Danny's strategy (general)

[the_Bird]

I'm skeptical that there ever was a master plan much beyond that the C's team he inherited just didn't have enough talent to be a legitimate contender.  So, he did was he could do - anyway that he could - to improve the overall talent level.  Sometimes, that was taking a chance on a nutjob like Ricky.  Sometimes, that was taking a flyer on a lotto-pick bust.  Sometimes, that was letting the team lose games and knowing that better draft position would result.

But, it's hard to see how there's any real master plan between the limited team he inherited, to the team that he had developed prior to the Ray Allen deal.  The team was younger, more athletic, and MAYBE had more latent talent. 

The only real constant I see over the years, though, is a willingness to gamble for talent, a willingness to ignore popular sentiment. 

[More Banners]

I'm skeptical that there ever was a master plan much beyond that the C's team he inherited just didn't have enough talent to be a legitimate contender.  So, he did was he could do - anyway that he could - to improve the overall talent level.  Sometimes, that was taking a chance on a nutjob like Ricky.  Sometimes, that was taking a flyer on a lotto-pick bust.  Sometimes, that was letting the team lose games and knowing that better draft position would result.

But, it's hard to see how there's any real master plan between the limited team he inherited, to the team that he had developed prior to the Ray Allen deal.  The team was younger, more athletic, and MAYBE had more latent talent. 

The only real constant I see over the years, though, is a willingness to gamble for talent, a willingness to ignore popular sentiment. 

TP, Bird.  He surely is willing to take a gamble, but it sure doesn't look to me like he really had much of a plan, other than to add as many pieces as possible.  Perhaps this makes him a small-time gambler, since he doesn't seem willing to gamble on high-stakes items, like using high draft picks or trading max players for max players?

But the TP is mostly for recognizing that there really wasn't any more talent on the team for 4 years, compared to what he inherited.  Pieces moved around, but I don't think talent was really added.  I think one of JVG's best observations was that having "depth" doesn't mean having a bunch of players, it's having players of higher quality.  We had more players that played, but I don't think they were better than the ones that were moved on out (i.e. was Scal better than Walter?  Was Delonte really an upgrade over Tony Delk?).

[the_Bird]

I'm skeptical that there ever was a master plan much beyond that the C's team he inherited just didn't have enough talent to be a legitimate contender.  So, he did was he could do - anyway that he could - to improve the overall talent level.  Sometimes, that was taking a chance on a nutjob like Ricky.  Sometimes, that was taking a flyer on a lotto-pick bust.  Sometimes, that was letting the team lose games and knowing that better draft position would result.

But, it's hard to see how there's any real master plan between the limited team he inherited, to the team that he had developed prior to the Ray Allen deal.  The team was younger, more athletic, and MAYBE had more latent talent. 

The only real constant I see over the years, though, is a willingness to gamble for talent, a willingness to ignore popular sentiment. 

TP, Bird.  He surely is willing to take a gamble, but it sure doesn't look to me like he really had much of a plan, other than to add as many pieces as possible.  Perhaps this makes him a small-time gambler, since he doesn't seem willing to gamble on high-stakes items, like using high draft picks or trading max players for max players?

But the TP is mostly for recognizing that there really wasn't any more talent on the team for 4 years, compared to what he inherited.  Pieces moved around, but I don't think talent was really added.  I think one of JVG's best observations was that having "depth" doesn't mean having a bunch of players, it's having players of higher quality.  We had more players that played, but I don't think they were better than the ones that were moved on out (i.e. was Scal better than Walter?  Was Delonte really an upgrade over Tony Delk?).

In the end, though, it was for the better.  Delonte may not have been better than Tony Delk, but he was a fairly important part of getting us Ray Allen because he was young and had upside.  Even if the overall talent level was more-or-less the same, the younger team did put the C's in a better position to ultimately make the Ray Allen and KG trades. 

Had he just plugged along, spending the MLE on veteran guys, keeping the 45-win team struggling along, those trades never would have happened. 

[More Banners]

I'm skeptical that there ever was a master plan much beyond that the C's team he inherited just didn't have enough talent to be a legitimate contender.  So, he did was he could do - anyway that he could - to improve the overall talent level.  Sometimes, that was taking a chance on a nutjob like Ricky.  Sometimes, that was taking a flyer on a lotto-pick bust.  Sometimes, that was letting the team lose games and knowing that better draft position would result.

But, it's hard to see how there's any real master plan between the limited team he inherited, to the team that he had developed prior to the Ray Allen deal.  The team was younger, more athletic, and MAYBE had more latent talent.  

The only real constant I see over the years, though, is a willingness to gamble for talent, a willingness to ignore popular sentiment.  

TP, Bird.  He surely is willing to take a gamble, but it sure doesn't look to me like he really had much of a plan, other than to add as many pieces as possible.  Perhaps this makes him a small-time gambler, since he doesn't seem willing to gamble on high-stakes items, like using high draft picks or trading max players for max players?

But the TP is mostly for recognizing that there really wasn't any more talent on the team for 4 years, compared to what he inherited.  Pieces moved around, but I don't think talent was really added.  I think one of JVG's best observations was that having "depth" doesn't mean having a bunch of players, it's having players of higher quality.  We had more players that played, but I don't think they were better than the ones that were moved on out (i.e. was Scal better than Walter?  Was Delonte really an upgrade over Tony Delk?).

In the end, though, it was for the better.  Delonte may not have been better than Tony Delk, but he was a fairly important part of getting us Ray Allen because he was young and had upside.  Even if the overall talent level was more-or-less the same, the younger team did put the C's in a better position to ultimately make the Ray Allen and KG trades.  

Had he just plugged along, spending the MLE on veteran guys, keeping the 45-win team struggling along, those trades never would have happened.  

Of course, like everyone else, I'm glad we won in 2008.  Unlike many, I think looking at everything Danny did as leading to 2008 is helpful, accurate, or even makes any sense.

The pieces that seem necessary to big trades are 1) a lottery pick, and 2) expiring contracts.  In the case of KG, who was arguably the best PF in the league, it took both plus a young stud in Big Al.  So, true, KG and Ray wouldn't be here without the 24 and 33 win seasons.  

The trick doesn't seem to be getting the right pieces, it's getting the right pieces at the right time, together.  GP and Toine were championship pieces, and he let them go because he couldn't get other pieces to match.  Battie was a great, long help defender (similar build to KG) and rotated well.  The ECF team had lots of good pieces that worked well together, but needed one more big one to contend, IMO (6th man), and another one to get over the hump.

I keep coming back in my mind to the Joe Johnson trade, and can't think about how one mistake can affect a team for a decade.  All that trouble was because JJ was traded away in a short-sighted deal.

[birdwatcher]

I sauntered over to HoopsHype and checked out the list, by season, of Danny's moves since coming to Boston.  With 2008 in the books, it's pretty easy to think there was a master plan or something, that Danny could see KG or Ray in the future, and that he knew with some clarity how he was going to get where he was going.  Looking back, but starting at the beginning and going forward along with the moves, there have surely been some shaky moves, questionable trades, and problems that he created, which are lost to memory because he hung around long enough to solve them (and wasn't fired by some loose-cannon, impulsive owner).  Overall, though, it's pretty clear that Danny has some tendencies and preferances.  I think the big moves and pieces stand out in showing his tendencies and preferences more than all the late-1st rounders and role player moves.  Let's check it out:

First, he inherited a team that was a 45-50 win playoff team that featured two all-stars and played a style with low turnovers, tough defense, and lots of steals.  And he promptly blew it up.

The first huge move was trading Antione, who was a 20/8/5 guy on a playoff team.  In exhange, he got pieces.  Not talent, just pieces.  Small ones.  Jiri Welch small.  Small cap-friendly conract of Chris Mills.  Large, loooong, non-cap friendly contract of Paul's college buddy Raef LaFrenz.  And a late 1st rounder.  The team was obviously going to be worse, and it was.

Then traded Eric Williams and Battie for Ricky Davis and Mihm.  36 wins.

Tried to load up the team with talented veterans with PP, GP, and Antoine, and made a little run at respectability, 45 wins and a 7-game 1st round loss in.  Broke it up again, but perhaps stumbled upon a formula.

Traded Ricky Buckets for Wally Scissorback.

2006:  Traded first lottery pick for slightly better contracts (one less year) than the deal he picked up for Antione.  [Note:  Antione would've been off the books already.]

2007:  Various prospects, expensive contracts of washed-up veterans, picks, and role players traded for Ray and then KG.  Nothing short of a miracle, given the previous 4 years of, at best, lateral moves.

So this is what I think stands out:  Danny has never had cap space, but cap space doesn't win championships.  He does seem intent on limiting contracts right now to 2 years, presumably to avoid being in the position he put himself in after dealing Antione, in that there was no cap space, and injured or past-prime players were clogging up the roster.  It seems clear to me that in trying to accumulate pieces, he dealt Toine, but along with the picks came the bad contracts that limited options for four years.  I think Danny likes to have his stars (Pierce, Rondo) under a long term contract (he's now given Paul two of them), but everyone else on short deals.  I think he learned this during his first two years.

I also think it's interesting that he traded away two lottery picks.  Clearly, he's not planning for stars in the draft.  He did acquire quite a few picks, but late picks turned into role players, not saviours, and middle picks were boom-or-bust (e.g. Banks, GGreen, and Al Jefferson).  He has rarely traded away picks, so he likes them, but is quite willing to let someone else bet the farm on developing a top-10 pick.

It's also interesting that the team didn't spend in free agency much during his first few years (using the MLE).  Perhaps they could've kept 'Toine and PP, and added the piece they needed with the MLE?  Honestly, I'm not sure whether the rules were the same then as far as the MLE goes...but I think Obie would've welcomed that.

So his general strategy seems to be this:  Not much expectations out of the draft, never, never, never take on bad contracts, and try to lock in stars (but nobody else) long term.  I think the 'no bad contracts' rule means he isn't eager to have cap space, but to use expiring contracts as assets when the time comes to get other pieces.

What does this mean for right now? 

Will we be forever missing out on talent because Danny doesn't want to give a player one more year on a contract? 

Will he blow up a playoff team, put a 24-win team together, to get a high lottery pick only to package that pick in a trade?  One thing that is clear to me is that Danny took a 45-50 win team and turned it into a 24 win team.  There was no "rebuild while winning" going on, no trading future picks for pieces to add to the playoff core--he blew it all up.  Of course, he didn't build it.  Will he be as quick to blow up a roster that he has built himself?

We'll see...

I think one of Danny's tragic flaws is that he over values potential/upside too much. Jiri, Banks, Green, Greene, Hudson are a few examples of guys with high ceilings and no return. I hope Bradley doesn't fall into that category, but I'm honestly not that hopeful. Lots of people crapped on me for saying Danny didn't take the best player available (which I still contend that he didn't, he took the best potential available) when he passed up on James Anderson. But that certainly would have filled a need we a struggling to fill right now--and this kid didn't need to be a rookie of the year, he was gonna be asked to score in place of Pierce for 12-15 minutes a game which I'm sure he'll be able to do. Problem is, he'll be doing it for another team.

[Celtics4ever]

Yeah, but for all those tragic over values he still has a knack for finding diamonds in the rough that others dismiss like Big Baby or Gnomes.  I've always thought that Ainge thinks in terms of players rather than positions. 

If he thinks a guy can play he doesn't worry about positions.  Hence he will take a chance on a guy who doesn't have a classical position or say a flawed player who he thinks can play.  Harangody (too short), Rondo (no shot), Gnomes (too short), Big Baby (too short) and Bill Walker/Leon Powe(bad knees) all players with either flaws or without a classic position whom the consensus over looked that all have game....

[the_Bird]

GP and 'Toine were championship pieces but far from championship centerpieces.  You could win a title with '06 'Toine as your third or fourth best player - if a healthy Wade and a still-in-his-prime Shaq are 1 and 2.  

Half of these guys:

Jiri, Banks, Green, Greene, Hudson

were pretty low-risk selections.  Oriene and Lester Hudson were late, late 2nd rounders - no point including them on any list of failures.  Gerald Green, I'm firmly convinced Danny never had any intention of picking - other than this was a kid who was projected to be a top-3 pick and who could, potentially, have a LOT of trade value.  Gerald was never more than a potential trade chip.  Had we been in reverse position with the Pacers, Danny Granger would be wearing Celtic green and Paul Pierce would be toiling away elsewhere.

Banks was a failure, Jiri too; two guys where they never managed to overcome their weakness.  Danny sure as hell isn't perfect; just looking over the list of trades, it's clear he's struck out a LOT.

[jdpapa3]

The plan looked obvious to me: acquire assets in these supposed "lateral moves."

And to knock him for going for potential in the draft on Orien Greene and Lester Hudson is just pointless. You go for someone with potential to make a 15 man roster or store away in Europe.

Jiri Welsch netted a 1st rounder.

Re: Banks: he was hired a month earlier. Perkins more than makes up for that pick in the same draft.

I just don't understand how drafting for potential is a tragic FLAW when it got us to the point of being perennial contenders. You can't call him out for drafting potential and only mention the misses. How about the hits: Al Jefferson, Rajon Rondo, Perkins.

[More Banners]

The plan looked obvious to me: acquire assets in these supposed "lateral moves."

And to knock him for going for potential in the draft on Orien Greene and Lester Hudson is just pointless. You go for someone with potential to make a 15 man roster or store away in Europe.

Jiri Welsch netted a 1st rounder.

Re: Banks: he was hired a month earlier. Perkins more than makes up for that pick in the same draft.

I just don't understand how drafting for potential is a tragic FLAW when it got us to the point of being perennial contenders. You can't call him out for drafting potential and only mention the misses. How about the hits: Al Jefferson, Rajon Rondo, Perkins.

I don't think the comment above (not quoted, but I figure this comment is a response) is referring to drafting on potential per se.  I was going to respond that Danny talked up, and in consequence was trying to sell all of us, on "potential" in some of the mentioned players during the "swirling years" because the short term looked so bleak.  I mean, Jiri was not going to be a star, but he traded a multi-time all star that was a 20/8/5 player and the only person he could suit up after was Jiri Freakin' Welsh?  Gotta say something nice to appease the fans after blowing up the team.  Or winning 36, 33, or 24 games.

[BballTim]

I think one of Danny's tragic flaws is that he over values potential/upside too much. Jiri, Banks, Green, Greene, Hudson are a few examples of guys with high ceilings and no return. I hope Bradley doesn't fall into that category, but I'm honestly not that hopeful. Lots of people crapped on me for saying Danny didn't take the best player available (which I still contend that he didn't, he took the best potential available) when he passed up on James Anderson. But that certainly would have filled a need we a struggling to fill right now--and this kid didn't need to be a rookie of the year, he was gonna be asked to score in place of Pierce for 12-15 minutes a game which I'm sure he'll be able to do. Problem is, he'll be doing it for another team.

  Your list of players with high ceilings should also contain Rondo, Jefferson and Perk. That kind of tips the scales away from "tragic flaw" to "smarter traits. And best player available doesn't mean most ready to contribute immediately. Anderson might have been better as a junior than Bradley was as a freshman, but is he better now than Bradley will be in a few years?

[BballTim]

The plan looked obvious to me: acquire assets in these supposed "lateral moves."

And to knock him for going for potential in the draft on Orien Greene and Lester Hudson is just pointless. You go for someone with potential to make a 15 man roster or store away in Europe.

Jiri Welsch netted a 1st rounder.

Re: Banks: he was hired a month earlier. Perkins more than makes up for that pick in the same draft.

I just don't understand how drafting for potential is a tragic FLAW when it got us to the point of being perennial contenders. You can't call him out for drafting potential and only mention the misses. How about the hits: Al Jefferson, Rajon Rondo, Perkins.

I don't think the comment above (not quoted, but I figure this comment is a response) is referring to drafting on potential per se.  I was going to respond that Danny talked up, and in consequence was trying to sell all of us, on "potential" in some of the mentioned players during the "swirling years" because the short term looked so bleak.  I mean, Jiri was not going to be a star, but he traded a multi-time all star that was a 20/8/5 player and the only person he could suit up after was Jiri Freakin' Welsh?  Gotta say something nice to appease the fans after blowing up the team.  Or winning 36, 33, or 24 games.

  We also got Delonte and Tony Allen from that deal. I think a lot of the problem with that trade was whoever on the medical staff thought that Raef was going to come back as a good player after his knee surgery. And Danny also talks up those players because he trades many of them to other teams.

[BballTim]

I'm skeptical that there ever was a master plan much beyond that the C's team he inherited just didn't have enough talent to be a legitimate contender.  So, he did was he could do - anyway that he could - to improve the overall talent level.  Sometimes, that was taking a chance on a nutjob like Ricky.  Sometimes, that was taking a flyer on a lotto-pick bust.  Sometimes, that was letting the team lose games and knowing that better draft position would result.

But, it's hard to see how there's any real master plan between the limited team he inherited, to the team that he had developed prior to the Ray Allen deal.  The team was younger, more athletic, and MAYBE had more latent talent. 

The only real constant I see over the years, though, is a willingness to gamble for talent, a willingness to ignore popular sentiment. 

  His general strategy was to acquire assets, draft some bigs that were HS players because that's the only way to get decent bigs where he was drafting, and develop those draft picks to either help win with Paul or trade them for experienced players.

[More Banners]

I'm skeptical that there ever was a master plan much beyond that the C's team he inherited just didn't have enough talent to be a legitimate contender.  So, he did was he could do - anyway that he could - to improve the overall talent level.  Sometimes, that was taking a chance on a nutjob like Ricky.  Sometimes, that was taking a flyer on a lotto-pick bust.  Sometimes, that was letting the team lose games and knowing that better draft position would result.

But, it's hard to see how there's any real master plan between the limited team he inherited, to the team that he had developed prior to the Ray Allen deal.  The team was younger, more athletic, and MAYBE had more latent talent. 

The only real constant I see over the years, though, is a willingness to gamble for talent, a willingness to ignore popular sentiment. 

  His general strategy was to acquire assets, draft some bigs that were HS players because that's the only way to get decent bigs where he was drafting, and develop those draft picks to either help win with Paul or trade them for experienced players.

Well, yeah, but there were some moves in between that showed what sort of assets he valued relative to others, i.e. #7 pick for slightly better contracts.

[BballTim]

I'm skeptical that there ever was a master plan much beyond that the C's team he inherited just didn't have enough talent to be a legitimate contender.  So, he did was he could do - anyway that he could - to improve the overall talent level.  Sometimes, that was taking a chance on a nutjob like Ricky.  Sometimes, that was taking a flyer on a lotto-pick bust.  Sometimes, that was letting the team lose games and knowing that better draft position would result.

But, it's hard to see how there's any real master plan between the limited team he inherited, to the team that he had developed prior to the Ray Allen deal.  The team was younger, more athletic, and MAYBE had more latent talent. 

The only real constant I see over the years, though, is a willingness to gamble for talent, a willingness to ignore popular sentiment. 

  His general strategy was to acquire assets, draft some bigs that were HS players because that's the only way to get decent bigs where he was drafting, and develop those draft picks to either help win with Paul or trade them for experienced players.

Well, yeah, but there were some moves in between that showed what sort of assets he valued relative to others, i.e. #7 pick for slightly better contracts.

  Slightly better contracts is a pretty big understatement. Danny cleared about $14M off the books and acquired an asset that allowed him to trade for a max contract player in one move.

[bobdelt]

Unless you're doing a complete salary dump, there isn't much of a strategy you can do, is there?

You can either draft for talent, or for need.

And you typically sign FA's for need, those who you think you can get for a good price.

Any trade you make, regardless of strategy (unless salary dump) is to better your team.