Can we stop with this tanking ?

[acieEarl]

We all know tanking never guarantees the first pick in the draft. I clearly remember the Durant and Duncan draft. That being said, the crappier the Cs are the better chance they'll get to lower pick, maybe not the 1rst pick but a low pick in the top 5. The more draft picks, the more possibilities of getting a top choice.

What's the point of winning 30 games? Let the young talent play and see if they're worth keeping. Yes it will be a tough year to watch, but it will be worth it in 3 years if we can draft well.

[Celtics18]

Four - and possibly FIVE of the nine first round picks we currently own for the next 5 years are NOT determined by our own record.

In other words, whether we 'tank' or not has almost zero effect on those picks.

Of the nine picks, the ones that look most likely to be high, with a chance in the lottery, would be the 2016 & 2017 Nets picks (because of their contract / salary horizon).   If Chris Paul gets injured again, I wouldn't be surprised if the 2015 Clipper's pick is a decent one as well, but it's not good to expect or hope for injuries.

The ones that look the _least_ likely to be in the lottery would be the 2014 Nets pick and probably our own 2014, unless we purposely tank our selves.  And our own 2017 & 2018 picks will probably not be in the lottery either, as we should be a strong team again by then.

The most optimal path is not necessarily to deconstruct to the point of tanking ourselves.   The risk with deconstruction is that you can end up inadvertently creating problems such as ruining the development of young players, and creating a generally 'losing' environment.

The most optimal path, given our situation, might be to continue to work & move assets EXCEPT for those most likely to end up high in the lottery to strengthen the team as much as possible.   Yes, you won't likely make a deep playoff run.  But you can build up a solid, winning core of players.   When the Nets or Clips inevitably stumble, you will have a strong team AND a top draft pick or two.   So you will be dropping a star talent rookie in with an already strong cast.

Waiting for 2015, 2016 might require more patience from the 'tank it now' crowd.  But it actually stays on Danny's original timeline, given that is the time frame a lot of his contracts come off the books.   You'll know by then whether to extend guys like Bradley, Green, Sully.  You'll be clear of contracts like Bass, Lee, Humphries & Wallace.   You may have moved some of those along with some of the draft picks mentioned above in order to bring in more preferable talent.

Just a hypothetical, but you might be able to make a deal for a player like Aldridge, who wants out of Portland, by giving up three of those picks that are least likely to be in the lottery and a couple of our contracts.   Aldridge is the kind of star we are looking for in those drafts but he's proven already.  I would do that deal in a heartbeat.

So you'll have accomplished three things going this route: 

1) You'll have shored up your own young talent as much as possible and continued to emphasize the goal of winning.  With the right trade, you may already have added a super stud.

2) You'll be past the bad contracts and should only have long term contracts on players you actually want to keep.

3) You'll still be picking in the first round - potentially very high in the first round if other teams stumble.

And none of that requires that the Celtics tank.

This is one of the most sensible and convincing anti-tank posts I've seen. 

TP

[playdream]

Four - and possibly FIVE of the nine first round picks we currently own for the next 5 years are NOT determined by our own record.

In other words, whether we 'tank' or not has almost zero effect on those picks.

Of the nine picks, the ones that look most likely to be high, with a chance in the lottery, would be the 2016 & 2017 Nets picks (because of their contract / salary horizon).   If Chris Paul gets injured again, I wouldn't be surprised if the 2015 Clipper's pick is a decent one as well, but it's not good to expect or hope for injuries.

The ones that look the _least_ likely to be in the lottery would be the 2014 Nets pick and probably our own 2014, unless we purposely tank our selves.  And our own 2017 & 2018 picks will probably not be in the lottery either, as we should be a strong team again by then.

The most optimal path is not necessarily to deconstruct to the point of tanking ourselves.   The risk with deconstruction is that you can end up inadvertently creating problems such as ruining the development of young players, and creating a generally 'losing' environment.

The most optimal path, given our situation, might be to continue to work & move assets EXCEPT for those most likely to end up high in the lottery to strengthen the team as much as possible.   Yes, you won't likely make a deep playoff run.  But you can build up a solid, winning core of players.   When the Nets or Clips inevitably stumble, you will have a strong team AND a top draft pick or two.   So you will be dropping a star talent rookie in with an already strong cast.

Waiting for 2015, 2016 might require more patience from the 'tank it now' crowd.  But it actually stays on Danny's original timeline, given that is the time frame a lot of his contracts come off the books.   You'll know by then whether to extend guys like Bradley, Green, Sully.  You'll be clear of contracts like Bass, Lee, Humphries & Wallace.   You may have moved some of those along with some of the draft picks mentioned above in order to bring in more preferable talent.

Just a hypothetical, but you might be able to make a deal for a player like Aldridge, who wants out of Portland, by giving up three of those picks that are least likely to be in the lottery and a couple of our contracts.   Aldridge is the kind of star we are looking for in those drafts but he's proven already.  I would do that deal in a heartbeat.

So you'll have accomplished three things going this route: 

1) You'll have shored up your own young talent as much as possible and continued to emphasize the goal of winning.  With the right trade, you may already have added a super stud.

2) You'll be past the bad contracts and should only have long term contracts on players you actually want to keep.

3) You'll still be picking in the first round - potentially very high in the first round if other teams stumble.

And none of that requires that the Celtics tank.

but Wiggins only came once in a decade and that is next year
franchise superstar can help us win multiple championships

[mmmmm]

Four - and possibly FIVE of the nine first round picks we currently own for the next 5 years are NOT determined by our own record.

In other words, whether we 'tank' or not has almost zero effect on those picks.

Of the nine picks, the ones that look most likely to be high, with a chance in the lottery, would be the 2016 & 2017 Nets picks (because of their contract / salary horizon).   If Chris Paul gets injured again, I wouldn't be surprised if the 2015 Clipper's pick is a decent one as well, but it's not good to expect or hope for injuries.

The ones that look the _least_ likely to be in the lottery would be the 2014 Nets pick and probably our own 2014, unless we purposely tank our selves.  And our own 2017 & 2018 picks will probably not be in the lottery either, as we should be a strong team again by then.

The most optimal path is not necessarily to deconstruct to the point of tanking ourselves.   The risk with deconstruction is that you can end up inadvertently creating problems such as ruining the development of young players, and creating a generally 'losing' environment.

The most optimal path, given our situation, might be to continue to work & move assets EXCEPT for those most likely to end up high in the lottery to strengthen the team as much as possible.   Yes, you won't likely make a deep playoff run.  But you can build up a solid, winning core of players.   When the Nets or Clips inevitably stumble, you will have a strong team AND a top draft pick or two.   So you will be dropping a star talent rookie in with an already strong cast.

Waiting for 2015, 2016 might require more patience from the 'tank it now' crowd.  But it actually stays on Danny's original timeline, given that is the time frame a lot of his contracts come off the books.   You'll know by then whether to extend guys like Bradley, Green, Sully.  You'll be clear of contracts like Bass, Lee, Humphries & Wallace.   You may have moved some of those along with some of the draft picks mentioned above in order to bring in more preferable talent.

Just a hypothetical, but you might be able to make a deal for a player like Aldridge, who wants out of Portland, by giving up three of those picks that are least likely to be in the lottery and a couple of our contracts.   Aldridge is the kind of star we are looking for in those drafts but he's proven already.  I would do that deal in a heartbeat.

So you'll have accomplished three things going this route: 

1) You'll have shored up your own young talent as much as possible and continued to emphasize the goal of winning.  With the right trade, you may already have added a super stud.

2) You'll be past the bad contracts and should only have long term contracts on players you actually want to keep.

3) You'll still be picking in the first round - potentially very high in the first round if other teams stumble.

And none of that requires that the Celtics tank.

but Wiggins only came once in a decade and that is next year
franchise superstar can help us win multiple championships

Okay.  You are right.  The only possible solution is to tank and go 'all in' for Wiggins.  That way we can win as many championships as Cleveland did with Lebron!

[Celtics18]

Here's the thing, those who are arguing against tanking are not saying that bottoming out and rebuilding by landing top draft pick can't lead to a team building a title contender.  Those who are arguing for tanking, on the other hand, seem to be saying that it is the only way to build a contender.

I´m pro "going young", and I never said that. You´re making stuff up.

I apologize, then.  I should instead have written; "many of those arguing for tanking . . ."

[Quetzalcoatl]

Okay.  You are right.  The only possible solution is to tank and go 'all in' for Wiggins.  That way we can win as many championships as Cleveland did with Lebron!

Cleveland didn't win any championships because their front office was terrible.  They made two huge mistakes: they couldn't properly evaluate free agent talent and they saddled their team with terrible contracts.

This is why tanking for one season is a great move.  We don't saddle ourselves with terrible contracts and then we can pick talent based on team needs instead of out of panic.  The teams that make desperation moves like the Knicks are a joke.  I don't want our team paying Josh Smith $18 million four years from now.  I don't want to be paying Howard $22 million four years from now, especially considering his back will give out two years from now.

If we aren't in position or positioning ourselves to win a championship, then seriously, what is the point?  This is the best way to get back in contention, like it or not.  The 2014 draft is just too good.  Pierce and KG are great and I love them, but they weren't going to bring us back a title and I care a lot more about the Celtics winning titles than anything else.  8 consecutive 2nd round exits sounds like hell to me.

[tyrone biggums]

Four - and possibly FIVE of the nine first round picks we currently own for the next 5 years are NOT determined by our own record.

In other words, whether we 'tank' or not has almost zero effect on those picks.

Of the nine picks, the ones that look most likely to be high, with a chance in the lottery, would be the 2016 & 2017 Nets picks (because of their contract / salary horizon).   If Chris Paul gets injured again, I wouldn't be surprised if the 2015 Clipper's pick is a decent one as well, but it's not good to expect or hope for injuries.

The ones that look the _least_ likely to be in the lottery would be the 2014 Nets pick and probably our own 2014, unless we purposely tank our selves.  And our own 2017 & 2018 picks will probably not be in the lottery either, as we should be a strong team again by then.

The most optimal path is not necessarily to deconstruct to the point of tanking ourselves.   The risk with deconstruction is that you can end up inadvertently creating problems such as ruining the development of young players, and creating a generally 'losing' environment.

The most optimal path, given our situation, might be to continue to work & move assets EXCEPT for those most likely to end up high in the lottery to strengthen the team as much as possible.   Yes, you won't likely make a deep playoff run.  But you can build up a solid, winning core of players.   When the Nets or Clips inevitably stumble, you will have a strong team AND a top draft pick or two.   So you will be dropping a star talent rookie in with an already strong cast.

Waiting for 2015, 2016 might require more patience from the 'tank it now' crowd.  But it actually stays on Danny's original timeline, given that is the time frame a lot of his contracts come off the books.   You'll know by then whether to extend guys like Bradley, Green, Sully.  You'll be clear of contracts like Bass, Lee, Humphries & Wallace.   You may have moved some of those along with some of the draft picks mentioned above in order to bring in more preferable talent.

Just a hypothetical, but you might be able to make a deal for a player like Aldridge, who wants out of Portland, by giving up three of those picks that are least likely to be in the lottery and a couple of our contracts.   Aldridge is the kind of star we are looking for in those drafts but he's proven already.  I would do that deal in a heartbeat.

So you'll have accomplished three things going this route: 

1) You'll have shored up your own young talent as much as possible and continued to emphasize the goal of winning.  With the right trade, you may already have added a super stud.

2) You'll be past the bad contracts and should only have long term contracts on players you actually want to keep.

3) You'll still be picking in the first round - potentially very high in the first round if other teams stumble.

And none of that requires that the Celtics tank.

but Wiggins only came once in a decade and that is next year
franchise superstar can help us win multiple championships

Two things.

1) LMA is exactly the kind of player the Celtics should acquire. Worthy successor to KG in terms of talent.

2) Franchise superstars can be acquired in multiple ways. The easiest is the draft. You can also trade for them. I believe in the end Ainge will try to trade for one this year because of the horror shows at the ticket office from the last few years. This isn't the Sox or Bruins where people will still come. Aside from us hardcores who is going to show up for these games. Tanking is a financial commitment (to take it on the chin for the next few years) and to also put a bad product on the court to put yourself in a better overall future position.

[Quetzalcoatl]

This is one of the most sensible and convincing anti-tank posts I've seen. 

TP

It's against tanking through 2018 which I don't think anybody is advocating for.  I am all in on tanking next year, which makes complete sense. It's basically a strawman argument

[Celtics18]

This is one of the most sensible and convincing anti-tank posts I've seen. 

TP

It's against tanking through 2018 which I don't think anybody is advocating for.  I am all in on tanking next year, which makes complete sense. It's basically a strawman argument

Maybe mmmmm can clarify, but I'm fairly sure he was laying out an argument for getting back into contention without tanking at all. 

I'm not sure what you mean about it being a straw man argument. 

[Mencius]

Fairweatherfan (now foulweatherfan) had a perfect quote for this the other day, which I think I might need to make my signature . . .

Sometimes winning games is losing.  Sometimes losing games is winning.  This year, for the Celtics, wanting the team to win in the big picture means wanting them to lose individual games.

Precisely.  Sometimes moving closer to your next championship comes cleverly disguised as a miserable record.

[Quetzalcoatl]

This is one of the most sensible and convincing anti-tank posts I've seen. 

TP

It's against tanking through 2018 which I don't think anybody is advocating for.  I am all in on tanking next year, which makes complete sense. It's basically a strawman argument

Maybe mmmm can clarify, but I'm fairly sure he was laying out an argument for getting back into contention without tanking at all. 

I'm not sure what you mean about it being a straw man argument.

Reread what he wrote.  The only sentence he has about our 2014 pick is "The ones that look the _least_ likely to be in the lottery would be the 2014 Nets pick and probably our own 2014, unless we purposely tank our selves."  Then he never addresses us tanking just in 2014 again.

The people who are pro-tank are saying we should tank for 2014 and then take it from there.  Nobody is saying we should tank so our 2016 Nets pick will be better - that doesn't make any sense.  He is setting up a fake argument nobody is making to argue against, instead of saying why we shouldn't tank for 2014.

That is what a strawman is, you set up this flimsy target to attack instead of addressing the real points people are making.  He didn't address tanking for a year and then building around Rondo/2014 pick with all of these assets we've collected.  That is what people are saying we should do, not tank for the next decade.  Nobody is saying that.

[NYDan]

I don't expect this year's team to actively try and lose games with poor effort, and I don't think we'll end up in the bottom 3 with or without a healthy Rondo. We will get to watch our youngest players with the most promise get lots of burn, along with seeing what Jeff Green can really do now that he's healthy, comfortable and our go-to scorer. It just likely won't be enough more often than not- mistakes will be made, which we saw a lot of this year already. Eventually we end up with a mid-low lottery pick, respectable but with a chance.

That's how I see it unfolding, anyway. If Rondo isn't ready or isn't on the roster we may move up a few spots, not sure how much that's worth to Ainge. I don't have faith that any current free agent combo that's been floated out there is worth giving up our assets and future flexibility, we are not currently a team that is 1-2 pieces away from a title. Still, it should be an entertaining season with hopefully an entertaining style of play, win or lose.

[BballTim]

This is one of the most sensible and convincing anti-tank posts I've seen. 

TP

It's against tanking through 2018 which I don't think anybody is advocating for.  I am all in on tanking next year, which makes complete sense. It's basically a strawman argument

  How exactly do you expect to "untank" after you've gone to the bottom? Call up whoever you trade Rondo and/or Green to and ask for a do-over?

[Celtics18]

This is one of the most sensible and convincing anti-tank posts I've seen. 

TP

It's against tanking through 2018 which I don't think anybody is advocating for.  I am all in on tanking next year, which makes complete sense. It's basically a strawman argument

Maybe mmmm can clarify, but I'm fairly sure he was laying out an argument for getting back into contention without tanking at all. 

I'm not sure what you mean about it being a straw man argument.

Reread what he wrote.  The only sentence he has about our 2014 pick is "The ones that look the _least_ likely to be in the lottery would be the 2014 Nets pick and probably our own 2014, unless we purposely tank our selves."  Then he never addresses us tanking just in 2014 again.

The people who are pro-tank are saying we should tank for 2014 and then take it from there.  Nobody is saying we should tank so our 2016 Nets pick will be better - that doesn't make any sense.  He is setting up a fake argument nobody is making to argue against, instead of saying why we shouldn't tank for 2014.

That is what a strawman is, you set up this flimsy target to attack instead of addressing the real points people are making.  He didn't address tanking for a year and then building around Rondo/2014 pick with all of these assets we've collected.  That is what people are saying we should do, not tank for the next decade.  Nobody is saying that.

I think we should probably allow mmmmm to clarify his own post, but the way I read it, in a nutshell, is that given the fact that we have some good assets coming up via draft picks owed to us from other teams, that he doesn't feel that it's worth it to deconstruct the team to be as terrible as possible for next year in the hopes of landing a high pick in next year's lottery.

My take is that he doesn't like the risk vs. reward of possibly creating a damaging culture of losing vs. continuing to try to win games and make the most of the other assets that we have to rebuild for the future.

If that was his point, I wholeheartedly agree with him.

[playdream]

This is one of the most sensible and convincing anti-tank posts I've seen. 

TP

It's against tanking through 2018 which I don't think anybody is advocating for.  I am all in on tanking next year, which makes complete sense. It's basically a strawman argument

  How exactly do you expect to "untank" after you've gone to the bottom? Call up whoever you trade Rondo and/or Green to and ask for a do-over?

we don't have to trade them, just sit them out or ask them to lose
celtic is about championship, even on tanking
though bobcats and wizards will be very hard to beat we will still take the fight