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

[nostar]

I don't like history as an predictor of all future things. For instance I doubt history can give us an accurate portrayal of technology in 100 years. I also doubt history can lend much insight into the physics of a black hole.

The point I'm making is that while history might not read well on keeping players too long, I also think that history has never had these conditions to work within. The new CBA changes things as well as modern medicine. Additionally KG is not a normal player, in any way. He was a great player last year and he will be if he plays this year.

I'm interested in what Doc is going to say tomorrow. I think a Rondo,Bradley,Pierce,KG core can be a contender next year. Adding a Millsap or Smith or even David West makes us a top-3 team in the east. Let Rondo get back around January/February and we'll have a low playoff seed and try to cinderella it. Even Elton Brand or Antwan Jamison (if they have a resurgent season) would give us a punchers chance. They both suffered low minutes last season and might still have something in the tank.

That is my two-cents.

[mmmmm]

I think Rondo is close enough to being an "elite talent" that it makes sense to hang onto him and try to build around him.  In 2007, many people were saying that Paul Pierce wasn't a guy you could build a contender around.  And, he wasn't, until Danny added Garnett and Allen. 

Some people get hung up on the idea of building around Rondo because that implies to them that he is the best player on the team and Rondo may not be good enough to single-handedly carry a team like that.

However, I think it is perfectly reasonable to say that Rondo can be the second-best player on the team.  Does acquiring a #1 guy to go with Rondo count as building around Rondo? 

I'd argue that Rondo's flaws suggest that you shouldn't go out and get a wing who is a poor three-point shooter and that you are better off with at least one starting big who can spread the floor (preferably with more range than Bass).  So maybe so.

I totally agree with everything you just said here.

[PhoSita]

I think Rondo is close enough to being an "elite talent" that it makes sense to hang onto him and try to build around him.  In 2007, many people were saying that Paul Pierce wasn't a guy you could build a contender around.  And, he wasn't, until Danny added Garnett and Allen. 

Some people get hung up on the idea of building around Rondo because that implies to them that he is the best player on the team and Rondo may not be good enough to single-handedly carry a team like that.

However, I think it is perfectly reasonable to say that Rondo can be the second-best player on the team.  Does acquiring a #1 guy to go with Rondo count as building around Rondo? 

I'd argue that Rondo's flaws suggest that you shouldn't go out and get a wing who is a poor three-point shooter and that you are better off with at least one starting big who can spread the floor (preferably with more range than Bass).  So maybe so.

I totally agree with everything you just said here.

The problem, as always, how do you get the #1 guy to put next to Rondo while keeping Rondo?

Unless your plan is to hold Rondo out for most of the season in an effort to tank for a superstar, I don't really know the answer.

The best sort of player we could likely get in free agency is somebody on the level of Josh Smith or Big Al Jefferson.

In other words, somebody who is not a #1.

Rondo is our most valuable trade asset, once he gets healthy again.  Our best chance at getting a potential franchise star without all-out tanking is trading Rondo and packaging him with a decent lottery pick of our own.

[ItStaysYang]

Poor timing for this thread given that the Spurs, a team to have last won a championship in 2006-2007, is one win away for getting a title six seasons later with the same core. Duncan is 37. Ginobili is 35. Tony Parker is 31.

Run it back and forth till the wheels fall off.

[/threadover]

How ignorant. Compare apples to oranges much?

I prefer bananas.

Okay. If you really want to get into it. Only TWICE in the past 27 years has a team earning a top three pick gone on to win a championship over the course of their pick's rookie contract. Those two teams, the above mentioned Spurs and everyone's favorite edge case the Detroit Pistions with the "help" of Darko Milicic.

You know what the most likely outcome is for a team earning a top three pick over their next FOUR seasons - more trips to the lottery. Fully a third of teams don't make the playoffs even once.

Here's a good read if you've got the time. Why Tanking Doesn't Work in the NBA.

Now let's see if you can return serve, Yang.

Why are you suggesting and implying that I said we should tank? There are smarter ways to rebuild than just wiping out all of our assets and clearing a bunch of cap space. Don't tank, don't run it back - get what we can for our aging cast. Ainge was clearly trying to do this over the weekend and people gave him grief for it despite it clearly being the best option on the table

[PhoSita]

Poor timing for this thread given that the Spurs, a team to have last won a championship in 2006-2007, is one win away for getting a title six seasons later with the same core. Duncan is 37. Ginobili is 35. Tony Parker is 31.

Run it back and forth till the wheels fall off.

[/threadover]

How ignorant. Compare apples to oranges much?

I prefer bananas.

Okay. If you really want to get into it. Only TWICE in the past 27 years has a team earning a top three pick gone on to win a championship over the course of their pick's rookie contract. Those two teams, the above mentioned Spurs and everyone's favorite edge case the Detroit Pistions with the "help" of Darko Milicic.

You know what the most likely outcome is for a team earning a top three pick over their next FOUR seasons - more trips to the lottery. Fully a third of teams don't make the playoffs even once.

Here's a good read if you've got the time. Why Tanking Doesn't Work in the NBA.

Now let's see if you can return serve, Yang.

Why are you suggesting and implying that I said we should tank? There are smarter ways to rebuild than just wiping out all of our assets and clearing a bunch of cap space. Don't tank, don't run it back - get what we can for our aging cast. Ainge was clearly trying to do this over the weekend and people gave him grief for it despite it clearly being the best option on the table

Yeah, you make a good point.

People in favor of "running it back" like to set up these false dichotomies where either we run it back or we're dismantling the team completely and all-out tanking.

Whereas I think most people are just saying it's more worthwhile to let the vets go, play the young guys a lot to develop them, and get an asset in the mid lottery, with perhaps the chance to trade up if the right guy is there.  Instead of watching a replay of the last couple of years and watching the team burn out in the first or second round again.


Some people, I think, value staying loyal to our vets and trying to put a competitive team out there over picking 6-8 spots higher in the draft.  I get that.  But Danny Ainge's job requires him not to be sentimental.  He makes decisions based on what will put our team in the best position 2, 3, 4, 5 years in the future.  That's what he's doing right now.

[LooseCannon]

The problem, as always, how do you get the #1 guy to put next to Rondo while keeping Rondo?

Unless your plan is to hold Rondo out for most of the season in an effort to tank for a superstar, I don't really know the answer.

The best sort of player we could likely get in free agency is somebody on the level of Josh Smith or Big Al Jefferson.

In other words, somebody who is not a #1.

Rondo is our most valuable trade asset, once he gets healthy again.  Our best chance at getting a potential franchise star without all-out tanking is trading Rondo and packaging him with a decent lottery pick of our own.

My plan is:

Get lucky drafting a center at #16 whose 2013-2014 campaign makes it look to some people like he could average 10ppg and 8rpg if he were starting the next season.  In 2014, offer a package of that center, Sullinger, the expiring contracts of Bass and Terry, and the 2014 draft pick for an unhappy All-Star big man who wants off of his team.  My dream scenario is that one of Marc Gasol, Lamarcus Aldridge, and Kevin Love have their relationships with their current teams deteriorate for some reason.

[PhoSita]

The problem, as always, how do you get the #1 guy to put next to Rondo while keeping Rondo?

Unless your plan is to hold Rondo out for most of the season in an effort to tank for a superstar, I don't really know the answer.

The best sort of player we could likely get in free agency is somebody on the level of Josh Smith or Big Al Jefferson.

In other words, somebody who is not a #1.

Rondo is our most valuable trade asset, once he gets healthy again.  Our best chance at getting a potential franchise star without all-out tanking is trading Rondo and packaging him with a decent lottery pick of our own.

My plan is:

Get lucky drafting a center at #16 whose 2013-2014 campaign makes it look to some people like he could average 10ppg and 8rpg if he were starting the next season.  In 2014, offer a package of that center, Sullinger, the expiring contracts of Bass and Terry, and the 2014 draft pick for an unhappy All-Star big man who wants off of his team.  My dream scenario is that one of Marc Gasol, Lamarcus Aldridge, and Kevin Love have their relationships with their current teams deteriorate for some reason.

A lot of other teams could beat that package, I think, depending on how high a 2014 draft pick you're talking about (not very high, if we're running it back).

That package wouldn't be enough for an All-Star caliber big man, unless you're talking about a guy who's already on the tail end of his prime.

[LooseCannon]

The problem, as always, how do you get the #1 guy to put next to Rondo while keeping Rondo?

Unless your plan is to hold Rondo out for most of the season in an effort to tank for a superstar, I don't really know the answer.

The best sort of player we could likely get in free agency is somebody on the level of Josh Smith or Big Al Jefferson.

In other words, somebody who is not a #1.

Rondo is our most valuable trade asset, once he gets healthy again.  Our best chance at getting a potential franchise star without all-out tanking is trading Rondo and packaging him with a decent lottery pick of our own.

My plan is:

Get lucky drafting a center at #16 whose 2013-2014 campaign makes it look to some people like he could average 10ppg and 8rpg if he were starting the next season.  In 2014, offer a package of that center, Sullinger, the expiring contracts of Bass and Terry, and the 2014 draft pick for an unhappy All-Star big man who wants off of his team.  My dream scenario is that one of Marc Gasol, Lamarcus Aldridge, and Kevin Love have their relationships with their current teams deteriorate for some reason.

A lot of other teams could beat that package, I think, depending on how high a 2014 draft pick you're talking about (not very high, if we're running it back).

That package wouldn't be enough for an All-Star caliber big man, unless you're talking about a guy who's already on the tail end of his prime.

I'd be willing to consider adding more draft picks.  And I'd be hoping to target a player who would be a free agent in one year and isn't a lock to re-sign with whatever team trades for him, so that other teams are shy about coughing up assets for what may be a one-year rental.  That may be enough to scare off most teams with better assets who wouldn't be better than average if they made the deal.

[Celtics18]

Poor timing for this thread given that the Spurs, a team to have last won a championship in 2006-2007, is one win away for getting a title six seasons later with the same core. Duncan is 37. Ginobili is 35. Tony Parker is 31.

Run it back and forth till the wheels fall off.

[/threadover]

How ignorant. Compare apples to oranges much?

I prefer bananas.

Okay. If you really want to get into it. Only TWICE in the past 27 years has a team earning a top three pick gone on to win a championship over the course of their pick's rookie contract. Those two teams, the above mentioned Spurs and everyone's favorite edge case the Detroit Pistions with the "help" of Darko Milicic.

You know what the most likely outcome is for a team earning a top three pick over their next FOUR seasons - more trips to the lottery. Fully a third of teams don't make the playoffs even once.

Here's a good read if you've got the time. Why Tanking Doesn't Work in the NBA.

Now let's see if you can return serve, Yang.

Why are you suggesting and implying that I said we should tank? There are smarter ways to rebuild than just wiping out all of our assets and clearing a bunch of cap space. Don't tank, don't run it back - get what we can for our aging cast. Ainge was clearly trying to do this over the weekend and people gave him grief for it despite it clearly being the best option on the table

Yeah, you make a good point.

People in favor of "running it back" like to set up these false dichotomies where either we run it back or we're dismantling the team completely and all-out tanking.

Whereas I think most people are just saying it's more worthwhile to let the vets go, play the young guys a lot to develop them, and get an asset in the mid lottery, with perhaps the chance to trade up if the right guy is there.  Instead of watching a replay of the last couple of years and watching the team burn out in the first or second round again.


Some people, I think, value staying loyal to our vets and trying to put a competitive team out there over picking 6-8 spots higher in the draft.  I get that.  But Danny Ainge's job requires him not to be sentimental.  He makes decisions based on what will put our team in the best position 2, 3, 4, 5 years in the future.  That's what he's doing right now.

Good post.  Personally, I'm not sure that I'm completely sold on letting the vets go, but I'll admit that I've been torn on the issue for a while now. 

On the one hand, I feel like if Danny thinks he can bring back a team next year with Rondo, Pierce, and Garnett as the core and upgrade it with some minor tweaks and once again be a solid playoff team, then go for it--even if they are a serious long shot to actually win a title.

On the other hand, if he can get a good return--really promising young players or good draft picks in return--then, as much as it pains me, I'm intrigued (I didn't really feel like the Clippers deal excited me enough to want to see that one done).

I agree that it's not an either "run it back" or "tank" scenario, but there is a fairly vocal and aggressive "Wiggins or bust" contingent around here.  And, I think that in many cases when some of us are arguing against what you are saying, we are also arguing against the "tanking (and tanking as hard as possible) as the only means to the end" crowd, which definitely exists.   

[PhoSita]

Good post.  Personally, I'm not sure that I'm completely sold on letting the vets go, but I'll admit that I've been torn on the issue for a while now. 

On the one hand, I feel like if Danny thinks he can bring back a team next year with Rondo, Pierce, and Garnett as the core and upgrade it with some minor tweaks and once again be a solid playoff team, then go for it--even if they are a serious long shot to actually win a title.

On the other hand, if he can get a good return--really promising young players or good draft picks in return--then, as much as it pains me, I'm intrigued (I didn't really feel like the Clippers deal excited me enough to want to see that one done).

I agree that it's not an either "run it back" or "tank" scenario, but there is a fairly vocal and aggressive "Wiggins or bust" contingent around here.  And, I think that in many cases when some of us are arguing against what you are saying, we are also arguing against the "tanking (and tanking as hard as possible) as the only means to the end" crowd, which definitely exists.

Yeah, that's fair.

I understand the allure of saying "let's just all out tank because the next draft supposedly has a bunch of stars at the top."

But that's not a route you can really go unless your team is comprised of nothing but marginal assets or vets.

What we have now, though, is a team that already has a stable of relatively young and valuable players.  Tanking on the same level as the Cavs a couple years back, or the Bobcats or Magic this past year, would require simply giving guys away for nothing, or blatantly playing our best guys far fewer minutes this season.  That's not a recipe for success, even if you end up getting the guy you want in the draft.

All out tanking only makes sense, in other words, if you don't have any long term assets in hand.  That's not our situation.

My position is just that our team isn't a contender anymore, so the #1 priority of the team becomes acquiring and developing assets.  We should be doing whatever puts us in the best position to do that, until such a time as we have the assets to put another championship caliber core in place.

[Celtics18]

Good post.  Personally, I'm not sure that I'm completely sold on letting the vets go, but I'll admit that I've been torn on the issue for a while now. 

On the one hand, I feel like if Danny thinks he can bring back a team next year with Rondo, Pierce, and Garnett as the core and upgrade it with some minor tweaks and once again be a solid playoff team, then go for it--even if they are a serious long shot to actually win a title.

On the other hand, if he can get a good return--really promising young players or good draft picks in return--then, as much as it pains me, I'm intrigued (I didn't really feel like the Clippers deal excited me enough to want to see that one done).

I agree that it's not an either "run it back" or "tank" scenario, but there is a fairly vocal and aggressive "Wiggins or bust" contingent around here.  And, I think that in many cases when some of us are arguing against what you are saying, we are also arguing against the "tanking (and tanking as hard as possible) as the only means to the end" crowd, which definitely exists.

Yeah, that's fair.

I understand the allure of saying "let's just all out tank because the next draft supposedly has a bunch of stars at the top."

But that's not a route you can really go unless your team is comprised of nothing but marginal assets or vets.

What we have now, though, is a team that already has a stable of relatively young and valuable players.  Tanking on the same level as the Cavs a couple years back, or the Bobcats or Magic this past year, would require simply giving guys away for nothing, or blatantly playing our best guys far fewer minutes this season.  That's not a recipe for success, even if you end up getting the guy you want in the draft.

All out tanking only makes sense, in other words, if you don't have any long term assets in hand.  That's not our situation.

My position is just that our team isn't a contender anymore, so the #1 priority of the team becomes acquiring and developing assets.  We should be doing whatever puts us in the best position to do that, until such a time as we have the assets to put another championship caliber core in place.

It seems that our positions are fairly close.

Where we differ is that I feel that we can be competitive while at the same time acquiring and developing assets. 

As a matter of fact, I believe that being competitive can help to better develop your assets.  Knowing how to be a valuable role player on a winner is an attractive quality in a young player.

I present the Spurs as an example:  I am convinced that Kawhi Leonard, Danny Green, Tiago Splitter, and Gary Neal are all considerably more valuable as players and as prospects than they would be if they were playing for some lottery team. 

[thirstyboots18]

How far back in history do you want to go?  All the way back to Russell's last championship as player coach for the Celts?

[mmmmm]

People in favor of "running it back" like to set up these false dichotomies where either we run it back or we're dismantling the team completely and all-out tanking.

Fair point. 

But conversely, people opposed to "running it back" like to setup this false equivalency that the roster we have on paper that would be playing next Fall is the same as the team we put on the floor all last season.

For that to be true, we would have to plan on holding Bradley and Green out for the first few months and then take Rondo and Sully off the team for the second half of the season.

[feckless]

Poor timing for this thread given that the Spurs, a team to have last won a championship in 2006-2007, is one win away for getting a title six seasons later with the same core. Duncan is 37. Ginobili is 35. Tony Parker is 31.

Run it back and forth till the wheels fall off.

[/threadover]

How ignorant. Compare apples to oranges much?

I prefer bananas.

Okay. If you really want to get into it. Only TWICE in the past 27 years has a team earning a top three pick gone on to win a championship over the course of their pick's rookie contract. Those two teams, the above mentioned Spurs and everyone's favorite edge case the Detroit Pistions with the "help" of Darko Milicic.

You know what the most likely outcome is for a team earning a top three pick over their next FOUR seasons - more trips to the lottery. Fully a third of teams don't make the playoffs even once.

Here's a good read if you've got the time. Why Tanking Doesn't Work in the NBA.

Now let's see if you can return serve, Yang.

Why are you suggesting and implying that I said we should tank? There are smarter ways to rebuild than just wiping out all of our assets and clearing a bunch of cap space. Don't tank, don't run it back - get what we can for our aging cast. Ainge was clearly trying to do this over the weekend and people gave him grief for it despite it clearly being the best option on the table

Yang--So far people that disagree with you are ignorant and pathetic.  I think the Spurs are a fair example, not apples and oranges.  Hit me with some invectives.  I have one for you buffoon>

[PhoSita]

People in favor of "running it back" like to set up these false dichotomies where either we run it back or we're dismantling the team completely and all-out tanking.

Fair point. 

But conversely, people opposed to "running it back" like to setup this false equivalency that the roster we have on paper that would be playing next Fall is the same as the team we put on the floor all last season.

For that to be true, we would have to plan on holding Bradley and Green out for the first few months and then take Rondo and Sully off the team for the second half of the season.

Well, I can't speak for anybody else, but personally I think if they did "run it back," we'd get a team that's definitely better than last season, but won't go as far as the team a year before that.

I think the best case scenario in a run-it-back year would be somewhere in between 2012 and 2013.  So maybe a second round birth and a 6-7 game exit against a more talented / younger opponent.  Way too much would have to go exactly right for us for it to be any better than that.

When I say that I don't think running it back would be worth it, that's the kind of end result I have in mind.