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

[Celts Fan 92]

Can someone give a more brief breakdown cuz tht annotated bibliography made me quit after the first sentence

[CoachBo]

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?

The author is a serial obsessor with rebuilding - who if memory serves violently opposed the Garnett and Allen deals in the summer of 2007 - whose work is always quite black and white.

There's absolutely NOTHING about the current Celtic situation that is black and white. Nothing. I'm not going to rehash Roy's first post in this thread except to say that he's quite accurately identified the flaws in the article cited, and I, too, failed to find anything remotely like a religious experience in it.

In sum: I find nothing enjoyable about anything involved in rebuilding, let alone the obsessive rhaspodizing about the likes of Brandon Hunter, Patrick O'Bryant, Gerald Green, etc. that marked the pre-Big 3 era - and apparently brought such joy to the Real GM crowd.

Every asset Ainge has right now represents a different situation, and a different set of potential motivations to move, and I include Rondo on that list. Any rebuild that assumes a player who has limited offensive skills and questionable interest in every-night effort is dead before it starts in my view.

[SHAQATTACK]

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.

EXACTLY.

Amen

[Casperian]

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 think you should read that part again.

He said

Those coaches and players are doing what they can do to win; they simply can’t get it done.

and I agree with him.

He said nothing about the management, which is obviously moot, since the article is called "the art of rebuilding" and he specifically named the tanking strategy as a viable option to rebuild.

[GreenFaith1819]

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.

So fallguy...so you think that the Clippers are championship material right now?

Do you see the Clips beating the Lakers in a 7-game series? Or OKC? Or MEM (once Zach comes back)?

Or..do you think that ORL is championship material? Or do you see any scenario where Dwight is traded where that team wins the championship right away?

My point is that it takes a team, not individual players.

And Fallguy - watch your tone. Calling someone's post ridiculous is rather disrespectful. My thoughts are no more "ridiculous" or "out there" than anyone else's.

[ianboyextreme]

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?

Honestly, I dont think the 2+ superstars on a team thing works that well. Generally a championship team will have a guy on their team who is a top 15 player in the league, yes, but thats true for about half the teams in the league. Look at the last champions besides the Celtics. Lakers- 1 superstar, San Antonio- 1 superstar, Mavericks- 1 superstar. The heat had 2 in 05' but most of the champions have had one great player with several good players. I think that is what works best in terms of knowing who has the ball in crunch time, keeping egos in check, etc.

[GreenFaith1819]

And additionally, Fallguy - no I was not opposed to bringing KG or Ray onboard back in 2007.

THAT is a ridiculous assessment.

As a matter of fact, I was in shock and thanking God that Danny was able to swing such a deal.

That move made my deployment back then, in the middle of the Arabian Sea, much more manageable.

[bfrombleacher]

Thanks for posting it. Good food for thought.

I'm not a big fan at all of blow it up threads not just because it'd break my heart to see the core break up (the big four brotherhood was and is something special).

I think the season is still premature. With Pierce just coming off an injury, the bench revamped and a compact season, the team is still adjusting. We're 14 games into a 55 game season. These ideas would make more sense when the trade deadline approaches.

[freshinthehouse]

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?

In this scenario, what have we traded to get Josh Smith?  I don't believe he is a free agent.

[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.

So fallguy...so you think that the Clippers are championship material right now?

Do you see the Clips beating the Lakers in a 7-game series? Or OKC? Or MEM (once Zach comes back)?

Or..do you think that ORL is championship material? Or do you see any scenario where Dwight is traded where that team wins the championship right away?

My point is that it takes a team, not individual players.

And Fallguy - watch your tone. Calling someone's post ridiculous is rather disrespectful. My thoughts are no more "ridiculous" or "out there" than anyone else's.

Of course it takes a team, not individual players. But without those kinds of stars at the top of the rotation, you don't win titles. Ainge said as much on WEEI this week. And history bears that out.

And sorry but if you think CP3 nor Dwight "haven't accomplished anything yet", I feel it's more than fair to label that statement ridiculous. I'm talking about the idea, not you.

[FallGuy]

And additionally, Fallguy - no I was not opposed to bringing KG or Ray onboard back in 2007.

THAT is a ridiculous assessment.

As a matter of fact, I was in shock and thanking God that Danny was able to swing such a deal.

That move made my deployment back then, in the middle of the Arabian Sea, much more manageable.

Of course that's a ridiculous assessment. That was the whole reason I made it.

[PosImpos]

Can someone give a more brief breakdown cuz tht annotated bibliography made me quit after the first sentence

LOL OMFG YOU WIN TEH INTERNETZ

[Kuberski33]

It is a great article and to me speaks to the problem with the NBA's business model compared to say the NFL.  You can take all the right steps to put your team in position to acquire the players needed to become a real contender - while at the same time killing your business because the team is so bad no one wants to buy tickets, you can't get the revenue you need from corporate sponsorships (especially in Boston where the other teams usually do well) and you can't generate ad revenue for your tv package because no one wants to watch the games....

You do all this and you STILL need luck that you draft the right guys, that they're not head cases..etc. There are no major injuries, can find the right complimentary pieces etc. There are too many factors at work that make your projected success rate iffy at best - even if you do all the right things.

Plus cold weather cities are at a disadvantage compared to LA/Miami/Phoenix etc...places players want to go to.

Also how does the new collective bargaining agreement play into this?  Aren't teams going to be forced to spend close to the cap limit?  Doesn't that mean giving money to players who don't deserve it?

Luck still plays too big a role in the fortunes of too many NBA teams in a sport where talent usually always prevails. 

And there are too many teams.....(yes I'm in gripe mode tonight...)

[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?

Honestly, I dont think the 2+ superstars on a team thing works that well. Generally a championship team will have a guy on their team who is a top 15 player in the league, yes, but thats true for about half the teams in the league. Look at the last champions besides the Celtics. Lakers- 1 superstar, San Antonio- 1 superstar, Mavericks- 1 superstar. The heat had 2 in 05' but most of the champions have had one great player with several good players. I think that is what works best in terms of knowing who has the ball in crunch time, keeping egos in check, etc.

Eh, I think that's a pretty dubious argument.  One superstar is better than two?  Nah.

However, I would say that one superstar, a couple of very talented complementary players, and a well-constructed and deep supporting cast is much better than two or even three superstars and a bunch of scrubs.  It's difficult to get more than one superstar in this league, and it's especially difficult to get more than one and still have a good supporting cast.  That's why you don't see that sort of team win very often -- because that sort of team is very rare.

Teams with multiple superstars won all the time in the 70's and 80's . . . but that sort of team is pretty darned difficult to put together anymore.

Also, it's important that the stars you do collect fit well together.  That's part of what made the '08 team so great so quickly -- Garnett, Pierce, and Allen fit really, really well together.  The fact that their games complement one another is part of why the C's have stayed relevant even a few years after the title season.

[GreenFaith1819]

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.

So fallguy...so you think that the Clippers are championship material right now?

Do you see the Clips beating the Lakers in a 7-game series? Or OKC? Or MEM (once Zach comes back)?

Or..do you think that ORL is championship material? Or do you see any scenario where Dwight is traded where that team wins the championship right away?

My point is that it takes a team, not individual players.

And Fallguy - watch your tone. Calling someone's post ridiculous is rather disrespectful. My thoughts are no more "ridiculous" or "out there" than anyone else's.

Of course it takes a team, not individual players. But without those kinds of stars at the top of the rotation, you don't win titles. Ainge said as much on WEEI this week. And history bears that out.

And sorry but if you think CP3 nor Dwight "haven't accomplished anything yet", I feel it's more than fair to label that statement ridiculous. I'm talking about the idea, not you.

So FallGuy how do you propose we get that kind of talent to Boston? CP3 isn't coming, and he made it clear he wants no part of Boston.

Dwight isn't coming, either.

So out of the other superstars that are out there, who would be willing to come to Boston to make us contenders again?