If not Howard, get Gilbert Arenas!

[BballTim]

I think you are underestimating the impact that Rondo has and will continue to have on this team.  He may never be considered a top 5 player, but with a strong team around him, I think the Celtics will be able to remain contenders.

I guess I just don't buy the original premise that it's more about having the one superstar than having a complete team.  That may have been the case through the '80s and '90s but that model has slowly been starting to change over the last decade.

As a fan of the game, I've never been a fan of the superstar system of the NBA.  I think it's great that the talent is getting deeper, and the top 2 or 3 players in the league can't dominate the entire league the way guys like Jordan, Magic, and Bird did. 

Respectfully disagree.  Other than the 2004 Pistons, this league has been driven by superstars and it's getting moreso recently.

  How is it getting moreso recently?

[mgent]

Bad contracts hurt more than they help.

Why wouldn't you just go with Rondo and Pierce and stay under the cap?  Get good picks without destroying your team, and be able to sign a top player without having to trade your expirings or having to wait for them to expire.

[EDWARDO]

Bad contracts hurt more than they help.

Why wouldn't you just go with Rondo and Pierce and stay under the cap?  Get good picks without destroying your team, and be able to sign a top player without having to trade your expirings or having to wait for them to expire.

Yes, bad contracts hurt more than they help. That's why you'd get paid to take them on. Just make sure they all expire at the same time to maximize the cap advantage.


You CAN'T get good picks without destroying the team.

The whole point of the post is that unless they can pull if a Dwight Howard coup, the players they sign are very likely to be overpaid for good to very good players and VERY VERY VERY unlikely to help you build an actual title contender.

Its all about finding "the best guy on a title contender". I really like Rondo, but realistically, that's not him. I know a lot of people on this board want to think he is, but he just isn't.

[mgent]

Which is a why a team led by him without Pierce, KG, and Ray would be pretty bad.  However we still have the big 3 next year and they're capable of winning, so if you can add that missing piece via FA then that's what you have to do.  After that, if we don't get Howard, it's smarter to stay under the cap until the next top player hits free agency.

Plus, if you really want to tank all you have to do is put Baby in the starting lineup.

[Edgar]

Its like the Panda Mentality
is White or is Black

No gray allowed
All or nothing

I also like that game to be honest


CP3      Arroyo    BRadley
Ray      Arenas
Pierce   Jeff Green
J smith  KG       
Howard   Okur


hey you say all or nothing dont you
Big 3 accept

[BballTim]

Bad contracts hurt more than they help.

Why wouldn't you just go with Rondo and Pierce and stay under the cap?  Get good picks without destroying your team, and be able to sign a top player without having to trade your expirings or having to wait for them to expire.

Yes, bad contracts hurt more than they help. That's why you'd get paid to take them on. Just make sure they all expire at the same time to maximize the cap advantage.


You CAN'T get good picks without destroying the team.

The whole point of the post is that unless they can pull if a Dwight Howard coup, the players they sign are very likely to be overpaid for good to very good players and VERY VERY VERY unlikely to help you build an actual title contender.

Its all about finding "the best guy on a title contender". I really like Rondo, but realistically, that's not him. I know a lot of people on this board want to think he is, but he just isn't.

  KG's still a great defender but none of PP/RA/KG would be considered superstars. If you look at your numbers there's about a 1 in 5 shot that you'll get a "best player on a title team" with a #1 pick and about a 1 in 20 shot you'll get one with a lower pick still in the top 5. It will take multiple trips to the bottom of the league to give you a decent shot at a franchise player and you'll have to deal with the top 5 players you pick, while not superstars, will likely be good enough to get you out of the top 5 picks, bringing your chances of getting a franchise player close to nil. You don't like the odds of building around Rondo, but I'd say that the odds of getting 3 players close to the current level of RA/KG/PP are higher than the odds of getting one player at the level of a Shaq or TD or Magic.

[Surferdad]

I think you are underestimating the impact that Rondo has and will continue to have on this team.  He may never be considered a top 5 player, but with a strong team around him, I think the Celtics will be able to remain contenders.

I guess I just don't buy the original premise that it's more about having the one superstar than having a complete team.  That may have been the case through the '80s and '90s but that model has slowly been starting to change over the last decade.

As a fan of the game, I've never been a fan of the superstar system of the NBA.  I think it's great that the talent is getting deeper, and the top 2 or 3 players in the league can't dominate the entire league the way guys like Jordan, Magic, and Bird did. 

Respectfully disagree.  Other than the 2004 Pistons, this league has been driven by superstars and it's getting moreso recently.

  How is it getting moreso recently?

LeBron, Wade, Kobe, Dirk, Paul, KG, Ray...

[Edgar]

I think you are underestimating the impact that Rondo has and will continue to have on this team.  He may never be considered a top 5 player, but with a strong team around him, I think the Celtics will be able to remain contenders.

I guess I just don't buy the original premise that it's more about having the one superstar than having a complete team.  That may have been the case through the '80s and '90s but that model has slowly been starting to change over the last decade.

As a fan of the game, I've never been a fan of the superstar system of the NBA.  I think it's great that the talent is getting deeper, and the top 2 or 3 players in the league can't dominate the entire league the way guys like Jordan, Magic, and Bird did. 

Respectfully disagree.  Other than the 2004 Pistons, this league has been driven by superstars and it's getting moreso recently.

  How is it getting moreso recently?

LeBron, Wade, Kobe, Dirk, Paul, KG, Ray...

Paul, KG and Ray qualifie as Stars on 2008 none of them
were superstars till finales.

[BballTim]

I think you are underestimating the impact that Rondo has and will continue to have on this team.  He may never be considered a top 5 player, but with a strong team around him, I think the Celtics will be able to remain contenders.

I guess I just don't buy the original premise that it's more about having the one superstar than having a complete team.  That may have been the case through the '80s and '90s but that model has slowly been starting to change over the last decade.

As a fan of the game, I've never been a fan of the superstar system of the NBA.  I think it's great that the talent is getting deeper, and the top 2 or 3 players in the league can't dominate the entire league the way guys like Jordan, Magic, and Bird did. 

Respectfully disagree.  Other than the 2004 Pistons, this league has been driven by superstars and it's getting moreso recently.

  How is it getting moreso recently?

LeBron, Wade, Kobe, Dirk, Paul, KG, Ray...

  All less dominant than most of the other superstars mentioned (Shaq, TD, Bird, Magic, Jordan)...

[cman88]

the 2010 Celtics didnt have a superstar....and while Dirk played great this playoffs, the team around him played a big part(and no one ever put him in the top 5 until this playoffs)

[Edgar]

the 2010 Celtics didnt have a superstar....and while Dirk played great this playoffs, the team around him played a big part(and no one ever put him in the top 5 until this playoffs)

even mahinmi saves them one game

[slamtheking]

interesting thought.  I wouldn't be against the accumulation of trade chips (lots of them) in exchange for taking on another team's bad contract or two for a  couple of years.

Also, I'm not sure a team of Rondo, Mayo, Smith and Big Al doesn't make some noise in the league depending on the rest of the roster.  Green, Bradley and Johnson with some of those other (hopefully high) draft picks could turn out to be a pretty good team.  probably wouldn't get past Miami or maybe Chicago but that would depend on the rest of the team's make up.

Honestly? That team sucks.

No one on it even close to being "the best guy on a title contender". That frankly looks like the Hawks teams of the last few years. A bunch of good to very good players that has not chance of winning a title. Exactly what you DON'T want.

If that were all there was to it, I agree that it's not a contender.  But that's why I said it depends on how the rest of the roster is filled out and that's with the assumption that some of the assets acquired for those bad contracts were fairly high picks -- at least mid-to-late lottery. 

That foursome would need at least a very solid defensive center with good hands that can score around the basket (or have a jumper out to 15-18 feet to let Al work in the post).  Give Rondo the chance to feed Mayo, Smith and Green on a fast break, that team will score a lot of points.  Big Al in the post with a few players that can hit outside jumpers will free him up to be a 20 point scorer.  It's no sure thing but that team (again, based on the rest of the roster) wouldn't necessarily need a big star to carry them because there a several players that can step up in the moment. 
Not that I'm advocating Danny trade/sign these guys to develop this particular team but with the right pieces, that team could win quite a few games.

[Celtics18]

 "(If you go back over the past 30yrs, the number of teams that won the title without a guy who was iN the top 3 guys in the NBA is maybe 2-3... Pistons 2004, maybe our Celts and the Mavs (was Dirk top 3 heading into the playoffs? not sure i would have said that)."  Quoted by Edwardo.


 

I don't know about the last 30 years, but I think it could be argued that not a single of the last nine NBA champions has had a top 3 player on their roster.  

[KCattheStripe]

"(If you go back over the past 30yrs, the number of teams that won the title without a guy who was iN the top 3 guys in the NBA is maybe 2-3... Pistons 2004, maybe our Celts and the Mavs (was Dirk top 3 heading into the playoffs? not sure i would have said that)."  Quoted by Edwardo.


 

I don't know about the last 30 years, but I think it could be argued that not a single of the last nine NBA champions has had a top 3 player on their roster.  

Ummm, there is no universe in which 2003 or 2005 Tim Duncan is not a top 3 player

[Fafnir]

"(If you go back over the past 30yrs, the number of teams that won the title without a guy who was iN the top 3 guys in the NBA is maybe 2-3... Pistons 2004, maybe our Celts and the Mavs (was Dirk top 3 heading into the playoffs? not sure i would have said that)."  Quoted by Edwardo.


 

I don't know about the last 30 years, but I think it could be argued that not a single of the last nine NBA champions has had a top 3 player on their roster.  

Ummm, there is no universe in which 2003 or 2005 Tim Duncan is not a top 3 player

Agreed, plus after LeBron I would put 2007-2008 KG as the equal of any player that year as well. There were probably about 4 or 5 at that same level.

(Tim Duncan, Wade (injuries plagued him again that year), Kobe, CP3 would be my other 4)