Lets look at history and drafting in the lottery related to NBA championships.

[chambers]

You may want to offset this a bit with the odens. There's also the value of tanking vs just getting lucky. Yes Orlando got Shaq. Then they got Chris Webber the next year.

So how many teams on that championship list got lucky signing a top 5 (all NBA) or franchise level player as a
free agent without having a home drafted/grown superstar in place already?
Can you name one in the last 50 years?
Is there one team in the past 25 years other than Detroit?
They even had 4 All Stars including one of the greatest defensive bigs in NBA history in Ben Wallace.
That's one team.
It usually takes more than one superstar or starting All Star level player to win a championship. The Mavs are the lone exception to this in the past 25 years.
You can talk about Oden's and Kwame's. It's a gamble of course. But these are the picks that make superstars. Sometimes there aren't any franchise players available- but history undoubtedly proves your odds of winning a championship are much greater when you draft a top 5 NBA player via the NBA lottery system.

These players attract other elite players and make the players around them better.

I'm still waiting for someone to disprove that list of NBA championships and the golden rule of the franchise players that lead them to that championship.
In the single case where a franchise player wasn't drafted by the championship team (the Pistons), they had 4 all stars and TayShaun Prince in his prime as a role player.
This shows how hard it is to get 4 All Stars together in their prime in the NBA. In fact now with this salary cap it's even tougher- you're looking at a max of two max salary level players.

Please show me how we win a title around Rondo in our current situation.
Please show me how we gain lottery picks and ever get the chance to attain a player like Wiggins, Parker or Randle via free agency in the next 2 years?

Lets simplify it:

Lottery= best chance of landing franchise level player. This is a fact.

Franchise level player= best chance of attracting other great players.

Franchise level players+ other great players= best chance of NBA championship.


The way we are currently constructed, without trading Rondo and Green for some kind of lottery pick or potential young superstar, we cannot win a championship.

Two options: trade Rondo and Green and wait to start building around a franchise level talent.
OR
Keep Rondo and purposely tank to attain one of these talents and pair him with Rondo and hoping for a faster rebuilding process.

[oldutican]

That's different than tanking. They used draft choices and convinced trading partners to make trades favorable to the Celtics to get Allen & KG.

Rondo, Green, Bradley, Sullinger & hopefully Olynyk are a solid core. Hopefully, Celts can dump salaries of anybody but those 5 and use newly acquired draft choices and trades/sign & trades to build on that core. That's a safer and wiser approach.

[Casperian]

People on both sides of the argument talk too much in generalities.

Danny Ainge has to deal with specifics.

[bdm860]

I just want to point something out, because you've said it twice already.

Detroit did not have 4 All-Stars, Detroit had 1 All-Star.

It took a championship in 2004, and going to Game 7 of the Finals in 2005, for the Pistons to get 4 guys selected to the All-Star team in 2006.

[hwangjini_1]

I think that people are maybe drawing a bright line between "tanking" and "not tanking" that really doesn't exist.

Danny has proven that he can acquire assets and turn them into a championship team.

Right now he is in asset-acqusition mode. Next will come turning those assets into high-quality players.

Maybe the path will be getting a high pick that turns into a superstar (long shot).

Maybe it'll be getting a solid lottery pick in a loaded draft and packaging that player plus other assets for a star (e.g., as with Green for Ray).

Maybe it'll be by drafting exceptionally well and then packaging a lesser star plus assets for a major star (e.g., Al Jeff for KG).

I would be shocked if Danny has his heart set on any of these paths right now. He's probably going to see how free agency develops, and what Rondo's return looks like.

Then he'll adapt and try to pursue the path that leaves us with the biggest stockpile of assets one year from now.

Depending on how this unfolds, we could be back in contention in 2-3 years (that would be hitting the lottery, quite literally). Or it might take longer.

There's reason for optimism IMO. Danny's last rebuild took 4-5 years, and I think the assets we have now are pretty comparable to what we had in 2003.

But anyway my approach will be to sit back and watch it all happen, and he hopeful that Danny makes good decisions - and gets a little lucky. We'll need both.

i think this is a good thread and has raised a great many good points and arguments. great research on the draft picks and finalist by chambers by the way. thanks.

what i took from this thread is that hitting the draft jackpot has played a key role in helping teams win championships - NOT that only those teams that hit the jackpot win championships.

good points, as usual, by boris. while boris' points above reflect the reality of ainge's plans more fully, let's also be clear that the strategy of getting good picks so as to acquire assets (jefferson et al) has an added bonus.

by being in the 10-14 draft range you automatically have a chance, slight but a chance, to get into the top 3. getting there is NOT a crucial part of ainge's plan i believe. ainge is not stupid or simpleminded. however, if the celtics get lucky once then the rebuilding gets a lot easier.

and keep in mind that over the next 5 years the celtics will probably have 3 to 5 lottery picks. not bad, so keep those fingers crossed crew.

if the celtics get lucky, then ainge can keep those assets and use them to build the celtics back up more quickly and more effectively. heck, we might even have a dynasty on our hands.

[bfrombleacher]

There's reason for optimism IMO. Danny's last rebuild took 4-5 years, and I think the assets we have now are pretty comparable to what we had in 2003.

I don't think we had quite as many firsts as this time round? Something to be positive about?

[Boris Badenov]

There's reason for optimism IMO. Danny's last rebuild took 4-5 years, and I think the assets we have now are pretty comparable to what we had in 2003.

I don't think we had quite as many firsts as this time round? Something to be positive about?

Yeah, I was hedging a bit because I didn't want to spark an argument. We did have Pierce and employee #8 - two All-stars who were younger than Rondo is now, and healthier. But we have more picks now, and I think some more promising supporting pieces in Green, Bradley and Sully.

This squad of course does not have Bruno Sundov, Mark Blount, or Ruben Wolywyski, who were clearly pivotal assets that Ainge leveraged in that turnaround.

[CoachBo]

I think that people are maybe drawing a bright line between "tanking" and "not tanking" that really doesn't exist.

Danny has proven that he can acquire assets and turn them into a championship team.

Right now he is in asset-acqusition mode. Next will come turning those assets into high-quality players.

Maybe the path will be getting a high pick that turns into a superstar (long shot).

Maybe it'll be getting a solid lottery pick in a loaded draft and packaging that player plus other assets for a star (e.g., as with Green for Ray).

Maybe it'll be by drafting exceptionally well and then packaging a lesser star plus assets for a major star (e.g., Al Jeff for KG).

I would be shocked if Danny has his heart set on any of these paths right now. He's probably going to see how free agency develops, and what Rondo's return looks like.

Then he'll adapt and try to pursue the path that leaves us with the biggest stockpile of assets one year from now.

Depending on how this unfolds, we could be back in contention in 2-3 years (that would be hitting the lottery, quite literally). Or it might take longer.

There's reason for optimism IMO. Danny's last rebuild took 4-5 years, and I think the assets we have now are pretty comparable to what we had in 2003.

But anyway my approach will be to sit back and watch it all happen, and he hopeful that Danny makes good decisions - and gets a little lucky. We'll need both.

Just curious who the stars are who are going to be sold at 10 cents on the dollar after Ainge acquires all these alleged "assets."

Back to a point I have made repeatedly on this board: If you're banking on history repeating itself with the Garnett and Allen trades - and let's interrupt all the false optimism here for a minute; Ainge didn't trade "assets" for those two, he acquired them at pennies on the dollar while they were being fire-sold, and then watched those alleged "assets" largely fade into obscurity - then you are in for a shock.

Unfortunate that Ainge and Wyc lacked the foresight, talent judgment and budgetary will to keep the Celtics competitive and retool on the fly.

[PhoSita]

Being "pro-tanking" doesn't mean that you believe "If you tank, you will get a superstar."

The lottery is a gamble.  It's a percentage proposition.  It is not by any means a sure thing.

The problem is that the NBA is designed so that playing the lottery and hoping to get the right guy to lead you into the next era gives you the best odds.  They aren't good odds, but they're the best you can really hope for.

So sure, there are other ways to build a contender, or get a franchise star.  But those other ways are even less likely to have a successful result.

Teams have gotten superstars and made nothing out of it.

This era alone you have LeBron, Melo, Dwight Howard, Rose, Wade, Durant, Chris Paul, Westbrook, Aldridge, Bosh, D-Will...

Rose and the OKC duo are probably the closest to a championship.

That's all part of what I was just talking about.

Is getting a superstar a guarantee that you will win a championship?  Patently it is clear that is not the case.

However, far and away your best chance of winning a championship is to get that star.  Then, once you have that guy, you need to make the right moves to build around him while he's still in his prime and willing to stick around.

It's all quite difficult.  Only one team can win the championship in any given year, and in any given year there are only 3-4 teams that really have a good chance of going all the way.

But unless you just want to give up winning championships and just field a decent, entertaining team from now until the end of days, you have to play the game.

[BballTim]

I think that people are maybe drawing a bright line between "tanking" and "not tanking" that really doesn't exist.

Danny has proven that he can acquire assets and turn them into a championship team.

Right now he is in asset-acqusition mode. Next will come turning those assets into high-quality players.

Maybe the path will be getting a high pick that turns into a superstar (long shot).

Maybe it'll be getting a solid lottery pick in a loaded draft and packaging that player plus other assets for a star (e.g., as with Green for Ray).

Maybe it'll be by drafting exceptionally well and then packaging a lesser star plus assets for a major star (e.g., Al Jeff for KG).

I would be shocked if Danny has his heart set on any of these paths right now. He's probably going to see how free agency develops, and what Rondo's return looks like.

Then he'll adapt and try to pursue the path that leaves us with the biggest stockpile of assets one year from now.

Depending on how this unfolds, we could be back in contention in 2-3 years (that would be hitting the lottery, quite literally). Or it might take longer.

There's reason for optimism IMO. Danny's last rebuild took 4-5 years, and I think the assets we have now are pretty comparable to what we had in 2003.

But anyway my approach will be to sit back and watch it all happen, and he hopeful that Danny makes good decisions - and gets a little lucky. We'll need both.

Just curious who the stars are who are going to be sold at 10 cents on the dollar after Ainge acquires all these alleged "assets."

Back to a point I have made repeatedly on this board: If you're banking on history repeating itself with the Garnett and Allen trades - and let's interrupt all the false optimism here for a minute; Ainge didn't trade "assets" for those two, he acquired them at pennies on the dollar, and then watched those alleged "assets" largely fade into obscurity - then you are in for a shock.

Unfortunate that Ainge and Wyc lacked the foresight, talent judgment and budgetary will to keep the Celtics competitive and retool on the fly.

  People say KG was traded for pennies on the dollar. Same with Ray, same with Pau, same with Shaq to Miami. It's not like it's as rare as you think. It's probably much more rare to find cases of star players being traded for what would have been considered (at the time) full value.

[Moranis]

Is there one team in the past 25 years other than Detroit?
They even had 4 All Stars including one of the greatest defensive bigs in NBA history in Ben Wallace.
That's one team.

Detroit had 1 all star, Ben Wallace.  None of the other guys on that team were all stars in either of their 2 final appearance seasons.  In fact Sheed was the only other player that had ever appeared in an All Star game prior to the finals.  Now sure, after the two final appearances Rip, Chauncey, Sheed, and Ben were all on the all star team multiple times, but the reality is Ben was the only all star during their 2 finals appearances.

[PhoSita]

I think that people are maybe drawing a bright line between "tanking" and "not tanking" that really doesn't exist.

Danny has proven that he can acquire assets and turn them into a championship team.

Right now he is in asset-acqusition mode. Next will come turning those assets into high-quality players.

Maybe the path will be getting a high pick that turns into a superstar (long shot).

Maybe it'll be getting a solid lottery pick in a loaded draft and packaging that player plus other assets for a star (e.g., as with Green for Ray).

Maybe it'll be by drafting exceptionally well and then packaging a lesser star plus assets for a major star (e.g., Al Jeff for KG).

I would be shocked if Danny has his heart set on any of these paths right now. He's probably going to see how free agency develops, and what Rondo's return looks like.

Then he'll adapt and try to pursue the path that leaves us with the biggest stockpile of assets one year from now.

Depending on how this unfolds, we could be back in contention in 2-3 years (that would be hitting the lottery, quite literally). Or it might take longer.

There's reason for optimism IMO. Danny's last rebuild took 4-5 years, and I think the assets we have now are pretty comparable to what we had in 2003.

But anyway my approach will be to sit back and watch it all happen, and he hopeful that Danny makes good decisions - and gets a little lucky. We'll need both.

Great points.

Part of being a GM is not sticking to one path.  You have to be able to adapt.

Danny clearly demonstrated that over the past year -- he went all-in on the team we had, hoping we could shore up for a 2-3 year run of relevancy before KG and Pierce retired.  That failed utterly this year, so he spun around and completely changed course.

Danny always leaves his options open and have 5 plans going at once.  That's what makes him a good GM.

[BballTim]

Being "pro-tanking" doesn't mean that you believe "If you tank, you will get a superstar."

The lottery is a gamble.  It's a percentage proposition.  It is not by any means a sure thing.

The problem is that the NBA is designed so that playing the lottery and hoping to get the right guy to lead you into the next era gives you the best odds.  They aren't good odds, but they're the best you can really hope for.

So sure, there are other ways to build a contender, or get a franchise star.  But those other ways are even less likely to have a successful result.

Teams have gotten superstars and made nothing out of it.

This era alone you have LeBron, Melo, Dwight Howard, Rose, Wade, Durant, Chris Paul, Westbrook, Aldridge, Bosh, D-Will...

Rose and the OKC duo are probably the closest to a championship.

That's all part of what I was just talking about.

Is getting a superstar a guarantee that you will win a championship?  Patently it is clear that is not the case.

However, far and away your best chance of winning a championship is to get that star.  Then, once you have that guy, you need to make the right moves to build around him while he's still in his prime and willing to stick around.

It's all quite difficult.  Only one team can win the championship in any given year, and in any given year there are only 3-4 teams that really have a good chance of going all the way.

But unless you just want to give up winning championships and just field a decent, entertaining team from now until the end of days, you have to play the game.

  Maybe it's not as hard as it looks. Maybe you just need to look at your roster and notice you have a player who led the team deep in the playoffs at a young(ish) age and build around him instead of getting rid of him, going to the bottom, hoping you eventually get a star and hoping that you can win with him before he decides to go to a different team (as many of them seem to). I'd try plan A since it's much simpler and *much* more likely to be successful in the foreseeable future, also because there's no rush for plan B because you can do it whenever you want.

[PhoSita]

Is there one team in the past 25 years other than Detroit?
They even had 4 All Stars including one of the greatest defensive bigs in NBA history in Ben Wallace.
That's one team.

Detroit had 1 all star, Ben Wallace.  None of the other guys on that team were all stars in either of their 2 final appearance seasons.  In fact Sheed was the only other player that had ever appeared in an All Star game prior to the finals.  Now sure, after the two final appearances Rip, Chauncey, Sheed, and Ben were all on the all star team multiple times, but the reality is Ben was the only all star during their 2 finals appearances.

Relevant to this discussion, though, is that especially in today's league, keeping together a core of talents like that would be prohibitively expensive.  These days, you don't have to be an All-Star to expect to be paid like one.

[celticmania]

People hate rebuilding. It's a slow and boring, painful and frustrating experience.
There are a few ways to do it. Many Celtics fans are disgusted at the thought of tanking for a top 5 pick next year or the shot at a franchise level player, thinking the better option is to add some free agents to our core and work around Rondo.
It's an honourable thought, an idealistic idea that we could re tool on the fly and become a contender relatively quickly. Unfortunately history and evidence don't agree with this option at all.

If you disagree, i want you to brainstorm.
First tell me which current players or free agents could we get to join Rondo that would make us a legitimate contender with teams like Chicago and Miami and OKC around for the next 5 seasons?

Ok so you've got a list. Lets put that list of players out there on the floor against the last 25 years of NBA championship teams. Then lets compare that list with Rondo, to the Celtics roster from 2008 to 2013. Are those players with Rondo a match for Kevin Garnett and Ray Allen when they joined our then sole star player Paul Pierce? Who would you compare to KG in the current market of free agents? Anyone? Is Howard as good as KG was in 2008? It's arguable. Can we get Howard? Not likely. After him, is there anyone on Ray or KGs level? No. Not even close.
Now think back to that squad of Pierce, KG and Ray and ask how many championships we won.
Yes they were towards the end of their 'primes' but they were still in their primes and we only managed one championship. KGs injury is a major factor but the fact is we have one banner for that amazing squad.
That's how hard it is to win a championship in the NBA. So how do you win a championship in the modern NBA. Other than teaming together and conspiring in secret like the Miami Heat to form a super trio....
You need to draft a superstar yourself and surround him with the right players. By this I mean you need at least one other all star player and usually two depending on the supporting casts skill set.

The last 10 Years of NBA finalists feature teams with at least one home grown superstar and at least 3 all stars in most cases. In fact only the Mavs had a lone 'superstar' without any all star help in Dirk. The pistons had 4 all stars and are the other exception without a superstar they themselves drafted in the lottery. That's basically
The Spurs
Lakers
Celtics
Mavs
Cavs
Magic
OKC

In fact only 6 teams in the last 14 years have gotten rings.
Take that back to the last 20 years and its 8 teams
Now look back at the past 50 NBA champions, even to the beginning of the NBA.
Are there even 4 or 5 teams that don't have a superstar they drafted via tanking?
 Red Auerbach was great at ripping off other teams, but he also had vision and genius to a certain extent. he drafted KC Jones, he drafted tommy heinsohn. he made a draft day heist trade to get bill russell but GM's for the most part don't get hosed like that nowadays. We drafted Bird. In fact the period that we stunk so badly through can arguably be narrowed down to our 1986 2nd overall pick Len Bias passing away before he even played a game, followed by our late blooming superstar draftee Reggie Lewis passing away.
Go back and look at 20 years of NBA championship winners and even finalists from
 
Tim Duncan 1
Kobe Bryant 13(from Europe, if he'd played in college he'd arguably go top 5)
Dwayne Wade 4
Paul pierce 10
Dirk Nowitzki 9 (similarly to Kobe )
Hakeem 1
Allen Iverson 1
Shaq 1
Durant 1
Barkley 5
Magic Johnson 1
Michael Jordan 1
Lebron James 1
Dwight Howard 1
Kareem 1(with bucks)

Similarly you could look at NBA league MVPs and see a direct correlation.

People just don't understand or choose to ignore the blatant, obvious and painfully truthful fact that lottery picks win championships.
To get these players and number one picks, throughout recent NBA history (at least the past 25 years) teams have landed these picks the majority of the time by being very bad for a period or getting very lucky/swindling another team.
Even we were amazingly lucky to get Pierce at 10 or Mavs getting Dirk at 9 in the same draft.

Now lets look at our current situation. No superstars. We have finished a 5 year run that came via tanking and getting the 5th pick. There is one free agent in Dwight Howard that is of a franchise level. There are no others considered franchise level free agents.

All the franchise players are with other franchise players and dominating the league just as the Heat dominated us.
Andrew Wiggins is the number one prospect in what is considered to be one of the best drafts in NBA history. This is not an exaggeration or oversell. The talent, athleticism, size and skill of this years draft is mind boggling.
History GLARINGLY shows that Wiggins has a greatly higher than expected chance of winning a title through him rather than a re tooling around great but not franchise level guys.

Don't look at it as tanking,, look at it as the only possible way to acquire a talent good enough to take us to the most important goal of all....banner 18.

Well said. I completely agree.