what does Your rebulding celtics team for the 2012-2013 season look like

[Celtics4ever]

I would not touch Oden with a ten foot pole.  Dude, is out this year already again.

[PosImpos]

I would not touch Oden with a ten foot pole.  Dude, is out this year already again.

yeah, he's simply not meant to play basketball long term.

[PosImpos]

I don't think the C's would necessarily be rebuilding specifically around Rondo if they kept him on the roster...I mean he's a solid player at a decent price. If they can't trade him for something good, then they might as well keep him.

the point is, if you keep Rondo on your roster and you make any sort of attempt to build a decent team with him as the main guy, you're destined for mediocrity.

so unless the plan is hold onto Rondo and tank by putting D-leaguers / borderline talents around him, i'm not seeing the endgame of keeping him.  now, it's possible that Danny plans to do exactly that. use our cap space to take on bad deals from other teams coupled with low risk / high upside young players and tank for a couple years with Rondo at the helm.  

but that plan doesn't strike me as bold enough for Danny Ainge.  he wants to get back to the top sooner rather than later, and i think he'll make big, widely unpopular moves to get there -- including trading Rondo.

The truth is that in today's NBA you can't expect to win titles based on having one "transcendent" (to use a word that folks like to bandy about) superstar.

You generally need at least two top players and/or a very solid supporting cast of top level talent, a la last year's Mavs or our Celtics.  We can even throw in the recent Laker champs, not to mention the Spurs.  

that's precisely my point, though.  you aren't getting more than one top players on the Celtics unless you draft at least one of them and then lure more through free agency because you have an exciting franchise star.  no, rondo doesn't count.

trying to build a 2004 pistons type team around Rondo seems like a foolish plan to me.  that would basically consist of signing and trading for borderline all-stars and hoping that they can build the right amount of chemistry, complement each other in just the right way, play top-level defense, and get lucky in terms of their opponent.  that's certainly possible, if all goes right.  but it could also mean you spend a lot of money year after year to be a team like the Hawks.

i would argue that a team like the '04 Pistons is not going to win a title in today's NBA.  too many superteams.  

again, what team has won a title in the past 25 years other than the pistons that didn't draft at least one of its star players, or trade for them using draft assets, as a result of being one of the worst teams in the league for at least one year?  as i said before, the only one that comes to mind is the lakers (though they drafted both kobe and bynum in the late lottery).  but nobody but the lakers can do what the lakers do (unique combination of money, location, prestige, spotlight).

[Moranis]

I don't think the C's would necessarily be rebuilding specifically around Rondo if they kept him on the roster...I mean he's a solid player at a decent price. If they can't trade him for something good, then they might as well keep him.

the point is, if you keep Rondo on your roster and you make any sort of attempt to build a decent team with him as the main guy, you're destined for mediocrity.

so unless the plan is hold onto Rondo and tank by putting D-leaguers / borderline talents around him, i'm not seeing the endgame of keeping him.  now, it's possible that Danny plans to do exactly that. use our cap space to take on bad deals from other teams coupled with low risk / high upside young players and tank for a couple years with Rondo at the helm.  

but that plan doesn't strike me as bold enough for Danny Ainge.  he wants to get back to the top sooner rather than later, and i think he'll make big, widely unpopular moves to get there -- including trading Rondo.

The truth is that in today's NBA you can't expect to win titles based on having one "transcendent" (to use a word that folks like to bandy about) superstar.

You generally need at least two top players and/or a very solid supporting cast of top level talent, a la last year's Mavs or our Celtics.  We can even throw in the recent Laker champs, not to mention the Spurs.  

that's precisely my point, though.  you aren't getting more than one top players on the Celtics unless you draft at least one of them and then lure more through free agency because you have an exciting franchise star.  no, rondo doesn't count.

trying to build a 2004 pistons type team around Rondo seems like a foolish plan to me.  that would basically consist of signing and trading for borderline all-stars and hoping that they can build the right amount of chemistry, complement each other in just the right way, play top-level defense, and get lucky in terms of their opponent.  that's certainly possible, if all goes right.  but it could also mean you spend a lot of money year after year to be a team like the Hawks.

i would argue that a team like the '04 Pistons is not going to win a title in today's NBA.  too many superteams.  

again, what team has won a title in the past 25 years other than the pistons that didn't draft at least one of its star players, or trade for them using draft assets, as a result of being one of the worst teams in the league for at least one year?  as i said before, the only one that comes to mind is the lakers (though they drafted both kobe and bynum in the late lottery).  but nobody but the lakers can do what the lakers do (unique combination of money, location, prestige, spotlight).

The Lakers actually traded for Bryant.  They traded Vlade Divac straight up for his draft rights.  They drafted Vlade in the first round in 1989 so part of that holds.  The Lakers also drafted Derek Fisher, Eddie Jones, Elden Campbell, Nick Van Exel, and a number of other role players and/or players used to add pieces to their teams making them title worthy (i.e. Jones and Campbell were traded for Glen Rice - Van Exel eventually led to Horace Grant, etc.)

EDIT: The reality is the Lakers can lure free agents like no other team, but they also have been incredibly well managed.  Drafting well and generally not wasting their free agent money.  They rarely miss at the end of the first round and even their second round picks have had a lot of winners (the last 20 years alone) - Marc Gasol, Nick Van Exel, Ruben Patterson, Luke Walton, Ronny Turiaf, Von Wafer.  Some legit starters and a lot of solid long term role players, which is impressive from the second round.

[PosImpos]

I don't think the C's would necessarily be rebuilding specifically around Rondo if they kept him on the roster...I mean he's a solid player at a decent price. If they can't trade him for something good, then they might as well keep him.

the point is, if you keep Rondo on your roster and you make any sort of attempt to build a decent team with him as the main guy, you're destined for mediocrity.

so unless the plan is hold onto Rondo and tank by putting D-leaguers / borderline talents around him, i'm not seeing the endgame of keeping him.  now, it's possible that Danny plans to do exactly that. use our cap space to take on bad deals from other teams coupled with low risk / high upside young players and tank for a couple years with Rondo at the helm.  

but that plan doesn't strike me as bold enough for Danny Ainge.  he wants to get back to the top sooner rather than later, and i think he'll make big, widely unpopular moves to get there -- including trading Rondo.

The truth is that in today's NBA you can't expect to win titles based on having one "transcendent" (to use a word that folks like to bandy about) superstar.

You generally need at least two top players and/or a very solid supporting cast of top level talent, a la last year's Mavs or our Celtics.  We can even throw in the recent Laker champs, not to mention the Spurs.  

that's precisely my point, though.  you aren't getting more than one top players on the Celtics unless you draft at least one of them and then lure more through free agency because you have an exciting franchise star.  no, rondo doesn't count.

trying to build a 2004 pistons type team around Rondo seems like a foolish plan to me.  that would basically consist of signing and trading for borderline all-stars and hoping that they can build the right amount of chemistry, complement each other in just the right way, play top-level defense, and get lucky in terms of their opponent.  that's certainly possible, if all goes right.  but it could also mean you spend a lot of money year after year to be a team like the Hawks.

i would argue that a team like the '04 Pistons is not going to win a title in today's NBA.  too many superteams.  

again, what team has won a title in the past 25 years other than the pistons that didn't draft at least one of its star players, or trade for them using draft assets, as a result of being one of the worst teams in the league for at least one year?  as i said before, the only one that comes to mind is the lakers (though they drafted both kobe and bynum in the late lottery).  but nobody but the lakers can do what the lakers do (unique combination of money, location, prestige, spotlight).

The Lakers actually traded for Bryant.  They traded Vlade Divac straight up for his draft rights.  They drafted Vlade in the first round in 1989 so part of that holds.  The Lakers also drafted Derek Fisher, Eddie Jones, Elden Campbell, Nick Van Exel, and a number of other role players and/or players used to add pieces to their teams making them title worthy (i.e. Jones and Campbell were traded for Glen Rice - Van Exel eventually led to Horace Grant, etc.)

if im not mistaken, the Lakers traded those guys for the pick and selected Bryant.

but anyway, as i said before, you can't plan on operating like the Lakers.  the Lakers play by different rules than the rest of the league.  if they don't steal Shaq from Orlando via free agency and pilfer Gasol from Memphis for practically nothing (in terms of value at the time), the Lakers don't win any championships in the last 15 years.

[Ganguido]

Rondo - Dooling or veteran PG like Baron or Miller
E.Gordon/OJ Mayo/Shannon Brown - Ray Ray - Moore
Pierce-Green if healthy or draft'2012 pure SF (LeBryan Nash or Kris Joseph)
KG-Bass-JJJ
Kaman- draft'2012 true C like Festus Ezeli or Tyler Zeller

[Celtics18]

I don't think the C's would necessarily be rebuilding specifically around Rondo if they kept him on the roster...I mean he's a solid player at a decent price. If they can't trade him for something good, then they might as well keep him.

the point is, if you keep Rondo on your roster and you make any sort of attempt to build a decent team with him as the main guy, you're destined for mediocrity.

so unless the plan is hold onto Rondo and tank by putting D-leaguers / borderline talents around him, i'm not seeing the endgame of keeping him.  now, it's possible that Danny plans to do exactly that. use our cap space to take on bad deals from other teams coupled with low risk / high upside young players and tank for a couple years with Rondo at the helm.  

but that plan doesn't strike me as bold enough for Danny Ainge.  he wants to get back to the top sooner rather than later, and i think he'll make big, widely unpopular moves to get there -- including trading Rondo.

The truth is that in today's NBA you can't expect to win titles based on having one "transcendent" (to use a word that folks like to bandy about) superstar.

You generally need at least two top players and/or a very solid supporting cast of top level talent, a la last year's Mavs or our Celtics.  We can even throw in the recent Laker champs, not to mention the Spurs.  

that's precisely my point, though.  you aren't getting more than one top players on the Celtics unless you draft at least one of them and then lure more through free agency because you have an exciting franchise star.  no, rondo doesn't count.

trying to build a 2004 pistons type team around Rondo seems like a foolish plan to me.  that would basically consist of signing and trading for borderline all-stars and hoping that they can build the right amount of chemistry, complement each other in just the right way, play top-level defense, and get lucky in terms of their opponent.  that's certainly possible, if all goes right.  but it could also mean you spend a lot of money year after year to be a team like the Hawks.

i would argue that a team like the '04 Pistons is not going to win a title in today's NBA.  too many superteams.  

again, what team has won a title in the past 25 years other than the pistons that didn't draft at least one of its star players, or trade for them using draft assets, as a result of being one of the worst teams in the league for at least one year?  as i said before, the only one that comes to mind is the lakers (though they drafted both kobe and bynum in the late lottery).  but nobody but the lakers can do what the lakers do (unique combination of money, location, prestige, spotlight).

In the case of the Mavericks and the Celtics, they drafted Nowitzki and Pierce 9th and 10th respectively and then waited over a decade for those stars to lead them to a title.  Management for both those teams had to make a lot of sound personnel moves for them to become titlists.  Both Pierce and Nowitzki have always been very good players, but they've had to work hard and stay healthy (and win titles) to really get placed in that elite category.  

It seems a little too narrow to me to say that the primary event that led to the Celtics' 2008 title and the Mavericks 2011 title was each of those teams tanking back in '97.  Sure, those teams being bad that year landed them their respective stars but it took a lot more than that along the way to finally build a champion.  

If I've got to wait 14 years for my team to win its next title, anyway, what's the rush to get rid of our best young player?  To me, it makes more sense to keep him around a little while and see if he can become that kind of leader for this team going forward.

[nickagneta]

I see a lot of people adding Jeff Green to their teams. I have to wonder how good he will be post surgery. Was Fred Hoiberg, Etan Thomas, Ronny Turiaf and others as good post heart surgery as they were prior to the surgery?

To me there seemed to be a fairly decent size drop off in their performances. Now we might be stuck with him for a year since if he is medically cleared he could accept the $5.9 million qualifying offer but if I'm Danny, I try to trade him in a sign and trade next year.

[Fafnir]

I see a lot of people adding Jeff Green to their teams. I have to wonder how good he will be post surgery. Was Fred Hoiberg, Etan Thomas, Ronny Turiaf and others as good post heart surgery as they were prior to the surgery?

To me there seemed to be a fairly decent size drop off in their performances. Now we might be stuck with him for a year since if he is medically cleared he could accept the $5.9 million qualifying offer but if I'm Danny, I try to trade him in a sign and trade next year.

Well of course you would, you wanted to sign and trade him before this medical issue popped up. Why would it change your opinion? Jeff Green is a useful role player in my mind, whether or not you sign him or trade him depends on what happens with the bigger components of the team. So in my mind its impossible to have a plan of action yet.

As an aside, Ronny Turiaf had a heart surgery befoe he played a minute in the NBA didn't he?

[Moranis]

I don't think the C's would necessarily be rebuilding specifically around Rondo if they kept him on the roster...I mean he's a solid player at a decent price. If they can't trade him for something good, then they might as well keep him.

the point is, if you keep Rondo on your roster and you make any sort of attempt to build a decent team with him as the main guy, you're destined for mediocrity.

so unless the plan is hold onto Rondo and tank by putting D-leaguers / borderline talents around him, i'm not seeing the endgame of keeping him.  now, it's possible that Danny plans to do exactly that. use our cap space to take on bad deals from other teams coupled with low risk / high upside young players and tank for a couple years with Rondo at the helm.  

but that plan doesn't strike me as bold enough for Danny Ainge.  he wants to get back to the top sooner rather than later, and i think he'll make big, widely unpopular moves to get there -- including trading Rondo.

The truth is that in today's NBA you can't expect to win titles based on having one "transcendent" (to use a word that folks like to bandy about) superstar.

You generally need at least two top players and/or a very solid supporting cast of top level talent, a la last year's Mavs or our Celtics.  We can even throw in the recent Laker champs, not to mention the Spurs.  

that's precisely my point, though.  you aren't getting more than one top players on the Celtics unless you draft at least one of them and then lure more through free agency because you have an exciting franchise star.  no, rondo doesn't count.

trying to build a 2004 pistons type team around Rondo seems like a foolish plan to me.  that would basically consist of signing and trading for borderline all-stars and hoping that they can build the right amount of chemistry, complement each other in just the right way, play top-level defense, and get lucky in terms of their opponent.  that's certainly possible, if all goes right.  but it could also mean you spend a lot of money year after year to be a team like the Hawks.

i would argue that a team like the '04 Pistons is not going to win a title in today's NBA.  too many superteams.  

again, what team has won a title in the past 25 years other than the pistons that didn't draft at least one of its star players, or trade for them using draft assets, as a result of being one of the worst teams in the league for at least one year?  as i said before, the only one that comes to mind is the lakers (though they drafted both kobe and bynum in the late lottery).  but nobody but the lakers can do what the lakers do (unique combination of money, location, prestige, spotlight).

In the case of the Mavericks and the Celtics, they drafted Nowitzki and Pierce 9th and 10th respectively and then waited over a decade for those stars to lead them to a title.  Management for both those teams had to make a lot of sound personnel moves for them to become titlists.  Both Pierce and Nowitzki have always been very good players, but they've had to work hard and stay healthy (and win titles) to really get placed in that elite category.  

It seems a little too narrow to me to say that the primary event that led to the Celtics' 2008 title and the Mavericks 2011 title was each of those teams tanking back in '97.  Sure, those teams being bad that year landed them their respective stars but it took a lot more than that along the way to finally build a champion.  

If I've got to wait 14 years for my team to win its next title, anyway, what's the rush to get rid of our best young player?  To me, it makes more sense to keep him around a little while and see if he can become that kind of leader for this team going forward.

The Celtics utilized numerous first round picks, one of which developed into a star, to acquire Kevin Garnett and traded a top five pick and other useful players for Ray Allen.  They needed to be bad to get the players necessary to trade for the stars.

As for the Mavs, they traded players they drafted (or players they traded for players they drafted) to acquire almost all of the key players from their title team.  Terry came over for Walker.  Kidd came over for Harris and 2 firsts (among other players).  And on and on.

[PosImpos]

In the case of the Mavericks and the Celtics, they drafted Nowitzki and Pierce 9th and 10th respectively and then waited over a decade for those stars to lead them to a title.  Management for both those teams had to make a lot of sound personnel moves for them to become titlists.  Both Pierce and Nowitzki have always been very good players, but they've had to work hard and stay healthy (and win titles) to really get placed in that elite category. 

It seems a little too narrow to me to say that the primary event that led to the Celtics' 2008 title and the Mavericks 2011 title was each of those teams tanking back in '97.  Sure, those teams being bad that year landed them their respective stars but it took a lot more than that along the way to finally build a champion. 

If I've got to wait 14 years for my team to win its next title, anyway, what's the rush to get rid of our best young player?  To me, it makes more sense to keep him around a little while and see if he can become that kind of leader for this team going forward.

The Celtics utilized numerous first round picks, one of which developed into a star, to acquire Kevin Garnett and traded a top five pick and other useful players for Ray Allen.  They needed to be bad to get the players necessary to trade for the stars.

As for the Mavs, they traded players they drafted (or players they traded for players they drafted) to acquire almost all of the key players from their title team.  Terry came over for Walker.  Kidd came over for Harris and 2 firsts (among other players).  And on and on.

Exactly.  The Celtics needed to get a windfall in Pierce at #10 way back in the late 90's, they needed Big Al to turn into a young star (15th overall pick), and they need the #5 overall pick to bring it all together.  And it took them well over a decade to become a true contender. 

Now, if they had been truly awful and gotten a top 5 draft pick 2-3 times, and used those picks well, could they have contended much sooner, and been competitive longer?  I would argue yes.

As for the Mavs, it took them many trades and many draft picks, as Moranis pointed out.  Also, they benefited from the fact that back in the late 90's teams didn't scout foreign players as well.  These days, I highly doubt a star like Dirk would ever fall to #9.  With them, too, you could fairly wonder if they could have put together a contender by drafting in the high lottery multiple times.

In any case, there's a common thread: you've got to be really bad at least once, and you've got to turn that high pick into a star one way or another.  I say the sooner we pick high, the better. 

Ideally you pick high, turn that asset into a really good piece, and then draft high once or twice more (as the Thunder did a couple years ago).  If you really use those picks well, you can be set up to contend for years to come.

[CFAN38]

My hopes for rebuild hit a big snag with green losing this season.

step 1 What I was hoping for was Green eating up starters minutes and proving he was our SF after pierce retires.

step 2 For me is acquiring a sg who could spell ray and fill the role of floor spacing shooter (using a draft pick as trade bait with jo's expiring deal) a bonus would be a guy capable of playing back up point
   options a.eric gordon b.oj mayo c.marcus thorton d.jj redick e. anthony morrow

step 3 Draft a PF replacment for KG, this draft is very very deep at PF
  options a.A Davis b. Sullinger c.Perry d.Henson etc.... there are alot of potential allstar 4s

step 4 Find 2 6'10" players under the age of 28 to be our center by committee with the hopes that one sets himself apart and becomes the starter (not sure who or how we get them)
 ex R Lopez,A Gray,Thabeet,C Aldrich


2012-2013 hope ray resigns cheap,figure kg retires

Rondo,Mayo,Moore/bradely
Ray,Mayo, moore/bradely
Pierce,Green
Bass,Henson,JJ,Green
R Lopez,Thabeet

This is definitely not a championship team but will be in the playoff and a very tough out with a fast athletic young group waiting behind pierce and ray

2013-2014

Rondo
Mayo
Green,Pierce
Henson,bass
Lopez/Thabeet

[Moranis]

In the case of the Mavericks and the Celtics, they drafted Nowitzki and Pierce 9th and 10th respectively and then waited over a decade for those stars to lead them to a title.  Management for both those teams had to make a lot of sound personnel moves for them to become titlists.  Both Pierce and Nowitzki have always been very good players, but they've had to work hard and stay healthy (and win titles) to really get placed in that elite category.  

It seems a little too narrow to me to say that the primary event that led to the Celtics' 2008 title and the Mavericks 2011 title was each of those teams tanking back in '97.  Sure, those teams being bad that year landed them their respective stars but it took a lot more than that along the way to finally build a champion.  

If I've got to wait 14 years for my team to win its next title, anyway, what's the rush to get rid of our best young player?  To me, it makes more sense to keep him around a little while and see if he can become that kind of leader for this team going forward.

The Celtics utilized numerous first round picks, one of which developed into a star, to acquire Kevin Garnett and traded a top five pick and other useful players for Ray Allen.  They needed to be bad to get the players necessary to trade for the stars.

As for the Mavs, they traded players they drafted (or players they traded for players they drafted) to acquire almost all of the key players from their title team.  Terry came over for Walker.  Kidd came over for Harris and 2 firsts (among other players).  And on and on.

Exactly.  The Celtics needed to get a windfall in Pierce at #10 way back in the late 90's, they needed Big Al to turn into a young star (15th overall pick), and they need the #5 overall pick to bring it all together.  And it took them well over a decade to become a true contender.  

Now, if they had been truly awful and gotten a top 5 draft pick 2-3 times, and used those picks well, could they have contended much sooner, and been competitive longer?  I would argue yes.

As for the Mavs, it took them many trades and many draft picks, as Moranis pointed out.  Also, they benefited from the fact that back in the late 90's teams didn't scout foreign players as well.  These days, I highly doubt a star like Dirk would ever fall to #9.  With them, too, you could fairly wonder if they could have put together a contender by drafting in the high lottery multiple times.

In any case, there's a common thread: you've got to be really bad at least once, and you've got to turn that high pick into a star one way or another.  I say the sooner we pick high, the better.  

Ideally you pick high, turn that asset into a really good piece, and then draft high once or twice more (as the Thunder did a couple years ago).  If you really use those picks well, you can be set up to contend for years to come.

I'm glad the C's didn't do this, but they really probably should have traded Pierce and Walker at the same time and really tanked for a couple of seasons and started again.  It worked out fairly well in the end, but after that run in the early 2000's, it should have been rebuilding time.  Far too many teams just try to hang on to long and don't throw in the towel when it needs to be thrown in.  By keeping Pierce, the team wallowed in mediocrity for 5 years and it really is only by luck that Jefferson worked out that the team was able to put together the contender it did in the manner it did.  

I'm afraid the C's are hanging around too long again.  I just can't see this team winning a title without a major injury to Lebron/Wade, perhaps Rose, and just an out of our mind playoff series in the finals.  I just don't see it happening.

[nickagneta]

I see a lot of people adding Jeff Green to their teams. I have to wonder how good he will be post surgery. Was Fred Hoiberg, Etan Thomas, Ronny Turiaf and others as good post heart surgery as they were prior to the surgery?

To me there seemed to be a fairly decent size drop off in their performances. Now we might be stuck with him for a year since if he is medically cleared he could accept the $5.9 million qualifying offer but if I'm Danny, I try to trade him in a sign and trade next year.

Well of course you would, you wanted to sign and trade him before this medical issue popped up. Why would it change your opinion? Jeff Green is a useful role player in my mind, whether or not you sign him or trade him depends on what happens with the bigger components of the team. So in my mind its impossible to have a plan of action yet.

As an aside, Ronny Turiaf had a heart surgery befoe he played a minute in the NBA didn't he?

Well, yeah, I did want to sign and trade him before but that was based on my thoughts that he would be wanting big money(he did, he signed a $9 million a year contract) and that he wasn't worth the money or the yearly commitment(neither did the Celtics for similar reasons:cap flexibility, possibly not a cornerstone piece moving forward, want to see him with a full year first).

Now that he was signed, I was fine with what happened because it wasn't a long term deal and we could all see if he could be something more than what he has shown which, to be fair, has been difficult to do thus far in the NBA(he was playing out of position in Oklahoma and had no learning curve time here at the end of last year).

But now, I would want to sign and trade him because I think there could be a drop off. If someone else is willing to take the risk with him and give up something, especially if he is part of a larger package and because next year is the last year of sign and trades, I think you have to do it. Different reasons.

BTW, I saw Turiaf play at Gonzaga. I don't think he ever returned to what I saw as great NBA potential. He's been solid for a second rounder but I really thought the Lakers stole him that late and that he was going to be a heck of a player, not just a tough bench guy.

By the same token, if the Green's market isn't good and the C's are confident he could be 100% recovered, if they can land him for cheap money($4 million per for a couple years) or lower than the QO for one year, on a short term make good contract, I would be okay with that.

[Smokeeye123]

The Celtics should work out a trade for Monta Ellis and somehow keep Rondo. Rondo + Ellis would be electric imo.

PG Rajon Rondo
SG Monta Ellis
SF Josh Smith
PF Kevin Love
C Al Jefferson or Roy Hibbert

I like this lineup for the future...Young and fast paced. It should work salary wise as well, right?