"Running it back" is a waste of everyone's time. History shows us this.

[SHAQATTACK]

The superstars have a stranglehold on determining the future course of the NBA and not the GMs or coaches.

this

+1

[PhoSita]

What? No, I thought you were arguing in favor of the draft. Who's on your list of team's that have won a title within five years of drafting a top 3 pick?

San Antonio
Detroit (technically, but I slipped them past you)

That's it. Miami if we say top 5, but somebody just told me that signing a free agent superstar is now prohibitively expensive. So you can't have them.

I guess we're tied 1-1. Good match.

I don't really understand your thought process here.

Every team that has won a title since Bird and Magic first came into the league has done so because they had a franchise superstar that they acquired either by drafting themselves or by trading assets that they acquired with a high draft pick. 

The exceptions, as we've outlined, are the Lakers and the Pistons.

So really, this isn't 1-1 at all.

You also didn't slip the Pistons past me.  I acknowledged that they had a top 5 pick in 2003, but because it was Darko and he barely played for that '04 team, I didn't think it really counted.

I'm not basing this criteria on who won within a certain number of years.  The point here is that drafting in the top 10 in order to get a superstar or trade a young player for a superstar is effectively a necessary precursor to putting together a championship team.  It's extremely difficult to do it in today's NBA without first getting a top 10 pick at least once.

[Jonny CC]

There is no right or wrong way to do it.  Personally, I think the key is being lucky in the draft.  It's great to have Duncan, but that team wouldn't be winning anything without such a good supporting cast (with the obvious gem being Parker).   

[fantankerous]

What? No, I thought you were arguing in favor of the draft. Who's on your list of team's that have won a title within five years of drafting a top 3 pick?

San Antonio
Detroit (technically, but I slipped them past you)

That's it. Miami if we say top 5, but somebody just told me that signing a free agent superstar is now prohibitively expensive. So you can't have them.

I guess we're tied 1-1. Good match.

Prohibitive given CBA restrictions and incentives.  I never used the word expensive.  Reading is a good skill to develop.

[Bozo]

In some respects, I think we still have a shot.  And the possibility of "ever" having a shot is not common.  It takes high picks and being lucky.  When will be are next, even close, shot??  Garnett still has it, so does Pierce.  Rondo's coming back. Green is moving up.  Sully is a young bull.  AB will become even more of a defensive monster.  Melo, maybe.  Shav will be interesting.  Williams.  Not convinced that one more round may get us what we want, vs what 20 years from now, maybe?  Plus:  Doc does pull in free veteran free agents.  And those guys are generally better than your common #16 first rounder.  That's why Doc plays them.  Proven NBA stuff is generally better than the next low first round rookie walking through the door.  And we get access to it just because of our coach. 

Keep the Coach!!!  Run it again.  Take a teaser out on Oden.  Pick the best of the rest in the draft, and lets spin the wheel one last time. 

We get nothing??  We get a shot!!!  Which many teams almost never get.  Garnett was a #1 pick, Pierce should have been close but fell to 10.  How do you get lucky.  Right now we do not need the luck to have the players, we need the luck to stay healthy.

[Jonny CC]

In some respects, I think we still have a shot.  And the possibility of "ever" having a shot is not common.  It takes high picks and being lucky.  When will be are next, even close, shot??  Garnett still has it, so does Pierce.  Rondo's coming back. Green is moving up.  Sully is a young bull.  AB will become even more of a defensive monster.  Melo, maybe.  Shav will be interesting.  Williams.  Not convinced that one more round may get us what we want, vs what 20 years from now, maybe?  Plus:  Doc does pull in free veteran free agents.  And those guys are generally better than your common #16 first rounder.  That's why Doc plays them.  Proven NBA stuff is generally better than the next low first round rookie walking through the door.  And we get access to it just because of our coach. 

Keep the Coach!!!  Run it again.  Take a teaser out on Oden.  Pick the best of the rest in the draft, and lets spin the wheel one last time. 

We get nothing??  We get a shot!!!  Which many teams almost never get.  Garnett was a #1 pick, Pierce should have been close but fell to 10.  How do you get lucky.  Right now we do not need the luck to have the players, we need the luck to stay healthy.

Agreed.  It may be our final shot but it's a shot.

[The Walker Wiggle]

What? No, I thought you were arguing in favor of the draft. Who's on your list of team's that have won a title within five years of drafting a top 3 pick?

San Antonio
Detroit (technically, but I slipped them past you)

That's it. Miami if we say top 5, but somebody just told me that signing a free agent superstar is now prohibitively expensive. So you can't have them.

I guess we're tied 1-1. Good match.

Prohibitive given CBA restrictions and incentives.  I never used the word expensive.  Reading is a good skill to develop.

My fault. I thought you were alluding to the repeater tax and other fiscal deterrents to putting together or keeping together multiple max contract players. I was wrong to mischaracterize your argument in service of my own glib jokes.

Still I think if the best counter argument to running it back is draft Michael Jordan wait six years, I've chosen my course.

[SHAQATTACK]

In some respects, I think we still have a shot.  And the possibility of "ever" having a shot is not common.  It takes high picks and being lucky.  When will be are next, even close, shot??  Garnett still has it, so does Pierce.  Rondo's coming back. Green is moving up.  Sully is a young bull.  AB will become even more of a defensive monster.  Melo, maybe.  Shav will be interesting.  Williams.  Not convinced that one more round may get us what we want, vs what 20 years from now, maybe?  Plus:  Doc does pull in free veteran free agents.  And those guys are generally better than your common #16 first rounder.  That's why Doc plays them.  Proven NBA stuff is generally better than the next low first round rookie walking through the door.  And we get access to it just because of our coach. 

Keep the Coach!!!  Run it again.  Take a teaser out on Oden.  Pick the best of the rest in the draft, and lets spin the wheel one last time. 

We get nothing??  We get a shot!!!  Which many teams almost never get.  Garnett was a #1 pick, Pierce should have been close but fell to 10.  How do you get lucky.  Right now we do not need the luck to have the players, we need the luck to stay healthy.

Agreed.  It may be our final shot but it's a shot.

+  1 ...beats watching Jordan and Vinnie stink up the house . 

[The Walker Wiggle]

I don't really understand your thought process here.

Why teams should try and get on the treadmill of mediocrity.

It's extremely difficult to do it in today's NBA without first getting a top 10 pick at least once.

If you're saying that every team that's ever won a title has done it with the benefit of a top 10 pick at some point, for example Dirk Nowitzki drafted ninth, thirteen years before he won a title, I would have to concede. Although that may only be a compelling reason to never trade your franchise player - be it Hakeem, or Nowitzki, or Duncan, or Garnett?

[CelticConcourse]

History shmistory!

[Casperian]

So you have none? That´s what I thought. Nice strawman, anyway.

If I only had a brain?

I don't have to know what will work to know what won't work.

Another cop-out? No potential free agents, of course.

You know, if all you have to offer is kindergarten level posts, than I have to assume you´re just trolling.

"No, you first" or "I know what you are but what am I" is a rather ridiculous way to argue.

How about you stand up for what you believe in and put yourself out there, just like the people who have voiced their opinion pro tanking, or is it all just hot air?

[mmmmm]

I'm not basing this criteria on who won within a certain number of years.  The point here is that drafting in the top 10 in order to get a superstar or trade a young player for a superstar is effectively a necessary precursor to putting together a championship team.  It's extremely difficult to do it in today's NBA without first getting a top 10 pick at least once.

Is it truly necessary to _draft_ that player?  Or is it more truly simply necessary to _have_ that 'top 10' player?   I think the evidence is pretty compelling that eventually _having_ top talent is the only real common characteristic.

Just for giggles, here is our current roster for next year, if nothing changed, listing their age and when they were picked:

Kevin Garnett, 37, #5
Jeff Green, 27, #5
Chris Wilcox, 30, #8
Paul Pierce, 35,  #10
Jason Terry, 35, #10
Terrence Williams, 25, #11
Draft Pick#16, 22?, #16
Avery Bradley, 22, #19
Rajon Rondo, 27, #21
Jared Sullinger, 21, #21
Courtney Lee, 27, #22
Fab Melo, 22, #22
Jordan Crawford, 24, #27
Shavlik Randolph, 29,  UFA
D.J. White, 26, #29
Brandon Bass, 28, #33

Now, this shows that we have quite a bit of 'Top 10' talent on the roster.  Five guys all drafted in the top 10.  Plus one at #11.  The problem is,  of course, that 4 of those guys drafted in the top 10 are over 30.  Three are over 35!   Wilcox technically isn't necessarily on the roster either - I include him because we have his Bird rights.

Only one of our guys drafted in the top 10, Jeff Green, is under 30.

It is probably fair to dismiss the old guys due to their ages (never mind that statistically both KG & PP were still near the top of their respective positions last year).   And Williams may be a head case and possibly even headed for jail.  Given that, we thus only have one 'top 10' drafted talent on the roster - Green.

That said, we can make some optimistic arguments about others on the list:

Rondo, clearly, based on almost every valuation metric, is one of the greatest draft steals in the last couple of decades.  He's not everybody's cup of tea, he inspires polarizing opinions for absurd reasons.  But he's a multiple all-star and all-defensive level player who's clearly, clearly a top-10 level talent who we got at #22.

Sullinger was near the top of everybody's draft board the year before his draft and would have been top 10 - if not top 5 - if he had come out then.   He fell for mostly non-basketball reasons (his back).  Based on basketball talent, health concerns aside, he's a top-10 talent.   He was, statistically, easily one of the top 5 rookies at the time his season ended.

Bradley also was a steal.  For the opposite reason as Sully.  He came out a year too early.  If he had stayed another year, he would have garnered a much larger utilization role at UT and put up a lot more points and counting stats (look at how he torched D-League competition his rookie season).  Coming out as a sophomore, with his defense and better scoring numbers, he likely would have been in the top-10 - especially in the 2011 draft.

I think a case can be made, thus that, through gambling a bit with high upside picks from 19-21, Danny has gathered at least 3 extra 'top 10' level talents to go with Green.

{Aside - Fab also was extremely highly ranked on draft boards, fringe top-10, before falling due to his academic suspension.  But obviously the jury is still out on him on whether he's worthy or worthless.}

Green, Rondo, Bradley & Sully - IMHO, that's the current core of young 'top 10' level talent that Danny has assembled to build around.   Is that enough to build a title team around?   One nice thing is that they are all complementary, playing different positions, with different strengths.  And all way above average on defense.

{Another aside:  A big difference between what has gone on with the development of young talent on OUR roster versus what has happened with the Spurs is health.  Every one of those 4 has missed significant time the last 3 seasons.   If those four guys had stayed healthy during that time, I think that people might not be looking as enviously over at the Spurs roster because in reality, Danny has tried to do a very similar thing with rebuilding on-the-fly.  He just hasn't been as lucky with the health of his _young_ players.}

It seems obvious that a 'top 10' level 7 footer is the main missing piece.

We may need to wait a bit before we get that, unless someone falls - perhaps again, for non-basketball reasons - in the coming draft.

Or a trade.

In the mean time, we still have a lot of talent left in the gas tanks of KG, Pierce & even Terry.   If we DO run it back, if healthy, there is a lot of talent on this team.  Some of it 'old'.  And some of it 'young'.

[BballTim]

Exactly.

The list of teams who successfully rebuilt their way to a title may be fairly short, but I can guarantee you that the list of teams who did it through free agency and selecting players in the middle of the first round is far, far shorter.

Okay, I'll play. Team's that have won titles since 2000 without a top 5 lottery pick of their own.

Los Angeles, Dallas, Boston, Detroit

Your turn.

LAL don't count because they are the Lakers.  That's how they got Kobe (dropped b/c he wanted to play in LA) and Shaq (free agent).  If you move the Celtics to Los Angeles and have them become a magnet for celebrities, we'll talk. 

Dallas was built around a lottery pick superstar.  Not a top 5 pick, but he was top 10, and would've gone higher in today's NBA where foreigners are better scouted.

Boston used a top 5 pick to trade for Ray Allen, which directly led to KG coming to Boston, so they don't count either.

So you're left with the Pistons.  The only team to do it in the past 40 years.  Even the Pistons had a top 5 pick the summer before winning their title, though they picked Darko, so that doesn't count, for obvious reasons.

Next time I'd appreciate it if you'd lay out the rules beforehand. Anyway, who's on your list?

  "I'll bet you can't list any teams that meet a certain criteria, and if you can I'll claim that most of those teams "don't count"". It's a favorite game on celticsblog.

[17wasEZ]

In order to perennially contend for a championship, an NBA team must possess an elite level player.  Of course there are exceptions to this rule, such as the 2004 Pistons.  But the likelihood of a team contending for a trophy every year is exponentially increased if you have an elite player.  If you have additional elite players, obviously this multiplies your chances.

History shows us that 99% of the time, these players are acquired through the draft rather than free agency or trade.  Some exceptions have occurred, but they are rare (KG to Boston, Shaq to LA and Miami).

If the Celtics "run it back" they will likely make the playoffs yet again.  There is no chance to get a top 3 draft pick in this scenario.  There is also a near zero percent chance of getting an elite level player with a draft pick outside the top fifteen picks.

Therefore I conclude that the sooner the Celtics completely bottom out, and lose 65+ games, the sooner we can get a top 3 pick and potential elite level player on our roster.

Remember, it was the 17 win season in '07 that allowed us to get KG in the first place.  We need to replicate that process this summer by purging the roster of all our vets, sitting Rondo until at least March of next year, and hiring a rookie coach that ensures we lose every close game in 2013-14.

Please tell me how I am wrong here?  Prolonging the inevitable is nothing more than a waste of our time, as well as the prime of Rondo's career.

Agree completely. In order to win a title we have to be better than the Heat and Pacers and Knicks. We aren't even close to that. If we keep running it back without putting ourselves in a position to truly rebuild we are basically guaranteeing a long stretch of terrible teams like we had after Bird/McHale/Parrish left. 20+ years of misery is what running it back will give us.

Seems you forgot that the deaths of Bias and Lewis hurt the team badly.  Back then, you couldn't amnesty a player so the Celtics were stuck with a bunch of bad contracts.  Also, if I'm not mistaken, Bird and McHale's contract counted against the cap until they expired (even though they retired).

With Rondo, Green, Sully, Jordan etc., they would still be in no man's land fighting for a playoff spot anyway.

I say bring them back (if you can) and roll the dice.  Maybe the Clippers or someone else will be desperate enough to give Ainge what he is asking for come February. 

Right now, Boston's only leverage is that they can shed over $30M in salary if Pierce is bought out and KG and Doc quit/retire. That doesn't help them on the trade front.

[rutzan]

History shows the SA Spurs leading 3-2 in the 2013 Finals...

6 years after they won the NBA Championship in 2007...

As Sgt Joe Friday said on Dragnet..."Nothing but the facts."