Officially Wiggins or Bust

[celticsfan8591]

Emphasis on the word if.

Now if things don't fall the way they are supposed to be, with now a locker room with no leaders and no identity, what happens?

Of course it's a gamble.  If anyone knows of a way to build a contender that isn't a gamble, I'm all ears.

And just because we have gotten younger, it doesn't mean we will be rudderless.  OKC is young, and no one would say they suffer from lack of leadership.

And an identity of first round exits doesn't sound appealing either.  That sounds like settling.

Thank you.  I'm glad not everyone's obsessed with this idea that you need veteran stars present for young players to develop.  We certainly had a winning culture with KG and Pierce, but it is possible to have a young team with a winning culture too.  Pierce was drafted onto a team that had been abysmal the past few years and whose best player was Antoine Walker.  Not exactly a winning culture there, and yet he developed into a star.  KG joined an expansion team that had never made the playoffs and whose best player was ISAIAH FREAKING RIDER.  Possibly the last NBA player you would ever want around an impressionable youngster, and yet KG turned into a great player and leader. Real superstars are not only physically talented, theyre driven enough that they can create a winning culture on their own.

[Celtics18]

@Dos: I never denied superstars help win titles. In fact, I specifically said they help win championships. I'm just saying with the way Stern has shifted the league, with the new CBA, we're beginning to see a new era in the NBA where stars aren't EVERYTHING. Teams like the '04 Pistons are going to really be successful. Of course, back then, they were most definitely a fluke with guys like Kobe, TMac, and all of them just tearing up the league. But again, today's basketball culture is changing. I'd argue that's why Dirk didn't win until a few years back. It's why the landscape today has a team like Indiana so successful.

Furthermore, I certainly hope you're right with the idea of Ainge somehow still surrounding Rondo and Green with talent. I'm just very skeptical right now with Wallace's contract, and the fact that Rondo is too competitive to pull a Rose this season. Of course, anything is possible, and that's why never once in this whole process have I called for Ainge's firing. I really disapproved of the Nets trade, but I can't make any brash judgments until all the dust finally settles.

Right on. It's late. I'm tired and this trade has me all hopped up. Sorry for misreading your post.

That's why they have a lottery, because even the worst team in the league (which we likely won't be) has a lower than 50% chance of landing the top pick in the draft.

The worst team in the league has a better chance of picking fourth ($35.7%) than it does of picking first (25%).

oh my gosh...thank you...someone that finally gets it...

The #5 pick in 2014 will be a better asset than ANYTHING we currently have on our team including Rondo and his busted ACL.

Fact

For the record, dude's not saying the #5 pick will be a better player, he's saying that he'll be a better asset.

And he's right. Top five pick leads to a long-term rookie deal--the best value in the NBA. That's either the guy you build around, or the guy you trade for the guy you build around.

I'm sorry, but that's not necessarily true.  Having a perennial all-star, superstar player at $11 million per year is a fairly strong asset.  There's absolutely no guarantee that a kid on a rookie contract can be anywhere near as valuable as either an asset or, more importantly, as a player than Rajon Rondo.

Rondo's biggest value as an asset in 2014 will be that he's an expiring contract.

Because after the 2014 offseason, there's no way he'll be making just/only 11 million dollars a year any more.

Not to mention point guard is the deepest position in the league, by leaps and bounds.

Here's an imperfect equation for you.
In 2003, Jason Kidd was 30 and was a top flight point guard coming off a Finals trip.

In 2003, if you redrafted it, the top five picks would be LeBron, 'Melo, Bosh, Wade, and David West.

Do you want to pay Jason Kidd 11 million dollars for one year and probably have to sign him to a max contract after that, or do you want four years of LeBron/Melo/Wade/Bosh/West for a rookie deal?

It's a no brainer.


Allowing, of course, that there will always be sleepers and busts.

Of course I would want 2003 Jason Kidd over rookie contract David West. 

Even when that meant that 2003 Jason Kidd (on a near-max contract, don't forget) was going to eat up all of your cap space and make building around him almost impossible?

Well I certainly admire your enthusiasm.

Great players get paid.  Name me the last contender that consisted solely of guys on rookie contracts. 

[D.o.s.]

@Dos: I never denied superstars help win titles. In fact, I specifically said they help win championships. I'm just saying with the way Stern has shifted the league, with the new CBA, we're beginning to see a new era in the NBA where stars aren't EVERYTHING. Teams like the '04 Pistons are going to really be successful. Of course, back then, they were most definitely a fluke with guys like Kobe, TMac, and all of them just tearing up the league. But again, today's basketball culture is changing. I'd argue that's why Dirk didn't win until a few years back. It's why the landscape today has a team like Indiana so successful.

Furthermore, I certainly hope you're right with the idea of Ainge somehow still surrounding Rondo and Green with talent. I'm just very skeptical right now with Wallace's contract, and the fact that Rondo is too competitive to pull a Rose this season. Of course, anything is possible, and that's why never once in this whole process have I called for Ainge's firing. I really disapproved of the Nets trade, but I can't make any brash judgments until all the dust finally settles.

Right on. It's late. I'm tired and this trade has me all hopped up. Sorry for misreading your post.

That's why they have a lottery, because even the worst team in the league (which we likely won't be) has a lower than 50% chance of landing the top pick in the draft.

The worst team in the league has a better chance of picking fourth ($35.7%) than it does of picking first (25%).

oh my gosh...thank you...someone that finally gets it...

The #5 pick in 2014 will be a better asset than ANYTHING we currently have on our team including Rondo and his busted ACL.

Fact

For the record, dude's not saying the #5 pick will be a better player, he's saying that he'll be a better asset.

And he's right. Top five pick leads to a long-term rookie deal--the best value in the NBA. That's either the guy you build around, or the guy you trade for the guy you build around.

I'm sorry, but that's not necessarily true.  Having a perennial all-star, superstar player at $11 million per year is a fairly strong asset.  There's absolutely no guarantee that a kid on a rookie contract can be anywhere near as valuable as either an asset or, more importantly, as a player than Rajon Rondo.

Rondo's biggest value as an asset in 2014 will be that he's an expiring contract.

Because after the 2014 offseason, there's no way he'll be making just/only 11 million dollars a year any more.

Not to mention point guard is the deepest position in the league, by leaps and bounds.

Here's an imperfect equation for you.
In 2003, Jason Kidd was 30 and was a top flight point guard coming off a Finals trip.

In 2003, if you redrafted it, the top five picks would be LeBron, 'Melo, Bosh, Wade, and David West.

Do you want to pay Jason Kidd 11 million dollars for one year and probably have to sign him to a max contract after that, or do you want four years of LeBron/Melo/Wade/Bosh/West for a rookie deal?

It's a no brainer.


Allowing, of course, that there will always be sleepers and busts.

Of course I would want 2003 Jason Kidd over rookie contract David West. 

Even when that meant that 2003 Jason Kidd (on a near-max contract, don't forget) was going to eat up all of your cap space and make building around him almost impossible?

Well I certainly admire your enthusiasm.

Great players get paid.  Name me the last contender that consisted solely of guys on rookie contracts.

Since you seem hell bent on missing my point entirely, I'll just say, for the record, that I like Rondo and want him to remain as our point guard for the duration of his career.

The point remains, though, that he's not going to be as much of a trade asset as the #5 pick in 2014.

[Celtics18]

@Dos: I never denied superstars help win titles. In fact, I specifically said they help win championships. I'm just saying with the way Stern has shifted the league, with the new CBA, we're beginning to see a new era in the NBA where stars aren't EVERYTHING. Teams like the '04 Pistons are going to really be successful. Of course, back then, they were most definitely a fluke with guys like Kobe, TMac, and all of them just tearing up the league. But again, today's basketball culture is changing. I'd argue that's why Dirk didn't win until a few years back. It's why the landscape today has a team like Indiana so successful.

Furthermore, I certainly hope you're right with the idea of Ainge somehow still surrounding Rondo and Green with talent. I'm just very skeptical right now with Wallace's contract, and the fact that Rondo is too competitive to pull a Rose this season. Of course, anything is possible, and that's why never once in this whole process have I called for Ainge's firing. I really disapproved of the Nets trade, but I can't make any brash judgments until all the dust finally settles.

Right on. It's late. I'm tired and this trade has me all hopped up. Sorry for misreading your post.

That's why they have a lottery, because even the worst team in the league (which we likely won't be) has a lower than 50% chance of landing the top pick in the draft.

The worst team in the league has a better chance of picking fourth ($35.7%) than it does of picking first (25%).

oh my gosh...thank you...someone that finally gets it...

The #5 pick in 2014 will be a better asset than ANYTHING we currently have on our team including Rondo and his busted ACL.

Fact

For the record, dude's not saying the #5 pick will be a better player, he's saying that he'll be a better asset.

And he's right. Top five pick leads to a long-term rookie deal--the best value in the NBA. That's either the guy you build around, or the guy you trade for the guy you build around.

I'm sorry, but that's not necessarily true.  Having a perennial all-star, superstar player at $11 million per year is a fairly strong asset.  There's absolutely no guarantee that a kid on a rookie contract can be anywhere near as valuable as either an asset or, more importantly, as a player than Rajon Rondo.

Rondo's biggest value as an asset in 2014 will be that he's an expiring contract.

Because after the 2014 offseason, there's no way he'll be making just/only 11 million dollars a year any more.

Not to mention point guard is the deepest position in the league, by leaps and bounds.

Here's an imperfect equation for you.
In 2003, Jason Kidd was 30 and was a top flight point guard coming off a Finals trip.

In 2003, if you redrafted it, the top five picks would be LeBron, 'Melo, Bosh, Wade, and David West.

Do you want to pay Jason Kidd 11 million dollars for one year and probably have to sign him to a max contract after that, or do you want four years of LeBron/Melo/Wade/Bosh/West for a rookie deal?

It's a no brainer.


Allowing, of course, that there will always be sleepers and busts.

Of course I would want 2003 Jason Kidd over rookie contract David West. 

Even when that meant that 2003 Jason Kidd (on a near-max contract, don't forget) was going to eat up all of your cap space and make building around him almost impossible?

Well I certainly admire your enthusiasm.

Great players get paid.  Name me the last contender that consisted solely of guys on rookie contracts.

Since you seem hell bent on missing my point entirely, I'll just say, for the record, that I like Rondo and want him to remain as our point guard for the duration of his career.

The point remains, though, that he's not going to be as much of a trade asset as the #5 pick in 2014.

I didn't miss your point.  I just won the argument.  Just repeating the point when you ran out of counter-arguments doesn't make it true. 

[D.o.s.]

Rondo is on a great contract right now. That is what makes him an asset. Usually teams overpay for All Star talent.

Rondo will not be on a great contract after this one runs out. He will, as you say, get paid. That makes him less of a trade asset. Blake Griffin was much more valuable on a rookie deal than he is on his current deal. Chris Paul will lose value when he signs his max contract. Derrick Rose is less valuable than he was earlier.

If you think Rondo is worth superstar money, then you give him the superstar contract, but that's totally off-tangent and there's absolutely no way you can say that he's a better value than David West (Or LeBron, Or Melo, Or Bosh, Or Wade) on a rookie deal.

I would much rather pay any of those five guys 4 million dollars a year than pay Rondo 20 million, in terms of value as assets. It has nothing to do with them as players. It's all about getting as much out of each dollar when you're dealing with a salary cap.

If you don't get that, I'm not sure what to tell you.

And, again, I like Rondo, and I have no desire to see him anywhere but on the Celtics.

[sinbad]

Its not just Wiggins. Its also Parker, Randle, Smart. I'd be satisfied with a top four pick. As of right now, at the very least, it looks like the 2014 draft could be a poor man's version of the 2003 draft.

Wiggins = LeBron (reaching here obviously)
Parker = Carmelo (again reaching)
Smart = Wade (I see some similarities)
Randle = Bosh (Randle is more Chris Weber than Chris Bosh)

Knowing our luck we'll draft the next Darko.

[LilRip]

This thread is a taxing read but from what I've skimmed through, it seems as if a lot of the people are discounting how easy it is to win a championship. Truth is, there is no one way to do it. There are a bunch of ways and winning the lottery is definitely one of them. Finding a gem late in the draft is another. Trading away assets for a stud is another. Signing a big free agent is another. And the list goes on. The most a GM can do is build a team that has a CHANCE aka a contender.

The team as presently constructed is not a contender (sad to say). DA did what he felt he had to do to set himself up to build a contender. Now next year, whether he gets lucky in the draft, finds a gem with a Brooklyn pick, trades for a stud to put beside Rondo, or whatever, I don't know yet. I'm hoping for the best. But admittedly, this trade has given us options. Options we wouldn't have, had we decided to run it back. At least my 2 cents.

[Celtics18]

Rondo is on a great contract right now. That is what makes him an asset. Usually teams overpay for All Star talent.

Rondo will not be on a great contract after this one runs out. He will, as you say, get paid. That makes him less of a trade asset. Blake Griffin was much more valuable on a rookie deal than he is on his current deal. Chris Paul will lose value when he signs his max contract. Derrick Rose is less valuable than he was earlier.

If you think Rondo is worth superstar money, then you give him the superstar contract, but that's totally off-tangent and there's absolutely no way you can say that he's a better value than David West (Or LeBron, Or Melo, Or Bosh, Or Wade) on a rookie deal.

I would much rather pay any of those five guys 4 million dollars a year than pay Rondo 20 million, in terms of value as assets. It has nothing to do with them as players. It's all about getting as much out of each dollar when you're dealing with a salary cap.

If you don't get that, I'm not sure what to tell you.

And, again, I like Rondo, and I have no desire to see him anywhere but on the Celtics.

Here's the point that you are missing.  None of those guys (not even James) were the caliber of player that they became at their peaks (David West seems to have just reached his recently).  It's not like you can say that if you put second year David West on this year's Pacers for whatever his rookie contract was, the Pacers would have been in much better shape because they had him on a much more friendly deal. 

Second year David West wasn't anywhere near as valuable as a player (or as an asset for that matter) as tenth year David West.  The Pacers would have had more cap flexibility, sure, but they wouldn't have been as good a team. 

Rookie contract David West was not as valuable an asset as $11 million Rajon Rondo before he hurt his knee, and he was not more valuable than even max contract Rajon Rondo will be if he returns to full health and can play at the level he did before his injury. 

[D.o.s.]

I'm not disputing that. It's also largely inconsequential.

Rajon Rondo is a better basketball player than Damian Lillard.

Damian Lillard is a better trade asset, and holds more trade value, than Rajon Rondo.


If you've spent 4 million dollars of your 80 million dollars on your starting point guard, you have 76 million dollars to fill out your roster with other starting caliber,all-star, and reserve players.

If you've spent 20 million dollars of your 80 million dollars on your starting point guard, you only have 60 million dollars to fill out your roster with other starting caliber,all-star, and reserve players.

Not every team is going to pay 20 million dollars for Rajon Rondo.

Every team will pay 4 million dollars for Damian Lillard.

[Boston Garden Leprechaun]

One last note on the tanking method:

Where is Cleveland now? Washington? Minnesota?

Chicago's fortunes changed when they drafted Rose, but how did they fare last year without him? They had solid contributions from across the board. Everybody on the team contributed.

Why are the Warriors suddenly a dangerous team? They traded for Lee and Bogut. Again, another skilled frontcourt. They also made shrewd free agent signings with Jack and Landry. Yes, Barnes was a lottery pick, but it's not like he was the main catalyst of the reversal of fortune in the Bay Area.

How about the Nuggets? How did they manage to get even better following the departure of their best draft pick ever? Solid team ball. They technically got from free agency Chandler. They traded for McGee who undeniably will have a bigger role next year. They landed Iguodala from Philly. They made solid non-lotto draft picks with Lawson (from MIN) and Faried.

I can keep on going. The point I'm trying to make here is that success from the draft is already a gamble, and even if you are lucky enough to strike it rich, then you have to deal with the fact that you still aren't necessarily better than teams who DON'T get high draft picks, but instead make smart trades, FA signings, and uncovering draft gems in later picks.

Which is why this is a cowardly move, as I said from the beginning. Great post, TP.

Basically Danny is saying he does not trust his GM skills to land a solid player to help Rondo and Green even with the cap space that he has.

He does not trust his GM skills to be able to pull a trade involving our assets like picks, Bradley, Sullinger, Bass and Lee, all are solid players to get a another solid guy or a pick.

He does not trust his GM skills that he can find a gem in the mid rounds of the draft, or late round even though he showed already that he could.

We could rebuild the team by not really trying to suck and hope to get a high draft pick, but by, as Vince McMahon said, taking calculated risk signing players, drafting right, making smart trades and making sure we have a coaching staff that could very well mesh the players we have. We don't have to suck to be able to win in the future.

Instead Danny took the easy and cowardly way out and risk being mediocre for a lot of years, waste away the prime years of Rondo and Green, risk the development of the young assets we have now because we're not going for the win, for a CHANCE to land a star in this draft or to trade for one.


I was defending Danny a while ago, now I'm flipping. This tells me that he does not trust himself as a very good GM and his only solution to be winners in the future is to be losers first and get lucky with the ping pong balls. He doesn't trust the job his scouts are doing, nor the coaches he will hire. That's someone who should not be running the team, he needs to get axed.

oh geez louise........:slappingforehead:

[chambers]

The Warriors also had Klay Thompson and Steph Curry lol. How'd they get them?

[Boston Garden Leprechaun]

one of my concerns is that sully and green may play us out of that top 5 pick. If it looks like that is happening what do we do? sit them both? again, if we are going to make sure we get a top 5 pick we have to do it right.

[chambers]

Yeah... remember the last time we tried to tank?

we ended up with KG and Ray Allen + subsequent championship..?

[Drucci]

I would be OK with the Nets trade if we didn't had to take Wallace's awful contract. And yes, I'm fully aware that this trade probably doesn't happen if we didn't get one of the Nets' awful contract, but still.

[freshinthehouse]

Glad there's someone with an open mind.

A lot of people seem excited about the 2014 draft, so I'll go back to the last impact draft, the 2003 draft class. This draft had a whopping four instant franchise changers: Lebron, Melo, Bosh, and Wade. The first one to win of these four was Wade, in 3 years. HOWEVER, he was only able to do so because he had Shaq, and other veterans like Walker and Williams. As for Lebron and Bosh, they didn't win until they teamed up with Wade, and Melo remains ringless even after going to NY. Stars win in this league, but that has become overrated now. Sometimes, it actually backfires. Look at Brooklyn.

At the end of the day, stars help, but basketball remains a team effort. It took 9 seasons for Lebron to win a championship, and that required him changing ships to a better TEAM. Everyone loves the "Thunder model", but Durant and Westbrook have grown with each other for 5 years now, but have yet to win a championship. It took them 4 years to get to the Finals, and it took them 3 years to become legitimate contenders. Under LarBrd33's dream situation, that means even if we get lucky and somehow get one of the franchise changers in next year's draft (which is unlikely unless we also trade Rondo and Green), we're off to a great Year 1. Let's say in a best, best, best case scenario, we somehow surround that franchise changer with elite veteran talent like Wade, and we become contenders by 2017. That's 4 years from now. Obviously, that takes a lot of pieces to fall together, so let's scale it back and say we keep drafting our key pieces with the "Thunder model". Now we're looking at 5-6 years. But the "Thunder model" has become overrated. It's not as easy as it looks. Ainge is a great drafter, but it's really difficult to continually draft guys like Durant, Westbrook, Harden, and Ibaka in such a short span. In summary, even in the most ideal situations, if we completely nuke (which we have to with the Brooklyn trade), that's 4-6 years MINIMUM, and that's with everything falling perfectly into place.

NOW, what am I proposing? We already have Rondo and Green. Neither are top-tier superstars, but both are great players entering their prime while on reasonable contracts (particularly Rondo). Honestly, good, young players on reasonable contracts is one of the most undervalued assets in today's CBA. Around Rondo and Green, we still have very solid contributors in Sullinger, Bradley, and Lee. Olynyk is one of the most NBA ready talents from this year's draft class, as well. Three of the four guys I just mentioned are on rookie scale contracts, and Lee can certainly work his way to a point where his contract is reasonable.

This post is already long enough so I won't highlight the details, but if we made any trade other than the Brooklyn trade, we could've gotten assets without having to take back Wallace. But for the sake of simplicity, let's just say we only manage ONE first round pick for each PP/KG (and let's be realistic, we could've hauled in more). That means we'll have three additional first round picks when factoring in LAC's Doc compensation. Of course, we also have our own draft picks, too.

By the end of this offseason, that means we have a core of Rondo/Bradley/Green/Sully/Olynyk, lots of cap space, and a solid amount of draft picks. Sully and Olynyk ideally come off the bench, so how do we fill out the frontcourt with impactful players? Luckily, Gortat is on the market. Millsap and Al Jefferson are free agents. And of all the potential disgruntled players, the cream of the crop just happens to be big men (LMA, Love, DMC). Looking at their situations realistically, LMA and DMC might be in a position where they stay. But honestly, Minny isn't going anywhere soon and Love already wanted out once.

If there's one thing Ainge is consistently good at, it's trading. We're not getting all of those guys, but the chances of us getting two we need is very likely. At this point, you might stop and say that none of these guys scream superstar, and none of them can carry a team to a championship.

Let's not forget that Rondo is a certified Heat killer, and when it comes to the postseason, he arguably is capable of carrying teams. Green has his finest moments against the Heat, too. Of the guys I listed, Millsap owns the Heat. Let's not forget that the two teams that came closest to toppling the Heat played TEAM BALL that centered around having a SOLID FRONTCOURT, the Pacers and Spurs. You can argue that Duncan still has enough in the tank to be called their superstar, but the Pacers certainly don't have a clear cut superstar. George emerged, yes, but his contributions weren't anymore than those of West, Hibbert, and even guys like Hill and Stephenson. Again, stars are nice to have, but ultimately it comes down to TEAM BALL.

When you look at the West, it's a similar story. Some of the most dangerous up and coming teams include Denver, Golden State, and Memphis. Again, none of these teams have clear cut superstars that carry the team outside of Curry. All of them have solid, deep teams that have a nice mixture of YOUTH AND EXPERIENCE, all of whom are HARD WORKERS.

With Rondo and Green already firmly in place, Boston easily could've gone out and created one of these solid team compositions that focus on a strong frontcourt, and an overall mixture of youth and experience. Fortunately, all these pieces were conveniently out there for us. We could've gotten together this sort of team in no more than 2 years. You could argue that we would almost assuredly be in the dreaded NBA purgatory of being a first or second round exit those first few years, but I'd be happy with that. Our team would get more experience and be hungrier for the next year. As early as the third year, we would be realistic championship contenders again.

Of course, not all trades/FA signings are perfect, so let's pretend that happens to us as well. But look at Indiana. Five years ago they thought Granger was going to be the guy that resurrects the franchise. Obviously, that wasn't the case. But in just a matter of five years, which is equivalent to a BEST CASE scenario of LarBrd33's fantasy. And the thing with my plan is that there are no risky investments. You're getting guys who have been in the league who know how to play. Two guys who most changed the Pacers's fortune were Hill and West, who came via trade and FA respectively. They're established. Through the draft, no matter how deep it is, you don't know what you're getting. Let's not forget the #2 overall pick of the 2003 draft was Darko.

We have Rondo and Green already. They help make a quick 2-3 year retool so much easier. I don't understand why in the world Ainge felt compelled to get one of the worst contracts in the league.

Thanks for the well written response.  I definitely see where you are coming from, but I don't think we could've feasibly built this team into a serious contender in the next couple of years.  And I agree that at the rate we are going Rondo will be 30 by the time we contend, and that is why I think he must (and I'm guessing will) be traded in the next year. 

Also, I don't think we could expect to get the kind of haul in separate trades for PP and KG than what we got in this deal from NJ.  The option to swap in 2017 and that 2018 pick is huge.  I can easily see them being in the lotto both those years.