Difference Between Celtics and Spurs

[the_Bird]

I actually thought Semih was a decent player - not great by any stretch, but tough (playing through a shoulder injury because the team needed him), pretty good hands, pretty good getting up and down the court.  Wasn't star material, and probably never going to be a very good defender or rebounder (not enough beef), but a serviceable player who could carve out a role for himself.

And, Doc gave him some PT.  Not a ton, true, but he played in 37 games and averaged 14 minutes/game.  For an injured rookie, he got some meaningful PT.

And, Danny gave him away, for nothing, essentially.  Just wanted a roster spot because he thought Troy Murphy might be able to give us a little bit more.  Wrong!

That's on Danny, not on Doc.  Keep that in mind, everyone who's in the Stiemsma fan club!

[tyrone biggums]

I actually thought Semih was a decent player - not great by any stretch, but tough (playing through a shoulder injury because the team needed him), pretty good hands, pretty good getting up and down the court.  Wasn't star material, and probably never going to be a very good defender or rebounder (not enough beef), but a serviceable player who could carve out a role for himself.

And, Doc gave him some PT.  Not a ton, true, but he played in 37 games and averaged 14 minutes/game.  For an injured rookie, he got some meaningful PT.

And, Danny gave him away, for nothing, essentially.  Just wanted a roster spot because he thought Troy Murphy might be able to give us a little bit more.  Wrong!

That's on Danny, not on Doc.  Keep that in mind, everyone who's in the Stiemsma fan club!

He isn't anything more than a 12th man on a decent team.

A few points

-For everyone still complaining about Perkins being traded, he is currently being paid 9 million and really hasn't been giving the Thunder great production, tough to blow a team up and rebuild from the lottery every year when you have 20 million tied up into two flawed players.

-The Spurs have been fantastic, however they aren't without their own faults (RJ comes to mind immediately) they were fortunate with losing David Robinson for the season and winding up with Tim Duncan.

-The Celtics may or may not have young talent on the roster, however people clamor for too much too soon from these guys. JJJ is obviously not ready to play or else he would be.

-The obvious difference between the two teams besides the young talent is that they have a legendary hall of fame head coach while the Celtics have a very good one.

[the_Bird]

He isn't anything more than a 12th man on a decent team.

I'd argue fringe-rotation (10th man), about the same as Billy Walker.  That comes back to Danny, though (and is still more than Dropkick gave us last year).

[Spilling Green Dye]

Saying that Danny Ainge hasn't brought in any young talent like the Spurs have is not true. 

Danny brought in Jeff Green who is more talented than any young guy on the Spurs. 

While I do think that Doc is overrated as a coach, what exactly has Poppovich done in the playoffs the past several years?  He only won when Duncan was playing at an elite level.

[BballTim]

In the 4 seasons leading up to this one the Celtics have won the East twice, an NBA title and 4 division titles. You seem to be basing everything off the very beginning of this season and the fact the Spurs of medium to low end prospects.

The Spurs too are facing a rebuilding period in the near future.

The Spurs have drafted in roughly the same parts of the draft as the Celtics in the past four years, and have had similar constraints in terms of money and win-now attitude with an older core, yet now they find themselves with a handful of talented young rotation players.  

Meanwhile, the Celtics don't have any young contributors on the team who's been acquired or drafted in the Big 3 era other than Brandon Bass, who was essentially swapped for Glen Davis, as I've already discussed. 

My point is that this is why we've seen the Spurs continue to be successful long after most people assumed they'd be fading, while the Celtics have declined and find themselves with a team that has very little depth.

  I haven't seen the Spurs yet but from their stats page it looks like 7 of their top 9 in minutes per game are 27 or older.

[guava_wrench]

The main difference is that the Spurs drafted their key players. We gave up talent when we acquired KG and Ray. The Spurs gave up nothing to get Duncan and Ginobili.

[PosImpos]

The main difference is that the Spurs drafted their key players. We gave up talent when we acquired KG and Ray. The Spurs gave up nothing to get Duncan and Ginobili.

this is true, but the celtics and spurs have had a similar number of draft picks at similar spots in the past few years.  all the the spurs younger contributors were drafted / acquired in the past few years.  the spurs have effectively transitioned to a younger team as duncan and ginobili have reached their mid 30s

[PosImpos]

In the 4 seasons leading up to this one the Celtics have won the East twice, an NBA title and 4 division titles. You seem to be basing everything off the very beginning of this season and the fact the Spurs of medium to low end prospects.

The Spurs too are facing a rebuilding period in the near future.

The Spurs have drafted in roughly the same parts of the draft as the Celtics in the past four years, and have had similar constraints in terms of money and win-now attitude with an older core, yet now they find themselves with a handful of talented young rotation players.  

Meanwhile, the Celtics don't have any young contributors on the team who's been acquired or drafted in the Big 3 era other than Brandon Bass, who was essentially swapped for Glen Davis, as I've already discussed. 

My point is that this is why we've seen the Spurs continue to be successful long after most people assumed they'd be fading, while the Celtics have declined and find themselves with a team that has very little depth.

  I haven't seen the Spurs yet but from their stats page it looks like 7 of their top 9 in minutes per game are 27 or older.

thats because theyve got guys like splitter and neal who didnt come straight out of college, but are still young.  similar to scola.

[BballTim]

In the 4 seasons leading up to this one the Celtics have won the East twice, an NBA title and 4 division titles. You seem to be basing everything off the very beginning of this season and the fact the Spurs of medium to low end prospects.

The Spurs too are facing a rebuilding period in the near future.

The Spurs have drafted in roughly the same parts of the draft as the Celtics in the past four years, and have had similar constraints in terms of money and win-now attitude with an older core, yet now they find themselves with a handful of talented young rotation players.  

Meanwhile, the Celtics don't have any young contributors on the team who's been acquired or drafted in the Big 3 era other than Brandon Bass, who was essentially swapped for Glen Davis, as I've already discussed. 

My point is that this is why we've seen the Spurs continue to be successful long after most people assumed they'd be fading, while the Celtics have declined and find themselves with a team that has very little depth.

  I haven't seen the Spurs yet but from their stats page it looks like 7 of their top 9 in minutes per game are 27 or older.

thats because theyve got guys like splitter and neal who didnt come straight out of college, but are still young.  similar to scola.

  I didn't know what you meant by young, but if you're counting players older than Rondo then the Celts have the best young player by a wide margin. The fact that he was drafted before a player that's a few years older than him is neither here nor there.

[PosImpos]

In the 4 seasons leading up to this one the Celtics have won the East twice, an NBA title and 4 division titles. You seem to be basing everything off the very beginning of this season and the fact the Spurs of medium to low end prospects.

The Spurs too are facing a rebuilding period in the near future.

The Spurs have drafted in roughly the same parts of the draft as the Celtics in the past four years, and have had similar constraints in terms of money and win-now attitude with an older core, yet now they find themselves with a handful of talented young rotation players.  

Meanwhile, the Celtics don't have any young contributors on the team who's been acquired or drafted in the Big 3 era other than Brandon Bass, who was essentially swapped for Glen Davis, as I've already discussed. 

My point is that this is why we've seen the Spurs continue to be successful long after most people assumed they'd be fading, while the Celtics have declined and find themselves with a team that has very little depth.

  I haven't seen the Spurs yet but from their stats page it looks like 7 of their top 9 in minutes per game are 27 or older.

thats because theyve got guys like splitter and neal who didnt come straight out of college, but are still young.  similar to scola.

  I didn't know what you meant by young, but if you're counting players older than Rondo then the Celts have the best young player by a wide margin. The fact that he was drafted before a player that's a few years older than him is neither here nor there.

sigh.  tim, do you even try to read my posts and respond to their actual main content, or is your sole interest in cherry picking cheap points that add nothing?

[Celtics18]

In the 4 seasons leading up to this one the Celtics have won the East twice, an NBA title and 4 division titles. You seem to be basing everything off the very beginning of this season and the fact the Spurs of medium to low end prospects.

The Spurs too are facing a rebuilding period in the near future.

The Spurs have drafted in roughly the same parts of the draft as the Celtics in the past four years, and have had similar constraints in terms of money and win-now attitude with an older core, yet now they find themselves with a handful of talented young rotation players.  

Meanwhile, the Celtics don't have any young contributors on the team who's been acquired or drafted in the Big 3 era other than Brandon Bass, who was essentially swapped for Glen Davis, as I've already discussed. 

My point is that this is why we've seen the Spurs continue to be successful long after most people assumed they'd be fading, while the Celtics have declined and find themselves with a team that has very little depth.

  I haven't seen the Spurs yet but from their stats page it looks like 7 of their top 9 in minutes per game are 27 or older.

thats because theyve got guys like splitter and neal who didnt come straight out of college, but are still young.  similar to scola.

  I didn't know what you meant by young, but if you're counting players older than Rondo then the Celts have the best young player by a wide margin. The fact that he was drafted before a player that's a few years older than him is neither here nor there.

sigh.  tim, do you even try to read my posts and respond to their actual main content, or is your sole interest in cherry picking cheap points that add nothing?

Tim's point is absolutely fair.  Why does it matter when and how the Spurs young players were acquired vs. how ours where?

Rondo, Green, and Bass is a young core that I would gladly put up against San Antonio's 27 and under crew.

[vinnie]

I wouldnt put the Jeff Green I saw last year against anyone

[apc]

i think the key here is that if you look at the top teams their roaster did not change must since last year. specially when replacing a reserve player, you must as well keep a guy who knows your system rather then replace him with a maybe slightly better player that is not familiar with the system. we have seven new guys and it shows.

[BballTim]

In the 4 seasons leading up to this one the Celtics have won the East twice, an NBA title and 4 division titles. You seem to be basing everything off the very beginning of this season and the fact the Spurs of medium to low end prospects.

The Spurs too are facing a rebuilding period in the near future.

The Spurs have drafted in roughly the same parts of the draft as the Celtics in the past four years, and have had similar constraints in terms of money and win-now attitude with an older core, yet now they find themselves with a handful of talented young rotation players.  

Meanwhile, the Celtics don't have any young contributors on the team who's been acquired or drafted in the Big 3 era other than Brandon Bass, who was essentially swapped for Glen Davis, as I've already discussed. 

My point is that this is why we've seen the Spurs continue to be successful long after most people assumed they'd be fading, while the Celtics have declined and find themselves with a team that has very little depth.

  I haven't seen the Spurs yet but from their stats page it looks like 7 of their top 9 in minutes per game are 27 or older.

thats because theyve got guys like splitter and neal who didnt come straight out of college, but are still young.  similar to scola.

  I didn't know what you meant by young, but if you're counting players older than Rondo then the Celts have the best young player by a wide margin. The fact that he was drafted before a player that's a few years older than him is neither here nor there.

sigh.  tim, do you even try to read my posts and respond to their actual main content, or is your sole interest in cherry picking cheap points that add nothing?

  Haha. I talk about young players, you talk about young(ish) players, but only players that were acquired in certain years. I don't think I'm the one cherry picking. You seem to be defining young talent as under 28. The Celts have Rondo, Bass, bird rights to Green, which combine to be significantly better than the Spur's youth. Even without Green, they're better. Shockingly, your assessment starts the year *after* those players entered the league, so none of them count when you compare the teams. Which apparently isn't cherry picking.

[PosImpos]

In the 4 seasons leading up to this one the Celtics have won the East twice, an NBA title and 4 division titles. You seem to be basing everything off the very beginning of this season and the fact the Spurs of medium to low end prospects.

The Spurs too are facing a rebuilding period in the near future.

The Spurs have drafted in roughly the same parts of the draft as the Celtics in the past four years, and have had similar constraints in terms of money and win-now attitude with an older core, yet now they find themselves with a handful of talented young rotation players. 

Meanwhile, the Celtics don't have any young contributors on the team who's been acquired or drafted in the Big 3 era other than Brandon Bass, who was essentially swapped for Glen Davis, as I've already discussed. 

My point is that this is why we've seen the Spurs continue to be successful long after most people assumed they'd be fading, while the Celtics have declined and find themselves with a team that has very little depth.

  I haven't seen the Spurs yet but from their stats page it looks like 7 of their top 9 in minutes per game are 27 or older.

thats because theyve got guys like splitter and neal who didnt come straight out of college, but are still young.  similar to scola.

  I didn't know what you meant by young, but if you're counting players older than Rondo then the Celts have the best young player by a wide margin. The fact that he was drafted before a player that's a few years older than him is neither here nor there.

sigh.  tim, do you even try to read my posts and respond to their actual main content, or is your sole interest in cherry picking cheap points that add nothing?

  Haha. I talk about young players, you talk about young(ish) players, but only players that were acquired in certain years. I don't think I'm the one cherry picking. You seem to be defining young talent as under 28. The Celts have Rondo, Bass, bird rights to Green, which combine to be significantly better than the Spur's youth. Even without Green, they're better. Shockingly, your assessment starts the year *after* those players entered the league, so none of them count when you compare the teams. Which apparently isn't cherry picking.

the point i'm making is that the celtics have not gained in aggregate young talent since the big 3 got here.

Rondo, Green, and Bass are equivalent to Rondo, BBD, and Perk.  In fact, when the Big 3 got here, we had Powe as well, but he was lost due to a knee injury and we never replaced him.  You could call Tony Allen a relatively young piece, as well, and we let him go.

All of the young players that have come and gone in the time since -- Walker, Giddens, Pruitt, Erden, Harangody, even Nate Robinson -- were not very good to begin with or were not properly developed / successfully integrated into the rotation.  As a result, we've had a revolving door on the bench and now at the center position, instead of fortifying a supporting cast that can handle a gradually larger burden as the Big 3 decline with age.