Let's Assume Rebuilding Begins in Earnest This Summer

[PosImpos]

The prudent thing to do would probably be to trade Ray and KG.  However, unless they specifically ask for it, I'd like to see us keep them.  I'm just not in a huge hurry to lose 60 games per year and start rooting for the team to lose again.  I'd rather have our "big three" here for a few more years.

That's more sentimental rather than doing what's best for the team's future.  However, I'd rather role the dice, trade Rondo and pieces for CP3, add to the core in free agency, and hope that we catch lightning in a bottle again.

I appreciate and respect your desire not to return to the days of losing 60 each season and praying on lottery picks.  However, I'm not interested in watching the Celtics remain a fringe contender / first or second round speed bump for the next 3-4 years and thus delay reaching a point when the Celtics are actually relevant again.

I think if there's any opportunity to acquire CP3 and begin to build around him, though, you have to go for it.  Unlike Rondo, Chris Paul is absolutely the sort of player you can build a team around as long as he stays healthy.

  What you're talking about is basically the same as if, in 1989 or so, Red had unloaded the big three for late round draft picks in order to speed our trip to the bottom. I don't think that would have greatly lessened our time at the bottom. And, let's face it, if not for some great trades we'd either still be there or have a roster that might peak at "fringe contender" like so many teams have done.

I don't disagree that it sucks, and there is no guarantee the next version of the Celtics don't peak as a fringe contender like the Hawks, Blazers, and Nuggets have done the past few years.

Unfortunately, there just isn't any other way to do it from what I can see.  The only way to build your team back to relevance is to be clever and patient with trades, get lucky in the lottery, and draft well. 

That is, unless you are a prime free agent destination like LA, NY, or Miami -- and even the Lakers and the Heat had to draft Kobe, Bynum, and Wade to get where they are.  Boston is really not a prime free agent destination, though, so I think it's the San Antonio / OKC / Portland method for us.

It would be nice if things were different, but they aren't.  The NBA system requires teams to become terrible before they can become great again.  The only other options are to be fantastically lucky (getting a top 3 pick after just missing the playoffs like the Bulls did) or to buy up or trade for major free agents with secondary assets.

  The Bulls started their rebuild in, what, 96 or so? They probably had the top pick in the draft 3 times or so in the last 15 years and probably 8 or so top 5 picks. Even with all that luck in the lottery if they'd have lost the Rose lottery they'd still be nowhere. I wouldn't rush into "suck and build through the draft" any sooner than necessary, meaning basically that I'd exhausted all other options.

It's a crap shoot, no doubt about it.  However, the Thunder managed to ascend to top contender status in just a few years.  It took them a few top 5 picks and a few more later first rounders, but it proves it's doable if you're really lucky and really smart.  The Blazers would also be up there right now if they hadn't gotten unlucky with injuries / gambled on injury prone players.

I guess we just have a philosophical difference, though.  I want the Celtics to either be aiming for the very top or look to get bad quickly in order to be in a position to get back to the top.  I have no interest in seeing the team aim for the middle or just above it.

[Shamrocker]

The prudent thing to do would probably be to trade Ray and KG.  However, unless they specifically ask for it, I'd like to see us keep them.  I'm just not in a huge hurry to lose 60 games per year and start rooting for the team to lose again.  I'd rather have our "big three" here for a few more years.

That's more sentimental rather than doing what's best for the team's future.  However, I'd rather role the dice, trade Rondo and pieces for CP3, add to the core in free agency, and hope that we catch lightning in a bottle again.

Agree
Rondo and Baby for Chris Paul or
Rondo and Jeff Green for Paul and Ariza.

I agree with Roy and like both of these offers.  I'd prefer to hold on to Green though to see if we could flip him and draft picks to another team for another great player.

I keep dreaming about Ray, Green, and multiple first round picks for Dwight and Redick (or other bad contract)...  I think if we have already landed CP and have PP and KG, there's a chance Dwight will extend with us.

Provided CP3 agrees to a long-term extension I’m all for it. But would he? Wouldn’t he rather title contend with a younger core,on a bigger stage?  I’m sure he’ll ask what happens after the Big Three? Hopefully Danny has a compelling answer.

[Eja117]

Too early....

I ain't dead yet! 

[BballTim]

The prudent thing to do would probably be to trade Ray and KG.  However, unless they specifically ask for it, I'd like to see us keep them.  I'm just not in a huge hurry to lose 60 games per year and start rooting for the team to lose again.  I'd rather have our "big three" here for a few more years.

That's more sentimental rather than doing what's best for the team's future.  However, I'd rather role the dice, trade Rondo and pieces for CP3, add to the core in free agency, and hope that we catch lightning in a bottle again.

I appreciate and respect your desire not to return to the days of losing 60 each season and praying on lottery picks.  However, I'm not interested in watching the Celtics remain a fringe contender / first or second round speed bump for the next 3-4 years and thus delay reaching a point when the Celtics are actually relevant again.

I think if there's any opportunity to acquire CP3 and begin to build around him, though, you have to go for it.  Unlike Rondo, Chris Paul is absolutely the sort of player you can build a team around as long as he stays healthy.

  What you're talking about is basically the same as if, in 1989 or so, Red had unloaded the big three for late round draft picks in order to speed our trip to the bottom. I don't think that would have greatly lessened our time at the bottom. And, let's face it, if not for some great trades we'd either still be there or have a roster that might peak at "fringe contender" like so many teams have done.

I don't disagree that it sucks, and there is no guarantee the next version of the Celtics don't peak as a fringe contender like the Hawks, Blazers, and Nuggets have done the past few years.

Unfortunately, there just isn't any other way to do it from what I can see.  The only way to build your team back to relevance is to be clever and patient with trades, get lucky in the lottery, and draft well. 

That is, unless you are a prime free agent destination like LA, NY, or Miami -- and even the Lakers and the Heat had to draft Kobe, Bynum, and Wade to get where they are.  Boston is really not a prime free agent destination, though, so I think it's the San Antonio / OKC / Portland method for us.

It would be nice if things were different, but they aren't.  The NBA system requires teams to become terrible before they can become great again.  The only other options are to be fantastically lucky (getting a top 3 pick after just missing the playoffs like the Bulls did) or to buy up or trade for major free agents with secondary assets.

  The Bulls started their rebuild in, what, 96 or so? They probably had the top pick in the draft 3 times or so in the last 15 years and probably 8 or so top 5 picks. Even with all that luck in the lottery if they'd have lost the Rose lottery they'd still be nowhere. I wouldn't rush into "suck and build through the draft" any sooner than necessary, meaning basically that I'd exhausted all other options.

It's a crap shoot, no doubt about it.  However, the Thunder managed to ascend to top contender status in just a few years.  It took them a few top 5 picks and a few more later first rounders, but it proves it's doable if you're really lucky and really smart.  The Blazers would also be up there right now if they hadn't gotten unlucky with injuries / gambled on injury prone players.

I guess we just have a philosophical difference, though.  I want the Celtics to either be aiming for the very top or look to get bad quickly in order to be in a position to get back to the top.  I have no interest in seeing the team aim for the middle or just above it.

  The Thunder managed to ascend quickly because they didn't start their transformation until they were already in possession of a draft pick that was assuredly for a supposed "franchise" player. That's not a realistic starting point.

[angryguy77]

The prudent thing to do would probably be to trade Ray and KG.  However, unless they specifically ask for it, I'd like to see us keep them.  I'm just not in a huge hurry to lose 60 games per year and start rooting for the team to lose again.  I'd rather have our "big three" here for a few more years.

That's more sentimental rather than doing what's best for the team's future.  However, I'd rather role the dice, trade Rondo and pieces for CP3, add to the core in free agency, and hope that we catch lightning in a bottle again.

I appreciate and respect your desire not to return to the days of losing 60 each season and praying on lottery picks.  However, I'm not interested in watching the Celtics remain a fringe contender / first or second round speed bump for the next 3-4 years and thus delay reaching a point when the Celtics are actually relevant again.

I think if there's any opportunity to acquire CP3 and begin to build around him, though, you have to go for it.  Unlike Rondo, Chris Paul is absolutely the sort of player you can build a team around as long as he stays healthy.

  What you're talking about is basically the same as if, in 1989 or so, Red had unloaded the big three for late round draft picks in order to speed our trip to the bottom. I don't think that would have greatly lessened our time at the bottom. And, let's face it, if not for some great trades we'd either still be there or have a roster that might peak at "fringe contender" like so many teams have done.

I don't disagree that it sucks, and there is no guarantee the next version of the Celtics don't peak as a fringe contender like the Hawks, Blazers, and Nuggets have done the past few years.

Unfortunately, there just isn't any other way to do it from what I can see.  The only way to build your team back to relevance is to be clever and patient with trades, get lucky in the lottery, and draft well. 

That is, unless you are a prime free agent destination like LA, NY, or Miami -- and even the Lakers and the Heat had to draft Kobe, Bynum, and Wade to get where they are.  Boston is really not a prime free agent destination, though, so I think it's the San Antonio / OKC / Portland method for us.

It would be nice if things were different, but they aren't.  The NBA system requires teams to become terrible before they can become great again.  The only other options are to be fantastically lucky (getting a top 3 pick after just missing the playoffs like the Bulls did) or to buy up or trade for major free agents with secondary assets.

  The Bulls started their rebuild in, what, 96 or so? They probably had the top pick in the draft 3 times or so in the last 15 years and probably 8 or so top 5 picks. Even with all that luck in the lottery if they'd have lost the Rose lottery they'd still be nowhere. I wouldn't rush into "suck and build through the draft" any sooner than necessary, meaning basically that I'd exhausted all other options.

It's a crap shoot, no doubt about it.  However, the Thunder managed to ascend to top contender status in just a few years.  It took them a few top 5 picks and a few more later first rounders, but it proves it's doable if you're really lucky and really smart.  The Blazers would also be up there right now if they hadn't gotten unlucky with injuries / gambled on injury prone players.

I guess we just have a philosophical difference, though.  I want the Celtics to either be aiming for the very top or look to get bad quickly in order to be in a position to get back to the top.  I have no interest in seeing the team aim for the middle or just above it.

Truth.

The season is too long to watch your team get bounced in rd 1 or 2 year in and year out. I'd rather not make the playoffs for a few years than be the next Denver, Utah etc. To me, it's not very entertaining to watch your team go to the playoffs when you know they don't have a legit shot.

 I know it's not a given that a team can contend after a few years of rebuilding. But if you have a good GM, which we do, it can be done w/o being in the cellar for too long.

If we lose(haven't given up all hope yet), DA needs to look at every option available-including PP. Get some pieces next year and make a hard run at Howard the year after. Send Russel down to Orlando and talk to him once he's a FA. Whatever it takes.

[PosImpos]

The prudent thing to do would probably be to trade Ray and KG.  However, unless they specifically ask for it, I'd like to see us keep them.  I'm just not in a huge hurry to lose 60 games per year and start rooting for the team to lose again.  I'd rather have our "big three" here for a few more years.

That's more sentimental rather than doing what's best for the team's future.  However, I'd rather role the dice, trade Rondo and pieces for CP3, add to the core in free agency, and hope that we catch lightning in a bottle again.

I appreciate and respect your desire not to return to the days of losing 60 each season and praying on lottery picks.  However, I'm not interested in watching the Celtics remain a fringe contender / first or second round speed bump for the next 3-4 years and thus delay reaching a point when the Celtics are actually relevant again.

I think if there's any opportunity to acquire CP3 and begin to build around him, though, you have to go for it.  Unlike Rondo, Chris Paul is absolutely the sort of player you can build a team around as long as he stays healthy.

  What you're talking about is basically the same as if, in 1989 or so, Red had unloaded the big three for late round draft picks in order to speed our trip to the bottom. I don't think that would have greatly lessened our time at the bottom. And, let's face it, if not for some great trades we'd either still be there or have a roster that might peak at "fringe contender" like so many teams have done.

I don't disagree that it sucks, and there is no guarantee the next version of the Celtics don't peak as a fringe contender like the Hawks, Blazers, and Nuggets have done the past few years.

Unfortunately, there just isn't any other way to do it from what I can see.  The only way to build your team back to relevance is to be clever and patient with trades, get lucky in the lottery, and draft well.  

That is, unless you are a prime free agent destination like LA, NY, or Miami -- and even the Lakers and the Heat had to draft Kobe, Bynum, and Wade to get where they are.  Boston is really not a prime free agent destination, though, so I think it's the San Antonio / OKC / Portland method for us.

It would be nice if things were different, but they aren't.  The NBA system requires teams to become terrible before they can become great again.  The only other options are to be fantastically lucky (getting a top 3 pick after just missing the playoffs like the Bulls did) or to buy up or trade for major free agents with secondary assets.

  The Bulls started their rebuild in, what, 96 or so? They probably had the top pick in the draft 3 times or so in the last 15 years and probably 8 or so top 5 picks. Even with all that luck in the lottery if they'd have lost the Rose lottery they'd still be nowhere. I wouldn't rush into "suck and build through the draft" any sooner than necessary, meaning basically that I'd exhausted all other options.

It's a crap shoot, no doubt about it.  However, the Thunder managed to ascend to top contender status in just a few years.  It took them a few top 5 picks and a few more later first rounders, but it proves it's doable if you're really lucky and really smart.  The Blazers would also be up there right now if they hadn't gotten unlucky with injuries / gambled on injury prone players.

I guess we just have a philosophical difference, though.  I want the Celtics to either be aiming for the very top or look to get bad quickly in order to be in a position to get back to the top.  I have no interest in seeing the team aim for the middle or just above it.

  The Thunder managed to ascend quickly because they didn't start their transformation until they were already in possession of a draft pick that was assuredly for a supposed "franchise" player. That's not a realistic starting point.

Again, it's a crapshoot.  You have to get a high draft pick that gives you a likely franchise player.  You have to be very bad or extremely lucky to draft that high, and you have to be both in order to get a true superstar with the pick.

But that's what it takes.

[BballTim]

Again, it's a crapshoot.  You have to get a high draft pick that gives you a likely franchise player.  You have to be very bad or extremely lucky to draft that high, and you have to be both in order to get a true superstar with the pick.

But that's what it takes.

  You not only have to win the lottery but you have to win the lottery in the year that a franchise player is available and hope that the player pans out and doesn't get a major injury. I really think that this is the last resort way to go.

[PosImpos]

Again, it's a crapshoot.  You have to get a high draft pick that gives you a likely franchise player.  You have to be very bad or extremely lucky to draft that high, and you have to be both in order to get a true superstar with the pick.

But that's what it takes.

  You not only have to win the lottery but you have to win the lottery in the year that a franchise player is available and hope that the player pans out and doesn't get a major injury. I really think that this is the last resort way to go.

I'm not disagreeing with your assertion that it's an unappealing plan . . . but it's more appealing, in my opinion, than the alternatives, which are

A) to be the Houston Rockets for the next 5 years -- fringe playoff team to middle seed with no chance of winning it all and no superstars (praying that a #13 pick turns into a franchise player or fantasizing that a star will come in free agency).

OR

B) try to keep the window open longer with veterans and low draft picks the way the Spurs have done the last few years, leading only to first and second round exits, followed by Plan A for another 4-5 years.

[hardlyyardley]

I believe Davis is an unrestricted free agent and not available for trade unless a sign/trade

[Who]

Hmm ... it'd be fun to see Garnett in Portland starting alongside LaMarcus Aldridge.

Those two would be a heck of a combination. Keep Gerald Wallace and Wes Matthews on the wing. Lots of defense and quickness. That would be fun to watch.

[Jon]

I really think Danny might hold onto everyone for one last hurrah.  Why?  Not so much because there's a good chance it happens (though you never know, Rose, LeBron, and Kobe could all blow ACLs--weirder things have happened), but because he may not want to saddle the team down with long term contracts. 

Holding on to Ray, KG, JO, (and Shaq) would give the Celtics around $40 million dollars of expiring contracts after next season.  In a year when Dwight Howard may be a free agent, that might be far more valuable than the likely mediocre talent that some contender will give us for any of those guys.  Because as others have pointed out, contenders can only give up so much while still being a contender.  And do we really want to take back $10 million or $23 million or $7 million in mediocre salary? 

[ballin]

Again, it's a crapshoot.  You have to get a high draft pick that gives you a likely franchise player.  You have to be very bad or extremely lucky to draft that high, and you have to be both in order to get a true superstar with the pick.

But that's what it takes.

  You not only have to win the lottery but you have to win the lottery in the year that a franchise player is available and hope that the player pans out and doesn't get a major injury. I really think that this is the last resort way to go.

As has already been said in this thread the only way to get really good in this league is to first get really bad, unless you're a prime FA destination (i.e. LA, NY, or MIA).

We're not a prime FA destination, so that kind of narrows it down to rebuilding through the draft. Obviously there's no guarantee it will work, but it's our only option.

Examples:

LA - drafted Kobe (franchise player) and built around him.
MIA - drafted Wade (franchise player) and built around him.
Mavs - drafted Dirk (franchise player) and built around him.
Bulls - drafted Rose (franchise player) and built around him.
OKC - drafted Durant and Westbrook (franchise players).
Spurs - drafted 3 superstars (Duncan, Ginobili, Parker).


Boston? Sorry, but I think we've figured out that Rondo isn't a franchise player. Too inconsistent, and too many holes in his game. You can't in your right mind compare him to a Kobe, Wade, Dirk, Durant, Duncan, or hell, even Rose at this point. So it's back to the drawing board (aka draft).

And obviously that's never a guarantee. Cleveland got Lebron and then failed to get him a proper supporting cast. New Orleans got Chris Paul and then failed to get him a proper supporting cast. The Magic got Dwight and still haven't gotten him a proper supporting cast.

So while it's easier said than done, the blueprint has been laid out and confirmed: draft a superstar and build a team around him, or if you're lucky with your picks, draft a couple of superstars and your work is pretty much done.

The key is that you start by getting a superstar, so unless we pull off a crazy trade for Chris Paul or Dwight Howard, we need to start thinking about how we're gonna get the highest draft pick possible.

[BballTim]

Again, it's a crapshoot.  You have to get a high draft pick that gives you a likely franchise player.  You have to be very bad or extremely lucky to draft that high, and you have to be both in order to get a true superstar with the pick.

But that's what it takes.

  You not only have to win the lottery but you have to win the lottery in the year that a franchise player is available and hope that the player pans out and doesn't get a major injury. I really think that this is the last resort way to go.

As has already been said in this thread the only way to get really good in this league is to first get really bad, unless you're a prime FA destination (i.e. LA, NY, or MIA).

We're not a prime FA destination, so that kind of narrows it down to rebuilding through the draft. Obviously there's no guarantee it will work, but it's our only option.

Examples:

LA - drafted Kobe (franchise player) and built around him.
MIA - drafted Wade (franchise player) and built around him.
Mavs - drafted Dirk (franchise player) and built around him.
Bulls - drafted Rose (franchise player) and built around him.
OKC - drafted Durant and Westbrook (franchise players).
Spurs - drafted 3 superstars (Duncan, Ginobili, Parker).

  You forgot the current Celts...

[the_green_truth]

Again, it's a crapshoot.  You have to get a high draft pick that gives you a likely franchise player.  You have to be very bad or extremely lucky to draft that high, and you have to be both in order to get a true superstar with the pick.

But that's what it takes.

  You not only have to win the lottery but you have to win the lottery in the year that a franchise player is available and hope that the player pans out and doesn't get a major injury. I really think that this is the last resort way to go.

As has already been said in this thread the only way to get really good in this league is to first get really bad, unless you're a prime FA destination (i.e. LA, NY, or MIA).

We're not a prime FA destination, so that kind of narrows it down to rebuilding through the draft. Obviously there's no guarantee it will work, but it's our only option.

Examples:

LA - drafted Kobe (franchise player) and built around him.
MIA - drafted Wade (franchise player) and built around him.
Mavs - drafted Dirk (franchise player) and built around him.
Bulls - drafted Rose (franchise player) and built around him.
OKC - drafted Durant and Westbrook (franchise players).
Spurs - drafted 3 superstars (Duncan, Ginobili, Parker).


Boston? Sorry, but I think we've figured out that Rondo isn't a franchise player. Too inconsistent, and too many holes in his game. You can't in your right mind compare him to a Kobe, Wade, Dirk, Durant, Duncan, or hell, even Rose at this point. So it's back to the drawing board (aka draft).

And obviously that's never a guarantee. Cleveland got Lebron and then failed to get him a proper supporting cast. New Orleans got Chris Paul and then failed to get him a proper supporting cast. The Magic got Dwight and still haven't gotten him a proper supporting cast.

So while it's easier said than done, the blueprint has been laid out and confirmed: draft a superstar and build a team around him, or if you're lucky with your picks, draft a couple of superstars and your work is pretty much done.

The key is that you start by getting a superstar, so unless we pull off a crazy trade for Chris Paul or Dwight Howard, we need to start thinking about how we're gonna get the highest draft pick possible.

LA never drafted Kobe. They acquired him by sending Vlade Divac to Charlotte Hornets. And I agree with most of you post. Unless we build a balanced the like the 1990 and the 2004 pistons, you have to get at least one franchise player or at least the go-to guy like Isiah Thomas or Chauncey Billups.

We can send our role players to other teams to get their 1st rounder draft picks. Much like Red Auerbach did in 1984. He trade Gerald Henderson to Seattle Sonics for Top 5 draft pick in Len Bias. Unfortunately, that draft went to waste when Bias died just two days after the draft. Maybe Danny did the same. But for me, it's too much of a gamble. The player could be a bust or an injury prone (let's hope not).

Rondo is not a franchise player, but he can be a compliment for our incoming one if there is any. Let Jeff Green go is not a good move either. You trade Kendrick Perkins for Jeff Green just to let him go? I think Danny should re-sign him for at least one season and if he still doesn't improve, then it's the time to let him go. Big Baby however, is the guy to let go. Hogs the ball too much and chucking it.

[PosImpos]

Hmm ... it'd be fun to see Garnett in Portland starting alongside LaMarcus Aldridge.

Those two would be a heck of a combination. Keep Gerald Wallace and Wes Matthews on the wing. Lots of defense and quickness. That would be fun to watch.

Hrm, I think both Garnett and LMA like to play too far away from the basket, and neither is at his best playing center.