could win with holes in the bench, that doesn't make it okay or sensible to leave those holes unfilled - especially when the spots were fillable.

  Aside from the fact that I don't think these spots were as easily fillable as some people do, this seems eerily like my position, which you've been attacking repeatedly. You think we could win the title with holes on the bench, but you think that we should still try and fill those holes. I think we could still win the title with holes on our bench but that makes me an Ainge apologist who thinks there's no reason at all to try and add to our bench. Go figure.

structurally similar, but the as always, the difference is in the details.

first, yes, the holes were fillable.

second, at the end of the day, it's about likelihood. sure it was possible to win a Title, but the chances of winning would be much greater with those fillable holes filled.

as for how the season actually played out, if the holes had been filled, we'd still be playing (something I believe you conceded) and we'd still have a shot at KG coming back.

  The chances of KG coming back and making a big contribution are, by all accounts, practically nil. If you can find quotes or any evidence that contradicts this, fine. Otherwise, your argument reduces to "we'd have gone farther in the playoffs with a better bench" which is close to the opposite of your "winning titles is all that matters" mantra.

well, the reports continue to be "no structural damage" and "return at KGs discretion."

the factual elements of the story were that surgery was postponed till after the playoffs...

why do you postpone surgery if there is no chance of a return?

  In case he gets well enough to play. Again, was there any sign that was happening within the next few days?

well Danny said at least twice that he was progressing well in his rehab.

and when pressed on the topic said that only honest answer on the question of if he could play  is "I don't know" and that anybody who said more than that is only guessing.

so the larger point is that whatever the chances were, they ended with the ORL series loss...something i again believe you conceded wouldn't have happened with a better bench.

[Fafnir]

what exactly is the argument against bringing in a legit backup center?

Sure KG can play more there and Perk can play more minutes in general, but why do you want to be forced into these situations because you have no other option on the bench when both these guys have reasons to not be adding to their responsibilities?

  Who's arguing against bringing in a legit backup center?

well, i suppose the people who don't see it as a clear need (last year or this) and thought Mikki Moore fit the bill.

  Ok, if you can't differentiate between "not having a legit backup center isn't necessarily an insurmountable obstacle" and "we shouldn't try and bring in a legit backup center" then I see what you mean. And I must have missed all the posts from people who felt that Moore played well enough to fit that bill.

well i was talking about at the time of the signing...and yes there were plenty of people who thought Mikki was just what we needed.

but i also believe you said you would be fine bringing back this same big man rotation for next sesaon in one of these threads...

  Sure. Some people probably thought Mikki was what we needed before he spent any time on the roster without much knowledge of how he'd play. I guess you're impressed with yourself for being part of the "we want Joe Smith and not Mikki Moore" crowd, even though Smith wanted to go to Cleveland and not Boston. Congratulations on that call.

  And what I probably said was that I wouldn't want to go through the season with a KG/Perk/Powe/Davis but if we went into the playoffs with that group we could still win it all. Do you disagree with this? Do you think that other people who think we could have won this year if we were healthy like Nick or Roy (or maybe even yourself) are arguing against bringing in a legit backup center? Come on.

similarly, we could win with holes in the bench, that doesn't make it okay or sensible to leave those holes unfilled - especially when the spots were fillable.

  Aside from the fact that I don't think these spots were as easily fillable as some people do, this seems eerily like my position, which you've been attacking repeatedly. You think we could win the title with holes on the bench, but you think that we should still try and fill those holes. I think we could still win the title with holes on our bench but that makes me an Ainge apologist who thinks there's no reason at all to try and add to our bench. Go figure.

structurally similar, but the as always, the difference is in the details.

first, yes, the holes were fillable.

second, at the end of the day, it's about likelihood. sure it was possible to win a Title, but the chances of winning would be much greater with those fillable holes filled.

as for how the season actually played out, if the holes had been filled, we'd still be playing (something I believe you conceded) and we'd still have a shot at KG coming back.

  The chances of KG coming back and making a big contribution are, by all accounts, practically nil. If you can find quotes or any evidence that contradicts this, fine. Otherwise, your argument reduces to "we'd have gone farther in the playoffs with a better bench" which is close to the opposite of your "winning titles is all that matters" mantra.

well, the reports continue to be "no structural damage" and "return at KGs discretion."

the factual elements of the story were that surgery was postponed till after the playoffs...

why do you postpone surgery if there is no chance of a return?

Elven quote boxes? 

[BballTim]

  In case he gets well enough to play. Again, was there any sign that was happening within the next few days?

well Danny said at least twice that he was progressing well in his rehab.

and when pressed on the topic said that only honest answer on the question of if he could play  is "I don't know" and that anybody who said more than that is only guessing.

so the larger point is that whatever the chances were, they ended with the ORL series loss...something i again believe you conceded wouldn't have happened with a better bench.

  "I don't know" in no way implies "can play well for a decent amount of minutes in the near term". He couldn't even dress for a few emergency minutes in game 7 on Sunday and Doc and Danny have been saying all along that they weren't planning on him playing at all. They never said he was close to returning. They postponed his surgery in case he improved, but, again, there's no sign that he did.

  In any case, back to the original point, I never said we shouldn't try and get a legit backup center, just that we could win without one.

[winsomme]

  In case he gets well enough to play. Again, was there any sign that was happening within the next few days?

well Danny said at least twice that he was progressing well in his rehab.

and when pressed on the topic said that only honest answer on the question of if he could play  is "I don't know" and that anybody who said more than that is only guessing.

so the larger point is that whatever the chances were, they ended with the ORL series loss...something i again believe you conceded wouldn't have happened with a better bench.

   They postponed his surgery in case he improved, but, again, there's no sign that he did.

  

well i would count "progressing" as a sign of improvement.

and like Danny said, suggesting that the chances were "practically nil" is nothing more than a guess on your part.

the larger point is that whatever the chances were, they ended with ORL series as opposed to being alive in a CLE series.

plus, who's to say that with adequate replacements for PJ and Pose we couldn't have gotten past CLE?

[crownsy]

plus, who's to say that with adequate replacements for PJ and Pose we couldn't have gotten past CLE?

IMO, reality, but we'll never know for sure as you say.

[winsomme]

plus, who's to say that with adequate replacements for PJ and Pose we couldn't have gotten past CLE?

IMO, reality, but we'll never know for sure as you say.

yeah, even if you took two players like Birdman and Barnes, I think you have enough flexibility in your bench to make a good run at CLE.

[BballTim]

  In case he gets well enough to play. Again, was there any sign that was happening within the next few days?

well Danny said at least twice that he was progressing well in his rehab.

and when pressed on the topic said that only honest answer on the question of if he could play  is "I don't know" and that anybody who said more than that is only guessing.

so the larger point is that whatever the chances were, they ended with the ORL series loss...something i again believe you conceded wouldn't have happened with a better bench.

   They postponed his surgery in case he improved, but, again, there's no sign that he did.

  

well i would count "progressing" as a sign of improvement.

and like Danny said, suggesting that the chances were "practically nil" is nothing more than a guess on your part.

the larger point is that whatever the chances were, they ended with ORL series as opposed to being alive in a CLE series.

plus, who's to say that with adequate replacements for PJ and Pose we couldn't have gotten past CLE?

  If we could have beaten Cleveland with better backups then we would have cruised past them with KG and Powe. You wasted an entire season complaining about a team that (in your opinion) was well better than the 2nd best team in the league.