Doc Rivers and more on building a winner

[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?

[CoachBo]

We're going to have to agree to disagree, then. It's absolutely essential to build some minutes cushion into the rotation for KG, Pierce and Ray - and we have no one on the bench to adequately do that without sacrificing major parts of our game.

At any rate, Danny needs to add two proven veteran commodities to this bench, at the 5 and a versatile 3. We can't go into next season in a position where one injury compromises another year of the window.

I'm not at all sure why defending Ainge rises to this level of interest with people, when the evidence is what it is about last season. Ergo, the agreement to disagree.

[nickagneta]

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.

On the other hand if the team was healthy I think we could have ridden the starters and Powe, Baby and House to a title even if Perk, Baby and Rondo had less forward progress in their games as they did and we had the same bench as we did. I just think the chemistry of the starters as a unit would have been hard to beat if the starters played 40 minutes per game in the playoffs after having played 30-35 MPG during the season.

Danny's off season wasn't good but it was injuries that cost us a title and not his off season. His off season would have just made it much more difficult and also caused problems moving forward into this year and beyond. That has always been my stance regarding Danny's job.

Honestly, I think he hits a home run this off season and the Celtics return to the championship in 2010......as long as everyone can be healthy come playoff time that is.

[Scalablob990]

Well nothing is as bitter and reinforcing as a loss when your the defending champ....it's like getting kicked in the face and having your ego ripped in half. I think Pierce and the big 3 will bring it home for us next season.

[nickagneta]

We're going to have to agree to disagree, then. It's absolutely essential to build some minutes cushion into the rotation for KG, Pierce and Ray - and we have no one on the bench to adequately do that without sacrificing major parts of our game.

At any rate, Danny needs to add two proven veteran commodities to this bench, at the 5 and a versatile 3. We can't go into next season in a position where one injury compromises another year of the window.

I'm not at all sure why defending Ainge rises to this level of interest with people, when the evidence is what it is about last season. Ergo, the agreement to disagree.

I would have to add a veteran PG that can come in, defend well and run an offense. Nothing great just a good role guy that can spell Rondo 8-10 MPG. I just hate the idea of Eddie running the team and think if we lost Rondo for any extended period of time, with our current PG situation being as it is, we would be in big trouble on a win-loss point of view.

[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.

On the other hand if the team was healthy I think we could have ridden the starters and Powe, Baby and House to a title even if Perk, Baby and Rondo had less forward progress in their games as they did and we had the same bench as we did. I just think the chemistry of the starters as a unit would have been hard to beat if the starters played 40 minutes per game in the playoffs after having played 30-35 MPG during the season.

Danny's off season wasn't good but it was injuries that cost us a title and not his off season. His off season would have just made it much more difficult and also caused problems moving forward into this year and beyond. That has always been my stance regarding Danny's job.

Honestly, I think he hits a home run this off season and the Celtics return to the championship in 2010......as long as everyone can be healthy come playoff time that is.

well, the injuries cost us a chance at the Title. I don't think it's fair to say that no injury to KG and Powe means a definite Title.

but the off season and resultant lack of depth did take away an added chance to get KG back....something that Danny alluded to i guess as still possible in his EEI interview...

[nickagneta]

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.

On the other hand if the team was healthy I think we could have ridden the starters and Powe, Baby and House to a title even if Perk, Baby and Rondo had less forward progress in their games as they did and we had the same bench as we did. I just think the chemistry of the starters as a unit would have been hard to beat if the starters played 40 minutes per game in the playoffs after having played 30-35 MPG during the season.

Danny's off season wasn't good but it was injuries that cost us a title and not his off season. His off season would have just made it much more difficult and also caused problems moving forward into this year and beyond. That has always been my stance regarding Danny's job.

Honestly, I think he hits a home run this off season and the Celtics return to the championship in 2010......as long as everyone can be healthy come playoff time that is.

well, the injuries cost us a chance at the Title. I don't think it's fair to say that no injury to KG and Powe means a definite Title.

but the off season and resultant lack of depth did take away an added chance to get KG back....something that Danny alluded to i guess as still possible in his EEI interview...

I wasn't guaranteeing a title if the team was healthy but if I had to bet which team in the league would have won it had everyone been healthy, Celtics fan or no Celtics fan, my money would have been on Boston.

[Fan from VT]

Intangibles = when you win
Unintangibles = when you lose

[BballTim]

We're going to have to agree to disagree, then. It's absolutely essential to build some minutes cushion into the rotation for KG, Pierce and Ray - and we have no one on the bench to adequately do that without sacrificing major parts of our game.

At any rate, Danny needs to add two proven veteran commodities to this bench, at the 5 and a versatile 3. We can't go into next season in a position where one injury compromises another year of the window.

I'm not at all sure why defending Ainge rises to this level of interest with people, when the evidence is what it is about last season. Ergo, the agreement to disagree.

  I agree that we need to revamp our bench. And I don't think that claiming that we could have won the title in spite of our deficiencies on the bench is a vigorous defense of Ainge. It's just taking a realistic look at the situation. Nick's felt just as strongly as you have since last summer that Danny screwed up big time. Is he defending Ainge when he admits we could have won the title if not for the injuries? Is Roy when he says similar things?

[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?

[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.

[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.

[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?

[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.

[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...