Jeff Goodman's 2 cents

[Rondo2287]

I really wasnt referring to mediocrity because of not trading any of the big 3.  I was more referring to Danny's track record.  He saw the celts were in a state of mediocrity and traded antoine and "blew everything up"  I think Danny has proven that he is not afraid to trade a popular player and make the team worse at the time to prove succesful down the road. 

[Jon]

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.

TP

Exactly
Moreover, in this day and age, letting the Big Three expire does almost as much as trading them (with the enormous cap room it would clear).  So this whole notion that we need to trade them if we ever want to be good again is ludicrous.  I hope Danny comes to that realization. 

[CoachBo]

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.

Another TP.

The "break up the Big 3" strawman is the refuge of people who are more fascinated with roster tinkering than with winning.

[Rondo2287]

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.

Another TP.

The "break up the Big 3" strawman is the refuge of people who are more fascinated with roster tinkering than with winning.

And the, "for the love of god dont trade RAY!" strawman is the refuge of people who dont realize how calendars work and how each season means somebody is getting older

[hankfinkel]

Exactly
Moreover, in this day and age, letting the Big Three expire does almost as much as trading them (with the enormous cap room it would clear).  So this whole notion that we need to trade them if we ever want to be good again is ludicrous.  I hope Danny comes to that realization. 

The one caveat to this is that the number of big-time free agents moving is pretty rare.  The unrestricted Steve Nash to Phoenix moves are pretty rare.  It's more the "stars" with question marks like Brand and Baron Davis that move in free agency.  Look at this offseason, depending who opts out, is there even one top 30 player available?  Now everybody is gearing up that 2010 will be different and maybe that will herald a new era, but maybe it will be the anomaly.

However, having said that, in the summer of 2012 when Ray will likely be gone, KG expires and will be 36-years old, and Pierce will be nearly 35 and likely on a small and soon-to-expiring deal - Carmelo Anthony will be an unrestricted free agent, and Chris Paul, Dwight Howard, and Deron Williams will all be where LeBron, Wade, Bosh et al. will be in 2010 - all able to opt out. It is easy to imagine one or more of those guys wanting a change of scenery by 2012.  If the Cs play it right they could make a play for one of those guys.

[CoachBo]

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.

Another TP.

The "break up the Big 3" strawman is the refuge of people who are more fascinated with roster tinkering than with winning.

And the, "for the love of god dont trade RAY!" strawman is the refuge of people who dont realize how calendars work and how each season means somebody is getting older

Not sure how trading Allen improves any admittedly highly speculative shot at a free agent in 2010, given what you have to take back return, plus it involves throwing a season of Garnett's and Pierce's primes away. In addition, Pierce isn't walking away from $15 million, and Rondo wants big money, not a qualifying offer. None of it makes a lick of sense.

This team doesn't need a trade. It needs a couple of respectable free agent signings - no, Robert Swift doesn't apply - and a serious title run next year.

And it doesn't need to be plunged back into the pack out of some bizarre desire to begin tinkering with the roster again, ala Ainge's first five years on the job. I have no interest in throwing 2010 away over a longshot at a free agent that isn't going to happen in the first place.

Maximize the Pierce-Garnett-Allen window. A year of it has already fallen victim to injury and Ainge's "Summer of Mistakes" last year.

[Rondo2287]

you may have no desire to go through another 5 years of rebuilding, but didnt it get us a title?  Hasnt Danny proven that if he determines a team with a certain group of players will not win a title he will make moves to set them up to win a title in the future? 

Wyc said that there was a way we could offer a player a max contract in 2010.  This makes me think that it is an option they are seriously considering otherwise it would not have been brought up. 

If they determine that the best way to set up the team for the future is to make a move im sure they will.  I believe that the front office has dreams of winning banner 18, not the atlantic division.  If you dont win it all whats the point of winning the division? Nobody cares that the patriots won the AFC when they went 18-1.  Nobody cares that we won the Atlantic division this year. 

Nobody here knows, me included, how the front office projects this team to be this year, but I know one thing for sure and thats if Danny doesnt think this team will win there will be moves.  Even if somepeople think it is just tinkering. 

[acieEarl]

weak draft yes. But I'd say it's a deep draft, meaning the 15-25th picks may be better than the 2-10 picks. Celts should buy NO pick at 21 and draft Budinger.

[Bankshot]

Jeff Goodman's 2 cents? ****

Isn't this the guy who said Rondo was a scrub and the Celtics wouldn't win a championship with him?