But dont you think that anything Danny does to make a move is because he refuses to have the Celtics fall back into medicocrity? we have seen what it takes to win in this league, we saw it last year. If danny thinks that by not making a move you have a better chance to win this year but will then struggle to compete the following years and will end up with the 4-6 seed in the playoffs, I think he would definitly make a move. Especially if it means freeing the celts up for a max contract player in 2010.
This could be a whole thread unto itself. The question being, is Danny smarter to keep this team's core together and go for the ring in 010 or if the opportunity presents itself for building a longer term nucleus does he tear the team apart?
I don't think there's any players in the draft worthy of that, but who's to say that there's not players with other clubs that may be worthy of an overhaul? Ainge lived through the Celtics keeping the nucleus together too long in the 80's (although he was the only chit that was traded) and has been critical of that. Does he view the 09/010 season in the same light as the 88 Celtics or the 86 Celtics?
This may not be the thread to make this point, but I cannot keep reading about how the C's fell into mediocrity for 20 years because they did not trade any of the Big 3. There is a bit of revisionist history at work here. First of all, Red was preparing to continue to build with and after the Big 3, just as he did in the 60's and 70's adding key pieces as former pieces retired, a la Havlicek and Cowens. The year the C's won it all with one of the best teams ever,1986, they drafted Bias. Soon after, they drafted Reggie Lewis. Nobody could have foreseen the death of not only one of these 2 pieces, but both, a tragedy on a scale never seen before. The C's were well positioned to continue contending even after the Big 3 wound down.
It is easy to look back now, knowing how all the years afterward turned out, and say they should have made a trade to prevent that, but how many fans really wanted one of those 3 traded at the time, in the hopes of remaining a playoff team, rather than what we now know what happened? I know Danny is on record as saying he would have done that, but there are no guarantees that any deal involving those 3 would have kept the C's competitive for 20 years, let alone win another title.
Besides, how many other title teams of that era used that strategy? Did the Lakers trade Magic, Worthy or Kareem to keep their window alive? Did the Pistons trade Dumars, Thomas or Laimbeer? Did the Bulls trade Jordan or Pippen? How many examples are there of teams who traded away one of their stars to keep their run going?
In addition to those 2 deaths, there were many other things that were mismanaged in the 90's that contributed to the C's futility. I am not convinced that trading Bird, McHale or Parish would have prevented that. Of course we all who were around and rooting, not just have read about it, did not wish for a 20 yr. drought, but in my opinion, I am happy that at least Bird and McHale played their whole careers here, leaving their legacy intact. Both the Lakers and Pistons were able to reload effectively and get back to the Finals without any such moves, the C's could have also. I did not want it to be so, but I do remember many commentaries at the time suggesting that Bias' death could set the franchise back for the next decade at least. And that was before Reggie.
Keep the core together, add some pieces, and let's see what happens. Ask Dallas, or Cleveland, or many other great teams who have failed to win it all how hard that is, and how many things have to go right in order to win the Title. I think the current team, with some key tweaks, while guaranteeing nothing, is still the best shot the C's have.