In Summary: Why we should have retooled, not rebuilt

[Mr October]

A young center entering his prime (Hibbert), or still in his prime (Gasol) is a GREAT piece to build around. I'm looking at the examples of Indiana and Memphis. Throw in a superstar like Paul George, or borderline all stars like Conley and Randolph, yes you absolutely retool and go for it again.

The Celtics core is Rondo plus role players. Jeff Green is never going to be an all star. He has 1 offensive go to move: driving to his right. Against elite defenses in the playoffs (Miami, Indiana, San Antonio, Memphis), you need a variety of moves to go to after they game plan to take away your first 1-2 preferred moves.

Sullinger is good, but I don't see starter on a contender talent in him. Maybe he'll prove me wrong and get there. But i just don't think he will be able to hold his own in a 7 game series against elite power forwards. On the other hand I think he could be a fantastic role player. He is smart and a good rebounder.

Bradley also is a nice role player, but aside from a a nice 2 month run a year and a half ago, he has not been able to prove that he can hang with the top shooting guards. He was also a liability on offense this entire year.

Bass is overpaid. Terry was overpaid. Lee was a mess as the year went on. He appears to be over thinking everything.

KG and PP are not good enough to be #1 or #2 scoring options anymore, and can't handle starter minutes anymore.

The rest of the roster are scrubs.

No one wants to go to lottery land. But i really think the Celtics have no choice. Otherwise they would be stuck in NBA mediocre no mans land for who knows how long.

[rondoallaturca]

@Mr October: Great points, and you definitely reveal a BIG potential liability to the retooling method in Jeff Green. He posted his weakest stats against teams like San Antonio and Indiana (although interestingly, he posted his best stats against the Heat), mainly due to the fact that he is very limited on offense right now. The retooling method definitely relies on Green being able to play the role of guys like Paul George or Kawhi Leonard. Green is entering his prime and has shown promises of a more diverse offensive game, so hopefully he's able to fill that sort of role.

As for the rest, you make good points but ones that wouldn't affect retooling. Sullinger is projected a bench player in my hypothesis anyway. Bradley and Bass aren't even on the team. With Terry, he'd be a solid piece for a contender, and I really think talks about his contract being hard to deal was way overblown. As for Lee, this point I have to disagree with. Doc never ever gave him an appropriate chance, and the one time he did, Lee was quickly sidelined with an injury. Despite all this, he still posted impressive stats given his poor situation.

Lastly, once again, KG/PP are out of the equation.

[rjb182]

What I don't understand is why you'd want to follow the Indiana/Memphis model. Those are two solid teams that might make the Finals if everything breaks right and they get a good matchup, as the Pacers nearly did this year, but they're not going to win anything.

The last two teams built on the "great role players and borderline stars" model to win the championship are the 2004 Pistons and the Sonice in the 1970's. Against that, you have the 80's Lakers and Celts (built on superstars), the 80's Pistons (close to this model, but still needed Isaiah, who was a cut above Rondo or anyone on Indiana or Memphis), the 90's Bulls and Rockets, the Spurs and Lakers of the 00's, and the recent Celtics, Lakers, and Heat teams. All built around huge stars who were high lottery picks.

You know who the current Pacers remind me of, in terms of team quality? The Reggie Miller/Rik Smits Pacers-- also a solid organization built around depth and borderline stars. They lucked into one NBA Finals, lost it, and spent a lot of years going out in the second and third rounds.

It's not a recipe for a championship. It's just a slightly more appealing flavor of "caught in the twilight zone."

Also, I quite honestly don't understand why you'd want to build around anyone on this team except Rondo. (Even Rondo has his problems, but he's good enough to be one of the Big Three stars you need to win in the right situation.) Green, Bradley, and Sullinger are good enough to be bench contributors on a championship team, but seeing them as essential parts of a winning nucleus would be a mistake, IMO...

EDIT: Because I spelled "NBA" as "NBS." National Basketball Superleague? Who knows?

[Boston Garden Leprechaun]

Oh man if only we had added Paul Millsap, we could have won 45 games instead of 41... while completely mortgaging our future in the process since KG and Pierce are out of the league in a couple years regardless.


Nah... this was a brilliant move.  There's like 6-7 guys in the 2014 draft that can be all-stars.  Even if we strike out, you're set up very well for the future... and you only get one swing at a "once a decade" draft.  No sense in winning 45 games and tanking in 2015.  You Do it now.

BINGO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[rondoallaturca]

Why I want to follow the Indiana/Memphis model is because that's where this league is heading. With the new CBA, unless you miraculously are lucky enough for three top-tier players to take pay cuts to play together (Heat), simply acquiring stars has proved to create LESS success. The two NY teams are stuck in mediocrity right now. The Lakers have already crumbled, and unless they make some bold moves with Gasol/Kobe, they're in for some crippling financial consequences (not that they care). The entire Western conference right now is aligning towards team play. Outside of OKC and LAC, San Antonio, Denver, Memphis, and Golden State are all building with the goal of not piling on a bunch of superstars, but a team full of solid contributors.

You can look at history and say that all the big winners are dynasties that had the best players in the league. I can't argue with that. But the league today is different from the league of yesterday. The number of prolific scorers coming up with big games is a rarity these days. We're four years removed from when a player was able to average 30 points a game (Durant). Stern made it his goal to disperse talent around the league, and he's done just that.

Also, like I already mentioned to MrOctober, I concurred with his assessment that Green may be a stumbling block, and it's certainly right that he might better off be a bench contributor. As for Bradley and Sullinger, I definitely agree that they are no more than rotational players. But in my opinion, those players ARE essential parts of a winning nucleus. Miami wouldn't have gotten where they did without Ray Allen. Spurs wouldn't have gotten as far as they did without Danny Green and even Boris Diaw. The Pacers wouldn't have gotten as far as they did without Lance Stephenson. Again, the league is about team ball now, and every guy matters.

[fantankerous]

Also, like I already mentioned to MrOctober, I concurred with his assessment that Green may be a stumbling block, and it's certainly right that he might better off be a bench contributor. As for Bradley and Sullinger, I definitely agree that they are no more than rotational players. But in my opinion, those players ARE essential parts of a winning nucleus. Miami wouldn't have gotten where they did without Ray Allen. Spurs wouldn't have gotten as far as they did without Danny Green and even Boris Diaw. The Pacers wouldn't have gotten as far as they did without Lance Stephenson. Again, the league is about team ball now, and every guy matters.

And the 2000 Lakers wouldn't have won without Robert Horry and the 90s Bulls wouldn't have won without Dennis Rodman, or the 80s Celtics wouldn't have won without Danny Ainge.  It's a truism, not the sign of a new trend.

[rondoallaturca]

Also, like I already mentioned to MrOctober, I concurred with his assessment that Green may be a stumbling block, and it's certainly right that he might better off be a bench contributor. As for Bradley and Sullinger, I definitely agree that they are no more than rotational players. But in my opinion, those players ARE essential parts of a winning nucleus. Miami wouldn't have gotten where they did without Ray Allen. Spurs wouldn't have gotten as far as they did without Danny Green and even Boris Diaw. The Pacers wouldn't have gotten as far as they did without Lance Stephenson. Again, the league is about team ball now, and every guy matters.

And the 2000 Lakers wouldn't have won without Robert Horry and the 90s Bulls wouldn't have won without Dennis Rodman, or the 80s Celtics wouldn't have won without Danny Ainge.  It's a truism, not the sign of a new trend.

Agreed. That's why I think it's a bit foolish to think that bench contributors aren't automatically essential parts of a winning team.

[chambers]

The Pacers have one of the best bigs in the world. He's 7 foot 2 with an eternal wingspan.
He's a max contract player/All Star and other than Marc Gasol/Duncan/ Howard are there any better bigs on both ends of the floor?

This is the problem with your argument. Even with Hibbert, they DRAFTED him.
Their defense was nasty but it was based around the rim protection of a 7 foot 2 monster that has developed his offensive and rebounding skills to become a top 5 center in the world.

There are no free agents like this. Name some for me.
Millsap? Where's he taking us with Rondo and Green?
You think Millsap, Josh Smith, Green, Rondo, Bradley gets us anywhere against the Heat, Bulls or even the Pacers?
All mediocre players that are good, but not game changing like Hibbert.

The Pacers got lucky with Hibbert.
They drafted him. They saw the potential. They maxed him out. He found his mean streak on both ends and they hit the jackpot.
Still, they shot tremendously AND the Bulls were torn apart by injuries. Consider their 2013 run like our 2012 run. Great, gutsy, tough as nails. But Miami and Chicago were both not 100%
A full health Bulls teams destroys that Pacers team with Rose, Deng, Noah, Gibson, Butler. They'll get rid of Boozer and be even better.

There aren't any free agents to build around.
This is part of the reason Danny is doing this.
Rewind to 2006 when we had collected assets and picks.
We missed out on Durant and Oden but we also had the back up plan incase that failed.

Who knows what will happen with Kevin Love or Kevin Durant come 2015-16. They'll both be up for re-signing and free agency and both want to move to bigger markets. (Hire Jay Z as your agent? Love is 'growing tired' with the Wolves management?

You're talking about how it's easier to re-tool for the same result. It simply is not easier to re-tool for a championship. The Heat did it by sneakily joining together. The Lakers got the best free agent on the market and they suck with all their 're tooling'.

Please give us a squad or a realistic squad this offseason as KG and Pierce get older and their value continues to go down.
Name any free agents you want around Rondo and Green.
You cannot come up with a good enough team that is a legit top 4 team to challenge Chicago, Miami, OKC and Memphis.

This tanking method involving drafting means we get the chance to develop and build loyalty to a young superstar.
Hopefully we'll get a top 3 pick in 2014. But if not, we still have the assets that are required to get a Kevin Love or a Durant in a sign and trade.
We currently don't have those assets nor are there any free agents that make us legit contenders.

It sucks to tank and stink but unfortunately the NBA has left us with no other choice other than to exploit their system the best way we can.
We have one of the best basketball minds in the world as our GM. I don't care if you don't agree because the fact is that the Thunder, Rockets, Philly are all copying him now.
This new salary cap has made 're-tooling' even harder.
This is why our 9 first round picks in 5 years are so golden.
Anyway back to that championship caliber team that you can re-build on the fly with free agents and trades with our current assets.
By the way, how did the Pacers get George, Granger, Stephenson and Hibbert?

[LGC88]

At this point, we don't know Danny's plan. Is he retooling this summer? Does he prepare to acquire a big three by 2014 summer? Does he want to tank for 1 year just to have a franchise player for the future? Does he plan to tank many years?
Until we know the plan, I don't see the point to argue.

[Yogi]

Paul and KG can no longer win a title by being 1-2 option or even 2-3 option.  They are quality role players that can push a talented playoff team over the top.  For Boston to contend we would have needed one more All-star caliber player without losing anything.  That was impossible with no cap-space, 16th pick and not enough extra quality assets. 

By trading Paul and KG, it is true we get many draft picks which seems to indicate a rebuild.  However, we also get assets that can be turned into another star under the right circumstance.  The trade has given the Celtics the flexibility to rebuild or retool depending on what opportunities arise.

Your original plan of re-tooling is fine, but how do you propose to add to the team?  You can't simply upgrade Brandon Bass to Josh Smith or Courtney Lee to Igoudala.  Without the MLE, Cap space or movable contracts we had no way of rebuilding or retooling without trading KG, Paul and Terry.

[truthhurts34]

@Rondo

Do you realize why Memphis is where they are today?

Because they traded their best player Pau Gasol for Kwame Brown, Critteton and the rights to Marc Gasol(who nobody thought would be this good)& a pick.

Why? Because they knew that team was going nowhere and it was time to rebuild.

You also mentioned OKC:

They got to how they are today because they traded Ray Allen, got rid of Rashard Lewis & started over. This allowed them to draft well and get Westbrook/Harden/Ibaka etc...

They did not trade Ray for Wally & Delonte. they traded for the #5 pick which was Jeff Green. Are you starting to see some similarities here with Gerald Wallce and the 3 1st round draft picks?

Ray was 32 at the time scoring 26ppg in his last year with the Sonics, Pierce and Kevin are 35 & 37....they may COMBINE for 26ppg next season. Had OKC never traded Ray and kept "retooling" they would've had Durant but they would never have had Westbrook, Ibaka or Harden throughout the years. Now that Ray is old, they would've been left with lesser quality players because of worse picks.

So I ask you...What is there to retool with the C's? We've been retooling for 4 years now and we havn't won a championship since. Acquiring the Millsaps and Jefferson's of the world won't change that. It's time now.

1 year of tanking is nothing compared to getting a career's worth out of a high 2014 pick. Let alone the fact the Nets will stink in 2016/2018 while pierce and KG are long gone and we are still acquiring their assets.

[paidthecost2betheboss]

@Rondo

Do you realize why Memphis is where they are today?

Because they traded their best player Pau Gasol for Kwame Brown, Critteton and the rights to Marc Gasol(who nobody thought would be this good)& a pick.

Why? Because they knew that team was going nowhere and it was time to rebuild.

You also mentioned OKC:

They got to how they are today because they traded Ray Allen, got rid of Rashard Lewis & started over. This allowed them to draft well and get Westbrook/Harden/Ibaka etc...

They did not trade Ray for Wally & Delonte. they traded for the #5 pick which was Jeff Green. Are you starting to see some similarities here with Gerald Wallce and the 3 1st round draft picks?

Ray was 32 at the time scoring 26ppg in his last year with the Sonics, Pierce and Kevin are 35 & 37....they may COMBINE for 26ppg next season. Had OKC never traded Ray and kept "retooling" they would've had Durant but they would never have had Westbrook, Ibaka or Harden throughout the years. Now that Ray is old, they would've been left with lesser quality players because of worse picks.

So I ask you...What is there to retool with the C's? We've been retooling for 4 years now and we havn't won a championship since. Acquiring the Millsaps and Jefferson's of the world won't change that. It's time now.

1 year of tanking is nothing compared to getting a career's worth out of a high 2014 pick. Let alone the fact the Nets will stink in 2016/2018 while pierce and KG are long gone and we are still acquiring their assets.

You make WAAAy too much sense. That breeze everybody feels on their foreheads right now is from you going over their heads.


TP

[fitzhickey]

@Rondo

Do you realize why Memphis is where they are today?

Because they traded their best player Pau Gasol for Kwame Brown, Critteton and the rights to Marc Gasol(who nobody thought would be this good)& a pick.

Why? Because they knew that team was going nowhere and it was time to rebuild.

You also mentioned OKC:

They got to how they are today because they traded Ray Allen, got rid of Rashard Lewis & started over. This allowed them to draft well and get Westbrook/Harden/Ibaka etc...

They did not trade Ray for Wally & Delonte. they traded for the #5 pick which was Jeff Green. Are you starting to see some similarities here with Gerald Wallce and the 3 1st round draft picks?

Ray was 32 at the time scoring 26ppg in his last year with the Sonics, Pierce and Kevin are 35 & 37....they may COMBINE for 26ppg next season. Had OKC never traded Ray and kept "retooling" they would've had Durant but they would never have had Westbrook, Ibaka or Harden throughout the years. Now that Ray is old, they would've been left with lesser quality players because of worse picks.

So I ask you...What is there to retool with the C's? We've been retooling for 4 years now and we havn't won a championship since. Acquiring the Millsaps and Jefferson's of the world won't change that. It's time now.

1 year of tanking is nothing compared to getting a career's worth out of a high 2014 pick. Let alone the fact the Nets will stink in 2016/2018 while pierce and KG are long gone and we are still acquiring their assets.

You sir, are a god



TP of the highest honor

[playdream]

PLEASE READ: I very much look forward to hearing intellectual arguments against this proposition, but so far the majority of these comments completely ignore every major point of this post. I know this is a wordy post, but please at least skim it to get an idea of what I'm trying to say. Thank you.

It seems a lot of people here are embodying the casual fan mindset and thinking that tanking for the 2014 and continuing to pile on assets for further drafts is the absolute best, and only, way to go right now. This post is to show why a much quicker retool that does not involve turning the franchise into a miserable joke for the next few seasons is not just possible, but the better choice.

The whole Thunder model looks so appealing. The Thunder have been championship contenders for a few years now, and look poised to remain that way for many years to come. As such, many lottery teams have tried to go that way. But why aren't teams like Minnesota, Cleveland, and Washington seeing that same success? I mean, none of those teams are even seeing the slightest of improvements over the past few years. Of course, Durant is simply on another level. But did the Nuggets go anywhere when they drafted Carmelo? How about the Raptors with Bosh? Of all these teams, none have become champions, and only the Thunder have been able to become championship contenders. The Thunder model is enticing to say the least, but it requires so much luck and skill. We certainly have the skill in Ainge, but nothing can control that much luck.

The alternative that I believe is much better is MUCH safer that would produce a same result, if not better, than the much riskier tank method. The Pacers came so close to the Finals this year because despite a lack of a superstar, they had solid contributions from the whole team. None of Hill, Stephenson, George, West, or Hibbert have names that truly blow you away, but they all play solid team basketball. With the Spurs, Parker and Ginobili really underproduced in the Finals, and it's arguable that Duncan could be called their "star", but it was guys like Leonard, Green, and even Diaw of all people who were key contributors.

What could Boston do? For some reason, the names that are most often thrown around here are the worst options available. Josh Smith? Al Jefferson? Even Andy Varejao? PASS x3! People do realize that Paul Millsap is available? JJ Hickson or Carl Landry would be an excellent hustle backup if Sully/Olynyk are needed in a trade. Guys like Jarrett Jack and JJ Redick are also available. Moving even further down, a guy like Eric Maynor would be an excellent backup PG behind Rondo. And through trades, even more names are available, like Marcin Gortat.

You may note that none of these names are flashy. There are no Dwight Howard's or Chris Paul's. There aren't even Josh Smith's. But that's the point. As opposed to a Heat model or a Thunder model, look at this as a Pacers/Grizzlies model, if you will.

The Pacers make do with Hill, Stephenson, George, West, and Hibbert. The Grizzlies make do with Conley, Allen, Prince, Randolph, and Gasol. Why couldn't the C's make do with Rondo, Lee, Green, Millsap, and Gortat? That's a solid starting lineup, and Rondo, Green, and Millsap are all proven Heat killers. Say we gave up Bass and Bradley for Gortat. That still means we have Crawford, Sullinger, and Olynyk on the bench, with the potential for guys like Maynor and Aminu to round it out. A bench with a backbone like that looks better than Indiana's and Memphis's, too.

I'll be the first to say that if Boston did this, we'd be a first or second round exit for the first few years. That's always a terrible ending, but I actually WANT this sort of team to be a first or second round exit early on. We'll build experience and chemistry through these exits, and become contenders afterwards. Look at Memphis. They were ousted by a Clippers team led by Vinny Del Negro of all coaches, and came right back to advance all the way to the WCF. Even without Hollins, you can bet that they'll be one of the favorites to come out of the West again this year.

And another thing to consider with all these teams is that all of them can retool on the fly without having to sacrifice a few years of absolute ugliness. The Thunder traded Green and then Harden. The Grizzlies let Mayo walk and traded Gay. And so on. This is what smart teams do. Once they're in a good spot, they don't relinquish it. They don't give it all up for CHANCE of all things in the lottery. If they need to make changes, they do so without blowing everything up. Boston is in this position right now. We have assets, and we could've traded KG/PP for more that didn't involve taking back Gerald Wallace. We have Rondo and Green, two young players entering their prime, on team-friendly contracts. Guys like Gerald Wallace, Deandre Jordan, and Andrea Bargnani are getting paid around what Rondo and Green get paid. Very few teams entering a new era have the privilege of saying they're in a situation like we are right now.

Ainge is a good GM, and I have faith in his plans. It's just incredibly depressing to think that we could've remained a playoff team and then have a legitimate shot in about 2-3 years. Now, we're locked in to be borderline unwatchable for about that same time, and then wait an additional ~5 years after that before we have a shot at being championship contenders.

Memphis and Pacers aren't going anywhere,they didn't even make to the finals, they are exact failed model
history showed that superstars won the champion which means we have to tank

[Moranis]

Also, like I already mentioned to MrOctober, I concurred with his assessment that Green may be a stumbling block, and it's certainly right that he might better off be a bench contributor. As for Bradley and Sullinger, I definitely agree that they are no more than rotational players. But in my opinion, those players ARE essential parts of a winning nucleus. Miami wouldn't have gotten where they did without Ray Allen. Spurs wouldn't have gotten as far as they did without Danny Green and even Boris Diaw. The Pacers wouldn't have gotten as far as they did without Lance Stephenson. Again, the league is about team ball now, and every guy matters.

And the 2000 Lakers wouldn't have won without Robert Horry and the 90s Bulls wouldn't have won without Dennis Rodman, or the 80s Celtics wouldn't have won without Danny Ainge.  It's a truism, not the sign of a new trend.

Agreed. That's why I think it's a bit foolish to think that bench contributors aren't automatically essential parts of a winning team.

of course they are, but you don't get bench contributors if you don't have the heart of the title team in place.  You need the big guns before you supplement them with the required role players.  The Heat didn't sign Battier, Miller, Anderson, Allen, etc. until they signed James, Wade, and Bosh.  You get the meat before the gravy.