Excellent article on the Celtics +Ainge's impending Dilemmas ( Long-Must read)

[Roy H.]

Oh, and Elrod is absolutely wrong about one thing:

The notion of tanking too often is used indiscriminately. If a team trades away veterans and plays younger inexperienced players with an eye to the future, it is not tanking. It is not trying to lose games. Those coaches and players are doing what they can do to win; they simply can’t get it done. A team gets the benefit of letting young players get valuable experience and the benefit of having a lousy record. It can be a win-win situation. This is what happened with the Celtics in 2006 and 2007.

Anybody who thinks that the '06 and '07 Celtics (and the '97 Celtics before them) weren't trying to lose games is fooling themselves.  Of course it's about losing games, to improve lottery position.

[Mencius]

I guess what I'm saying is that the decision the team has to make isn't as clear cut as Elrod, or some fans, or even Danny is making out.  There are complex decisions to be made, and I think both the "blow it up" and "stay the course" segments of the fanbase have legit arguments to make...

Curious as to where you stand, Roy, on "blow it up" vs "stay the course".  To me, there's not a great deal of difference between "blow it up" and "stay the course" anyway.  It's not like we'd be "blowing up" any sort of legit title contender, and "staying the course" really only speaks to a 3 month period anyway (excepting Pierce, obviously).

For me, if Ainge can get something of value (and I'm talking young assets and/or draft picks) for the Big 3 without sacrificing flexibility, I'm for getting what we can vs getting nothing.  Ainge's plan is likely to be about building assets in a rebuild, so if this adds yet more assets vs getting nothing for these guys, then I'm for it.  It'll be tough finding trading partners that fit the "on the cusp of a championship" that I think would be the only ones interested in bringing on any of the Big 3 anyway, so it may be moot.

As to people thinking Pierce would be terribly hurt by the possibility of being traded, I think this: once PP recognizes that Danny is going into full rebuild mode, he'll want no part of that anyway, and he'd welcome a trade to a contender.

[CoachBo]

Oh, and Elrod is absolutely wrong about one thing:

The notion of tanking too often is used indiscriminately. If a team trades away veterans and plays younger inexperienced players with an eye to the future, it is not tanking. It is not trying to lose games. Those coaches and players are doing what they can do to win; they simply can’t get it done. A team gets the benefit of letting young players get valuable experience and the benefit of having a lousy record. It can be a win-win situation. This is what happened with the Celtics in 2006 and 2007.

Anybody who thinks that the '06 and '07 Celtics (and the '97 Celtics before them) weren't trying to lose games is fooling themselves.  Of course it's about losing games, to improve lottery position.

I wish the OP would have put a byline on that. That's five minutes of my life I'll never get back.

Indeed, Roy.

But then I rarely take Elrod seriously, or Real GM for that matter. He's just verbose, and he's advocating a position - his habitual and historic infatuation with the rebuilding process, not providing anything remotely resembling a balanced analysis. Gave up on reading him years ago.

[KCattheStripe]

Oh, and Elrod is absolutely wrong about one thing:

The notion of tanking too often is used indiscriminately. If a team trades away veterans and plays younger inexperienced players with an eye to the future, it is not tanking. It is not trying to lose games. Those coaches and players are doing what they can do to win; they simply can’t get it done. A team gets the benefit of letting young players get valuable experience and the benefit of having a lousy record. It can be a win-win situation. This is what happened with the Celtics in 2006 and 2007.

Anybody who thinks that the '06 and '07 Celtics (and the '97 Celtics before them) weren't trying to lose games is fooling themselves.  Of course it's about losing games, to improve lottery position.

Disagree entirely, if the Celtics were trying to lose games, they wouldn't have been in as many close games as they were that season, they certainly wouldn't have busted their butts to beat San Antonio in San Antonio like they did that year.

[GreenFaith1819]

That's a great article, wish I could've read that when I was younger, pre-Danny Ainge era so I would've known what he was doing at the time. (pre-KG and RA trades)

This is a great read for some Celtics fans who get upset when some C's fans want to "get a head start on the rebuilding process and blow the team up". The C's fans are NOT hating on the team, just realistic of our chances and want to avoid the 1993-2003 mis-managed mess.

I think Ainge can collect #1 Draft Picks faster this time as he has experience doing that. The question is, will he find willing trading partners for a top 5-10 player now that McHale doesn't have a GM job? lol

Obviously, the '90s drought was not really due to Red Auerbach not trading away members of the big three.  Our organization had lots of bad luck and bad draft choices during that period.  

I appreciate Enchilada's work, but to take it as definitive proof that we need to "blow it up now" is a mis-reading.

I'm a firm believer in keeping this team together and still being in an excellent position to continue to rebuild once this off-season starts.  

Chambers - thanks for post.

I pretty much agree with Celtics18.

I, too - believe in keeping this team together and rebuilding once the off-season starts.

And on the thoughts of trading Paul Pierce to the Lakers that have creeped up recently?

Unless they are willing to part with no other than Pau Gasol I wouldn't even table it. Anything less from the Lakers is disrespectful to our captain.

It is for that reason why I thought that rumor was hilarious, at best.

[OhioGreen]

Elrod has lots of good ideas, but I think they're paying him by the word over at RealGM. 

The main points:

1.  Teams need superstars to win titles;

2.  Cap space is important, and shouldn't be squandered;

3.  First rounders are good trading chips;

4.  Rebuilding requires ownership and management to go all-in;

5.  The rebuilding effort could be quickened if we traded our aging veterans for expiring contracts and #1 picks.

I guess I didn't have the religious experience that some others did reading that article.  I think it's just a rehash of what most of us recognize:  the team is on the downslide, and is about to enter a rebuild.  The question is, what do we do in the immediate future?

There is definitely a strong argument in terms of immediately starting the rebuilding process, or starting it in a couple of weeks.  However, there are also strong arguments for waiting.  Even without the question of loyalty -- which, at least in the past, has been an important one with the Celtics organization -- there's marketing.  How many millions and millions of dollars will Wyc lose going from a contender to a bottom-tier lottery team?  The Celtics need to worry about not only playoff revenues, but also regular season ticket sales (and prices), as well as Comcast ratings (since the team now owns a stake in the network). 

In addition, there's the question of perception as it related to free agents.  Would a free agent prefer to come to a Boston team coming off a round or two in the playoffs, or a team that finished in the bottom seven in the conference?  I can't tell for certain, but it's something to at least think about.  Boston already has some disadvantages in free agency; taking away the allure of joining a playoff team and playing alongside Paul Pierce (and perhaps Ray and KG on smaller contracts) makes Boston look even worse in comparison.

I guess what I'm saying is that the decision the team has to make isn't as clear cut as Elrod, or some fans, or even Danny is making out.  There are complex decisions to be made, and I think both the "blow it up" and "stay the course" segments of the fanbase have legit arguments to make.

Nice article by Elrod, but just keep in mind that he's advocating for a position, rather than laying out all the arguments for each side.

Not sure that staying the course, after what we've seen for almost a quarter of the season is going to "save" owners money, rather than going into full rebuild mode. I, for one, would much rather see a team of rookies and young players, playing their hearts out, than watch our rapidly aging veterans try to relive days long gone bye!
Also, if it's possible for DA to shed the Big 3 to contenders willing to give up #1 picks, no matter how late in the first round, plus expirings---I'd do it in a heartbeat.  That late first round pick might be worth for a rental and a better shot at a title! I could get into 5 #1's, regardless of position.  Either way, you still get the cap space at the seasons end.

[Celtics18]

Oh, and Elrod is absolutely wrong about one thing:

The notion of tanking too often is used indiscriminately. If a team trades away veterans and plays younger inexperienced players with an eye to the future, it is not tanking. It is not trying to lose games. Those coaches and players are doing what they can do to win; they simply can’t get it done. A team gets the benefit of letting young players get valuable experience and the benefit of having a lousy record. It can be a win-win situation. This is what happened with the Celtics in 2006 and 2007.

Anybody who thinks that the '06 and '07 Celtics (and the '97 Celtics before them) weren't trying to lose games is fooling themselves.  Of course it's about losing games, to improve lottery position.

Disagree entirely, if the Celtics were trying to lose games, they wouldn't have been in as many close games as they were that season, they certainly wouldn't have busted their butts to beat San Antonio in San Antonio like they did that year.

Like KCat, I'm fooling myself as well, then.  I think you could argue that Paul Pierce's injury that kept him out of half the '07 season probably wouldn't have shelved him for that long if the team had real playoff aspirations.  As far as the team that was on the floor, they were trying to win games.  They just weren't able to.  I think that's what tanking is; putting a team of young guys out there who will compete but don't have the experience or top level talent to win very many games.  

Nobody is out there purposely trying to lose games as they are being played, though.  

[Roy H.]

Oh, and Elrod is absolutely wrong about one thing:

The notion of tanking too often is used indiscriminately. If a team trades away veterans and plays younger inexperienced players with an eye to the future, it is not tanking. It is not trying to lose games. Those coaches and players are doing what they can do to win; they simply can’t get it done. A team gets the benefit of letting young players get valuable experience and the benefit of having a lousy record. It can be a win-win situation. This is what happened with the Celtics in 2006 and 2007.

Anybody who thinks that the '06 and '07 Celtics (and the '97 Celtics before them) weren't trying to lose games is fooling themselves.  Of course it's about losing games, to improve lottery position.

Disagree entirely, if the Celtics were trying to lose games, they wouldn't have been in as many close games as they were that season, they certainly wouldn't have busted their butts to beat San Antonio in San Antonio like they did that year.

Like KCat, I'm fooling myself as well, then.  I think you could argue that Paul Pierce's injury that kept him out of half the '07 season probably wouldn't have shelved him for that long if the team had real playoff aspirations.  As far as the team that was on the floor, they were trying to win games.  They just weren't able to.  I think that's what tanking is; putting a team of young guys out there who will compete but don't have the experience or top level talent to win very many games.  

Nobody is out there purposely trying to lose games as they are being played, though.  

The players were trying to win.  The franchise absolutely was trying to lose.  Let's just say that guys weren't rushing back from injury and Allan Ray wasn't averaging 15 minutes per game because the team thought he was long-term piece.

I'm pretty surprised by the (what I see as) revisionist history, since at the time most fans certainly seemed to be under the impression we were tanking.  (Although, from your comment, it seems like you agree with me -- and disagree with Elrod -- that the team was tanking.)

[KCattheStripe]

Oh, and Elrod is absolutely wrong about one thing:

The notion of tanking too often is used indiscriminately. If a team trades away veterans and plays younger inexperienced players with an eye to the future, it is not tanking. It is not trying to lose games. Those coaches and players are doing what they can do to win; they simply can’t get it done. A team gets the benefit of letting young players get valuable experience and the benefit of having a lousy record. It can be a win-win situation. This is what happened with the Celtics in 2006 and 2007.

Anybody who thinks that the '06 and '07 Celtics (and the '97 Celtics before them) weren't trying to lose games is fooling themselves.  Of course it's about losing games, to improve lottery position.

Disagree entirely, if the Celtics were trying to lose games, they wouldn't have been in as many close games as they were that season, they certainly wouldn't have busted their butts to beat San Antonio in San Antonio like they did that year.

Like KCat, I'm fooling myself as well, then.  I think you could argue that Paul Pierce's injury that kept him out of half the '07 season probably wouldn't have shelved him for that long if the team had real playoff aspirations.  As far as the team that was on the floor, they were trying to win games.  They just weren't able to.  I think that's what tanking is; putting a team of young guys out there who will compete but don't have the experience or top level talent to win very many games.  

Nobody is out there purposely trying to lose games as they are being played, though.  

The players were trying to win.  The franchise absolutely was trying to lose.  Let's just say that guys weren't rushing back from injury and Allan Ray wasn't averaging 15 minutes per game because the team thought he was long-term piece.

I'm pretty surprised by the (what I see as) revisionist history, since at the time most fans certainly seemed to be under the impression we were tanking.  (Although, from your comment, it seems like you agree with me -- and disagree with Elrod -- that the team was tanking.)

I don't think the organization was trying to lose games, the team had 4 legit NBA players, one of which was hurt and the other three were too young to get out of their own way or really make the other guys better. And the rest of the team was pretty bad.

[ManchesterCelticsFan]

In addition, there's the question of perception as it related to free agents.  Would a free agent prefer to come to a Boston team coming off a round or two in the playoffs, or a team that finished in the bottom seven in the conference?  I can't tell for certain, but it's something to at least think about.  Boston already has some disadvantages in free agency; taking away the allure of joining a playoff team and playing alongside Paul Pierce (and perhaps Ray and KG on smaller contracts) makes Boston look even worse in comparison.

I'd pass up or ignore opportunities to get 1st Rounders and Expiring Contracts for the Big 3 if we could sign Dwight Howard. However, all reports show that he's interested in LA Lakers, Dallas or New Jersey and Boston is not on his list. What other Free Agent is out there that it would be worth a 1st or 2nd Round Ouster with no real shot at a Championship, if the C's play well enough to make the playoffs later this season?

I also think the monetary motivation (Comcast Deal) was a big factor in Danny Ainge and Wyc signing and filling out the bench with injury risks like D. West, Marquis Daniels and ShaQ even though Miami clearly had a better top 3 or 4 players BY FAR last year.

[PosImpos]

Oh, and Elrod is absolutely wrong about one thing:

The notion of tanking too often is used indiscriminately. If a team trades away veterans and plays younger inexperienced players with an eye to the future, it is not tanking. It is not trying to lose games. Those coaches and players are doing what they can do to win; they simply can’t get it done. A team gets the benefit of letting young players get valuable experience and the benefit of having a lousy record. It can be a win-win situation. This is what happened with the Celtics in 2006 and 2007.

Anybody who thinks that the '06 and '07 Celtics (and the '97 Celtics before them) weren't trying to lose games is fooling themselves.  Of course it's about losing games, to improve lottery position.

I agree, but I think his point is that "tanking" teams don't simply put out the worst team possible.  You put out young, unproven players and allow them to develop their games on the big stage, which naturally results in a great many losses.  As he says, it ends up being a win-win, because you get better draft position and you develop some players that might be useful assets in the future.

[PosImpos]

The 2004 Detroit Pistons would have something to say about this article. It may be rare but it can be done and theyre living proof.

As the article points out, such a team is extremely rare.  A rebuilding plan that aims to recreate the sort of team that's only won a championship once in the the last 40+ years seems like a pretty flawed one to me.

In addition, there's the question of perception as it related to free agents.  Would a free agent prefer to come to a Boston team coming off a round or two in the playoffs, or a team that finished in the bottom seven in the conference?  

This question is only important if the goal is to pursue major free agents in the off-season.  As I believe the article lays out, there's not much point in doing that, unless Dwight Howard totally shocks us all and decides he wants to play in Boston.

He's just verbose, and he's advocating a position - his habitual and historic infatuation with the rebuilding process, not providing anything remotely resembling a balanced analysis. Gave up on reading him years ago.

I'm curious -- what opposing perspective do you feel he didn't fairly represent in the article?

The idea that we should keep the team together and try to reload on the fly with free agents?

[GreenFaith1819]

For me, the worst (or best) case scenario is this:

This stays together...no trades are made.

Even IF the team  - say - makes the playoffs as a 7th or 8th seed and then loses to CHI or MIA, then what is the harm in waiting until next season and then bringing in a max player AND those pick from the draft?

I'm all over any of the "Superstars" coming here. For all of the hype with Chris and Dwight, neither of them have accomplished anything yet, and neither look to anytime soon.

Losing out on those two is not the end-all for me.

What I can't understand is some of the angst on here for Josh Smith? Here is a man who WANTS to come play with Rondo - and he has game. He may not be as well-regarded as Chris or Dwight...but at least he WANTS to come here.

Additionally, this is supposedly going to be one of the deepest drafts of the last few years. I just don't agree with the possibility of trading away ANY of the Three for pennies. Get a nice player in the draft.

After all, wasn't Paul Pierce taken with the 10th pick ?

GMs are out there just waiting to lowball Danny. I hope he's smarter than that. Don't mortgage our team away just because they look abysmal right now.

With the worse case scenario, why can't we just ride this out, get better in Febuary, pass the trade deadline, get healthy, let the playoffs (or Finals) run its course, and then re-sign Ray and KG AND Jeff Green? Plus, bring back Bass and Pietrus somehow.

How about this for next year:

PG - Rondo-AB
SG - Draft Pick?/Ray/Moore
SF - Pierce/Jeff Green/Pietrus
PF - Josh Smith/KG/Bass/JJ
C - KG/Stiem/Draft Pick?

Perhaps bring back Marquis?

I know KG, Paul and Ray will be older, but can anyone else here think of a different scenario?

I am just hesitant as to what the results will be if Paul is traded. 

[SHAQATTACK]

Yep this guy nailed all the points.  many of us have been preaching in the threads  since Perk departed.

To be real contenders we have to have top ten talent....some how?  

Since DH and LOVE aren't signing in Boston.....pretty much leaves the only path is assets to trade and draft who we need. We'll get good the hard way, draft and trade our way up the ladder.

I'm in for the long haul  ,  I hate having a 500 club just to have a team to see. HOW BORING !!

Stop gap , hacks as he calls them are roll players , which we have a boat load of now.

Its really in DA hands to land "TRUE" superstar talent to play with Rondo.  

If it takes 2-3 years , then so be it, I'll watch 21 years olds play TILL SOMETHING GOOD HAPPENS.

PLease no more teams of go no where journeymen.

[FallGuy]

I'm all over any of the "Superstars" coming here. For all of the hype with Chris and Dwight, neither of them have accomplished anything yet, and neither look to anytime soon.

This is an absolutely ridiculous way to view these players. They are both top-1o players in the league (Dwight might be the second best guy in the NBA). They are the kinds of players that championship teams are built on. By your assessment, KG, Paul and Ray had not "accomplished anything" in the spring of 2007. I assume you were also opposed to bringing them onboard.

How about this for next year:

PG - Rondo-AB
SG - Draft Pick?/Ray/Moore
SF - Pierce/Jeff Green/Pietrus
PF - Josh Smith/KG/Bass/JJ
C - KG/Stiem/Draft Pick?

Perhaps bring back Marquis?
  

This team loses in the second round. At its absolute best, if everything goes right, it goes out in the East Finals. Then it gets worse.