Do Tanking Advocates Believe Young Players Should Be Benched For Being Too Good?

[PhoSita]

  So you'll be able to manage an answer if I re-ask the question with a reminder that players we draft are on a rookie contract?

Here's your answer:

Every player we draft is an asset.  I'll leave it up to Danny to determine if the player is an untouchable, once-in-a-generation, franchise cornerstone sort of player.  If the player is not, then he's movable in the right deal and the right set of circumstances like everybody else.

Al Jefferson was exactly the sort of All-Star caliber player you describe who Danny moved in the right deal to put us on track to a championship.

As fans we can of course spend days and weeks and even years debating what sort of asset we have on our hands, as we have done with Rondo.  I'm pretty sure it will be quite rare indeed that we draft a player as uniquely polarizing and awesome as Rondo, though.

  Haha. After all that all I get is "whatever Danny thinks is fine with me"? That was useful.

Come on, don't you think I've learned by now that there's no point in actually trying to persuade you to change any of your opinions on Rondo?




The basic point I'm trying to make is that every player has their price, unless they're so good that they're priceless.  I know you are of the opinion that Rondo is, if not in that category, then very close to it.  You know, I think, that I don't really agree with that notion.

I'm kind of disregarding your flippant "So should we trade away young All-Star players if they're helping us win too many games?" question.  Of course you trade them, if you can get assets in return that you believe will be more useful in becoming a top contender than those players themselves (hence the Al Jefferson example).  But no, you don't just dump them for the sake of being bad. 

That's just so obvious that I figured that's not the answer you were really trying to elicit.

[Celtics18]

  So you'll be able to manage an answer if I re-ask the question with a reminder that players we draft are on a rookie contract?

Here's your answer:

Every player we draft is an asset.  I'll leave it up to Danny to determine if the player is an untouchable, once-in-a-generation, franchise cornerstone sort of player.  If the player is not, then he's movable in the right deal and the right set of circumstances like everybody else.

Al Jefferson was exactly the sort of All-Star caliber player you describe who Danny moved in the right deal to put us on track to a championship.

As fans we can of course spend days and weeks and even years debating what sort of asset we have on our hands, as we have done with Rondo.  I'm pretty sure it will be quite rare indeed that we draft a player as uniquely polarizing and awesome as Rondo, though.

  Haha. After all that all I get is "whatever Danny thinks is fine with me"? That was useful.

Come on, don't you think I've learned by now that there's no point in actually trying to persuade you to change any of your opinions on Rondo?




The basic point I'm trying to make is that every player has their price, unless they're so good that they're priceless.  I know you are of the opinion that Rondo is, if not in that category, then very close to it.  You know, I think, that I don't really agree with that notion.

I'm kind of disregarding your flippant "So should we trade away young All-Star players if they're helping us win too many games?" question.  Of course you trade them, if you can get assets in return that you believe will be more useful in becoming a top contender than those players themselves (hence the Al Jefferson example).  But no, you don't just dump them for the sake of being bad. 

That's just so obvious that I figured that's not the answer you were really trying to elicit.

Tim does raise a good point.  The "untouchable once-in-a-generation, franchise cornerstone sort of player" doesn't come around very often. 

When you've got a top 15 player in the league on a good contract it doesn't really make sense to me to be desperate to trade him because he doesn't necessarily fit into the above category.  Having a player like Rondo actually makes it more likely that the franchise cornerstone type player will want to come join him. 

In a league where those top players more and more are in charge of their own destinies, you want to create a team that is attractive for top players to come play.  Stripping the team down to fill the roster with young assets with potential doesn't do much towards that end.

The risk of entering a cycle of badness and lottery picks that you can't get out of is too great.  Keep our best player and build around him moving forward.

[PhoSita]

Tim does raise a good point.  The "untouchable once-in-a-generation, franchise cornerstone sort of player" doesn't come around very often. 

When you've got a top 15 player in the league on a good contract it doesn't really make sense to me to be desperate to trade him because he doesn't necessarily fit into the above category.

Sure it's a good point, but to the degree that it's a truism.  Of course when you have a valuable player on a good contract it doesn't make sense to be desperate to trade him.

Indeed, it rarely makes sense to be "desperate" to trade somebody.

But nearly every player has the right price, in the right circumstances.  I think usually the rift on these forums between those who would trade Rondo this season and those who would prefer to build around him is a fundamental disagreement about what that "right price" is and / or what the "right circumstances" are.

What you're talking about in terms of having a good player on board already in order to attract other players, well, I think that goes more towards free agency, and I'm not a big believer in building your team that way.  Unless we're talking about building a supporting cast, or perhaps adding a third or fourth core piece that will complete the puzzle. 

Again, though, that presumes you're starting from a place where you already have one or two of those foundational pieces.  Barring Kelly Olynyk turning into the next Dirk Nowitzki (we should be so lucky), that's not where I believe we are right now.

[Celtics18]

Tim does raise a good point.  The "untouchable once-in-a-generation, franchise cornerstone sort of player" doesn't come around very often. 

When you've got a top 15 player in the league on a good contract it doesn't really make sense to me to be desperate to trade him because he doesn't necessarily fit into the above category.

Sure it's a good point, but to the degree that it's a truism.  Of course when you have a valuable player on a good contract it doesn't make sense to be desperate to trade him.

Indeed, it rarely makes sense to be "desperate" to trade somebody.

But nearly every player has the right price, in the right circumstances.  I think usually the rift on these forums between those who would trade Rondo this season and those who would prefer to build around him is a fundamental disagreement about what that "right price" is and / or what the "right circumstances" are.

What you're talking about in terms of having a good player on board already in order to attract other players, well, I think that goes more towards free agency, and I'm not a big believer in building your team that way.  Unless we're talking about building a supporting cast, or perhaps adding a third or fourth core piece that will complete the puzzle. 

Again, though, that presumes you're starting from a place where you already have one or two of those foundational pieces.  Barring Kelly Olynyk turning into the next Dirk Nowitzki (we should be so lucky), that's not where I believe we are right now.

It seems to me that it's not just once they hit the free agency market that top players are able to control their own destinies these days.  They are also more often than not able to control where they get traded to leading up to their impending free agency.  Teams aren't going to make a trade for a player who makes it clear that he is most likely not in it for the long haul. 

You have to be able to sell your franchise to the player whether the mode of acquisition is through a trade or through free agency (look at our Garnett situation, for example.  He was traded here, but first we had to ensure that it was a place that he wanted to come, or he would have never become a Celtic and helped lead us to banner number seventeen).

It's imperative that a team has some pieces that make it an attractive looking foundation to players around the league. 

I definitely agree that the rift between those who are actively hoping to see Rondo traded and those who aren't comes down to a difference in opinion on his value as a player and an "asset."

[rjb182]

I think this debate is premised on the idea that tanking means "being awful on purpose." While that is the literal definition of it in the sports world, in practical terms, it's not really what you mean.

What I think you mean by tanking is "recognizing that we're nowhere near a title contender and dumping all the ballast that isn't going to help us get there, with the happy side-effect that this will allow us to get better players via the draft."

So you never try to lose on purpose. You don't have to; as someone said further up-thread, even Kevin Durant didn't turn his team into a contender overnight. The only time that happens is when the team already has significant veteran assets in place, as when the Spurs added Duncan to Robinson or the Celtics added Larry Bird to Archibald, Maxwell, and Cowens. We don't have that, so just let the kids play and take their lumps.

If you get lucky, one of them develops into a star. If you get really lucky, you pick up another star with the draft pick they helped you get by being young and lumpy. Once you have two stars, you can generally work out a deal for the third. (Three stars is always the magic number in the NBA. You can do it with two, but only if they're dominant.) Once you have three stars, the role players will fall into line to chase rings.

Tanking is step one in that process, the state in which everything on your roster that isn't one of those three stars, a young player capable of becoming one of those stars, or a draft pick theoretically capable of doing so, is expendable and possibly counter-productive. So you maximize your efforts to play/acquire young assets and minimize the veteran role players-- because they're only getting in your way. You can't win (big) with them alone, and they're utterly replaceable once you get to the stage where you need them.

(Rondo complicates things, because 1) he's good enough to be one of the stars already, but 2) he's injured and thus a question mark, and 3) he's honestly not the player you'd prefer to build around for several reasons-- mainly his poor shooting-- but 4) you're still better off with one star than zero, so 5) if you trade him you must get a high likelihood of another star in return. For the moment, I'm leaving him out of this analysis, because I simply don't know what we have in him or whether we're likely to keep it long-term.)

The conclusion is the same either way: you don't ever stop the kids from playing well. Once that happens, you're on the road from step one to step two, and winning games starts being a positive thing again..

[Moranis]

  So you'll be able to manage an answer if I re-ask the question with a reminder that players we draft are on a rookie contract?

Here's your answer:

Every player we draft is an asset.  I'll leave it up to Danny to determine if the player is an untouchable, once-in-a-generation, franchise cornerstone sort of player.  If the player is not, then he's movable in the right deal and the right set of circumstances like everybody else.

Al Jefferson was exactly the sort of All-Star caliber player you describe who Danny moved in the right deal to put us on track to a championship.

As fans we can of course spend days and weeks and even years debating what sort of asset we have on our hands, as we have done with Rondo.  I'm pretty sure it will be quite rare indeed that we draft a player as uniquely polarizing and awesome as Rondo, though.

  Haha. After all that all I get is "whatever Danny thinks is fine with me"? That was useful.

Come on, don't you think I've learned by now that there's no point in actually trying to persuade you to change any of your opinions on Rondo?




The basic point I'm trying to make is that every player has their price, unless they're so good that they're priceless.  I know you are of the opinion that Rondo is, if not in that category, then very close to it.  You know, I think, that I don't really agree with that notion.

I'm kind of disregarding your flippant "So should we trade away young All-Star players if they're helping us win too many games?" question.  Of course you trade them, if you can get assets in return that you believe will be more useful in becoming a top contender than those players themselves (hence the Al Jefferson example).  But no, you don't just dump them for the sake of being bad. 

That's just so obvious that I figured that's not the answer you were really trying to elicit.

Tim does raise a good point.  The "untouchable once-in-a-generation, franchise cornerstone sort of player" doesn't come around very often. 

When you've got a top 15 player in the league on a good contract it doesn't really make sense to me to be desperate to trade him because he doesn't necessarily fit into the above category.  Having a player like Rondo actually makes it more likely that the franchise cornerstone type player will want to come join him. 

In a league where those top players more and more are in charge of their own destinies, you want to create a team that is attractive for top players to come play.  Stripping the team down to fill the roster with young assets with potential doesn't do much towards that end.

The risk of entering a cycle of badness and lottery picks that you can't get out of is too great.  Keep our best player and build around him moving forward.

yeah, but Boston has no cap room until Rondo's contract has expired and by then he will be 29 years old and wanting a much bigger contract. 

[Moranis]

Most teams when they go young / rebuild end up being terrible (really terrible) that year.  If you look at teams like Sacramento and Washington you'll get the idea.

But, there is one thing about the Celtics that might save us from that horrendous fate. 

If you look at teams like Washington and Sacramento, they went out and brought in young guys like Nick Young, Jordan Crawford, Andray Blatche, Tyreke Evans, Demarcus Cousins, etc.  Guys who has potential, but were flagged as high risk due to their rough personalities.

There is also another thing those teams usually lack - an Elite star player with playoff experience.

The thing I like about Boston's "rebuild" is that first of all, the three young guys we are planning to build around are Avery Bradley, Jared Sullinger and Kelly Olynyk.  Those three guys are as good as it gets when it comes to personality - great work ethic, intense desire to win and willing and eager to lean. 

To add to that, Sullinger and Olynyk are two of the most fundamentally sound rookies that have come in to the NBA in years.  Watching them on the court the are both incredibly active, always moving, setting screens, making the right pass, great hands (they both seem to catch anything that comes near them) and great footwork.

Offensively, but Sullinger and Olynyk can score inside thge post, and both have range out to the three point line.  7 footers with three point range are a nightmare to defend (Dirk, Rasheed, etc) so Olynyk has the potential to cause all sorts of problems for opposing teams.  Sully helps to make up for his rebounding limitations as well.

A lineup of Rondo, Bradley, Green, Sully, Olynyk has to be (mentally) one of the best units out there.  None of those guys would have problems with touches, would have issues getting along with other players, would have problems with effort or desire to win.  Rondo likes to take charge and be listened to, and I think Bradley, Green, Sullinger and Olynyk are all very coachable players who will work with Rondo rather than against him - I think they will look up to him and see him very much as a coach on the floor. I think that will take pressure off the new coach as well.

I'm not saying this team will be great, but they might not be as terrible as people think.  We have a clear cut All-STar (and top 3 in the NBA) PG in Rondo, a volume scorer who (can shut down elite opponents SFs) in Green, an elite perimeter defender in Bradley, an excellent rebounder and inside scorer in Sully, and a 7 footer with three point range.  All of these guys have incredible work ethic.

It's really more the bench I'm worried about. 

Firstly we have no pure PG, although I was pretty impressed with what I saw from the little guy in summer league (sorry, forgot his name!).  With Rondo coming back god knows when from his injury though, we need a backup PG who is good enough to start for a few games.  Terry would have been nice...but Danny probably didn't want to force the guy to play for a rebuilding team.  Until we find a PG we are screwed.

Secondly our backup SG's are Courtney Lee (who was useless last year), Jordan Crawford (disaster) and Marshon Brooks (slightly better version of Crawford).  I'm hoping that Lee will return to form and be a very solid backup SG, though I'm not holding my breath because he was terrible last year.  Here's hoping he gets along better with the new coach and comes up well for us.  Brooks is a SG with mental issues but who could have pretty nice upside if he got his head together.  Crawford is pretty much the same player, only even worse than brooks in pretty much every way (I'm guessing he'll go).

At SF we have Gerald Wallace (while rediculously overpaid) is actually a pretty decent backup SF.  HE was poor last season, but if he returns to some of his previous form (even a hint of it) he could be one of the better backup SF's in the league.

At PF we have Bass (a borderline starting calibre player and a very good backup PF) and Shav who is a hard working who can hit the boards, defend inside and score down low.

At Center we have Fab Melo (who looks much improved) and Colton Iverson (who looks like he could contribute right away with rebounding and interior defense).

Aside from PG and maybe Center we actually aren't looking that bad.

Great post overall, but I'm curious, have you actually looked at Courtney Lee's career numbers as compared to last year?  Might actually surprise you to learn, that Lee was pretty much the same player he has always been last year as the years before.  He was a bit worse from deep, but better overall from the field and line, and produced essentially the same rebounding and shot blocking with more assists and steals, and about 1.5 less points per 36 (he took less shots per 36 than any other year in his career, which is the main reason for the decrease in scoring).  In other words, Courtney Lee last year was basically the same Courtney Lee he always was.  I think people (maybe not you) just thought he was better than he was and that just hasn't been the case (it is also why he moved around so much).   

[PhoSita]

I think this debate is premised on the idea that tanking means "being awful on purpose." While that is the literal definition of it in the sports world, in practical terms, it's not really what you mean.

What I think you mean by tanking is "recognizing that we're nowhere near a title contender and dumping all the ballast that isn't going to help us get there, with the happy side-effect that this will allow us to get better players via the draft."

So you never try to lose on purpose. You don't have to; as someone said further up-thread, even Kevin Durant didn't turn his team into a contender overnight. The only time that happens is when the team already has significant veteran assets in place, as when the Spurs added Duncan to Robinson or the Celtics added Larry Bird to Archibald, Maxwell, and Cowens. We don't have that, so just let the kids play and take their lumps.

If you get lucky, one of them develops into a star. If you get really lucky, you pick up another star with the draft pick they helped you get by being young and lumpy. Once you have two stars, you can generally work out a deal for the third. (Three stars is always the magic number in the NBA. You can do it with two, but only if they're dominant.) Once you have three stars, the role players will fall into line to chase rings.

Tanking is step one in that process, the state in which everything on your roster that isn't one of those three stars, a young player capable of becoming one of those stars, or a draft pick theoretically capable of doing so, is expendable and possibly counter-productive. So you maximize your efforts to play/acquire young assets and minimize the veteran role players-- because they're only getting in your way. You can't win (big) with them alone, and they're utterly replaceable once you get to the stage where you need them.

(Rondo complicates things, because 1) he's good enough to be one of the stars already, but 2) he's injured and thus a question mark, and 3) he's honestly not the player you'd prefer to build around for several reasons-- mainly his poor shooting-- but 4) you're still better off with one star than zero, so 5) if you trade him you must get a high likelihood of another star in return. For the moment, I'm leaving him out of this analysis, because I simply don't know what we have in him or whether we're likely to keep it long-term.)

The conclusion is the same either way: you don't ever stop the kids from playing well. Once that happens, you're on the road from step one to step two, and winning games starts being a positive thing again..

This is a fantastic all-around post that nails a bunch of key points that have been debated around here lately.

Just wanted to highlight that.

TP.

[BballTim]

  So you'll be able to manage an answer if I re-ask the question with a reminder that players we draft are on a rookie contract?

Here's your answer:

Every player we draft is an asset.  I'll leave it up to Danny to determine if the player is an untouchable, once-in-a-generation, franchise cornerstone sort of player.  If the player is not, then he's movable in the right deal and the right set of circumstances like everybody else.

Al Jefferson was exactly the sort of All-Star caliber player you describe who Danny moved in the right deal to put us on track to a championship.

As fans we can of course spend days and weeks and even years debating what sort of asset we have on our hands, as we have done with Rondo.  I'm pretty sure it will be quite rare indeed that we draft a player as uniquely polarizing and awesome as Rondo, though.

  Haha. After all that all I get is "whatever Danny thinks is fine with me"? That was useful.

Come on, don't you think I've learned by now that there's no point in actually trying to persuade you to change any of your opinions on Rondo?




The basic point I'm trying to make is that every player has their price, unless they're so good that they're priceless.  I know you are of the opinion that Rondo is, if not in that category, then very close to it.  You know, I think, that I don't really agree with that notion.

I'm kind of disregarding your flippant "So should we trade away young All-Star players if they're helping us win too many games?" question.  Of course you trade them, if you can get assets in return that you believe will be more useful in becoming a top contender than those players themselves (hence the Al Jefferson example).  But no, you don't just dump them for the sake of being bad. 

That's just so obvious that I figured that's not the answer you were really trying to elicit.

  The question (fairly obviously) wasn't related to Rondo. It's also unrelated to Al Jefferson. It was, shockingly, exactly what I asked. People keep telling me that it's counter-productive to have players on the team that aren't superstars but are good enough to keep the team away from the highest lottery picks. It's reasonable to ask them what they intend to do if they draft such players.

  What if you get a PP or a Deron or a Bosh or a Carmelo, players who are stars but clearly a step below a LeBron or a Shaq or a Duncan? Do you keep them for 10-12 years and hope to somehow build a contender around them without top draft picks? Do you discard them for future draft picks to insure that you stay at the bottom until you get your Shaq/LeBron?
 

[PhoSita]

  So you'll be able to manage an answer if I re-ask the question with a reminder that players we draft are on a rookie contract?

Here's your answer:

Every player we draft is an asset.  I'll leave it up to Danny to determine if the player is an untouchable, once-in-a-generation, franchise cornerstone sort of player.  If the player is not, then he's movable in the right deal and the right set of circumstances like everybody else.

Al Jefferson was exactly the sort of All-Star caliber player you describe who Danny moved in the right deal to put us on track to a championship.

As fans we can of course spend days and weeks and even years debating what sort of asset we have on our hands, as we have done with Rondo.  I'm pretty sure it will be quite rare indeed that we draft a player as uniquely polarizing and awesome as Rondo, though.

  Haha. After all that all I get is "whatever Danny thinks is fine with me"? That was useful.

Come on, don't you think I've learned by now that there's no point in actually trying to persuade you to change any of your opinions on Rondo?




The basic point I'm trying to make is that every player has their price, unless they're so good that they're priceless.  I know you are of the opinion that Rondo is, if not in that category, then very close to it.  You know, I think, that I don't really agree with that notion.

I'm kind of disregarding your flippant "So should we trade away young All-Star players if they're helping us win too many games?" question.  Of course you trade them, if you can get assets in return that you believe will be more useful in becoming a top contender than those players themselves (hence the Al Jefferson example).  But no, you don't just dump them for the sake of being bad. 

That's just so obvious that I figured that's not the answer you were really trying to elicit.

  The question (fairly obviously) wasn't related to Rondo. It's also unrelated to Al Jefferson. It was, shockingly, exactly what I asked. People keep telling me that it's counter-productive to have players on the team that aren't superstars but are good enough to keep the team away from the highest lottery picks. It's reasonable to ask them what they intend to do if they draft such players.

  What if you get a PP or a Deron or a Bosh or a Carmelo, players who are stars but clearly a step below a LeBron or a Shaq or a Duncan? Do you keep them for 10-12 years and hope to somehow build a contender around them without top draft picks? Do you discard them for future draft picks to insure that you stay at the bottom until you get your Shaq/LeBron?

Well, to extrapolate from the answer I gave you . . . if you don't deem them to be cornerstone pieces, you keep them until you can flip them for assets that you think will put you closer to getting such a player.

Again, exactly what was done with Al Jefferson.

I think it depends on the player, too.  Pierce was good enough that the Celtics kept him around and tried to build around him.  They probably would have eventually traded him if the KG / Ray Allen trades didn't come together at the right time, though.  But Pierce, though maybe not good enough to be the centerpiece of a championship team, was still an All-Time great and a legitimate #1 scoring option.

[Celtics18]

  So you'll be able to manage an answer if I re-ask the question with a reminder that players we draft are on a rookie contract?

Here's your answer:

Every player we draft is an asset.  I'll leave it up to Danny to determine if the player is an untouchable, once-in-a-generation, franchise cornerstone sort of player.  If the player is not, then he's movable in the right deal and the right set of circumstances like everybody else.

Al Jefferson was exactly the sort of All-Star caliber player you describe who Danny moved in the right deal to put us on track to a championship.

As fans we can of course spend days and weeks and even years debating what sort of asset we have on our hands, as we have done with Rondo.  I'm pretty sure it will be quite rare indeed that we draft a player as uniquely polarizing and awesome as Rondo, though.

  Haha. After all that all I get is "whatever Danny thinks is fine with me"? That was useful.

Come on, don't you think I've learned by now that there's no point in actually trying to persuade you to change any of your opinions on Rondo?




The basic point I'm trying to make is that every player has their price, unless they're so good that they're priceless.  I know you are of the opinion that Rondo is, if not in that category, then very close to it.  You know, I think, that I don't really agree with that notion.

I'm kind of disregarding your flippant "So should we trade away young All-Star players if they're helping us win too many games?" question.  Of course you trade them, if you can get assets in return that you believe will be more useful in becoming a top contender than those players themselves (hence the Al Jefferson example).  But no, you don't just dump them for the sake of being bad. 

That's just so obvious that I figured that's not the answer you were really trying to elicit.

  The question (fairly obviously) wasn't related to Rondo. It's also unrelated to Al Jefferson. It was, shockingly, exactly what I asked. People keep telling me that it's counter-productive to have players on the team that aren't superstars but are good enough to keep the team away from the highest lottery picks. It's reasonable to ask them what they intend to do if they draft such players.

  What if you get a PP or a Deron or a Bosh or a Carmelo, players who are stars but clearly a step below a LeBron or a Shaq or a Duncan? Do you keep them for 10-12 years and hope to somehow build a contender around them without top draft picks? Do you discard them for future draft picks to insure that you stay at the bottom until you get your Shaq/LeBron?

Well, to extrapolate from the answer I gave you . . . if you don't deem them to be cornerstone pieces, you keep them until you can flip them for assets that you think will put you closer to getting such a player.

Again, exactly what was done with Al Jefferson.

I think it depends on the player, too.  Pierce was good enough that the Celtics kept him around and tried to build around him.  They probably would have eventually traded him if the KG / Ray Allen trades didn't come together at the right time, though.  But Pierce, though maybe not good enough to be the centerpiece of a championship team, was still an All-Time great and a legitimate #1 scoring option.

When there are only two players in the league right now who fit the description of the "kind of cornerstone franchise centerpiece that you build around," it seems a little absurd to me to make your whole strategy to continue to turn the best players on your franchise over until you get the "next one." 

If we go the route of not even considering trying to be competitive until we land have the next Lebron James, Rajon Rondo may have retired by the time we have our next contender anyway. 

That's fine.  We'll be patient.  We'll wait.  As long as we don't actually have to go through having to root for the team to win games while we do so.

[Celtics18]

  So you'll be able to manage an answer if I re-ask the question with a reminder that players we draft are on a rookie contract?

Here's your answer:

Every player we draft is an asset.  I'll leave it up to Danny to determine if the player is an untouchable, once-in-a-generation, franchise cornerstone sort of player.  If the player is not, then he's movable in the right deal and the right set of circumstances like everybody else.

Al Jefferson was exactly the sort of All-Star caliber player you describe who Danny moved in the right deal to put us on track to a championship.

As fans we can of course spend days and weeks and even years debating what sort of asset we have on our hands, as we have done with Rondo.  I'm pretty sure it will be quite rare indeed that we draft a player as uniquely polarizing and awesome as Rondo, though.

  Haha. After all that all I get is "whatever Danny thinks is fine with me"? That was useful.

Come on, don't you think I've learned by now that there's no point in actually trying to persuade you to change any of your opinions on Rondo?




The basic point I'm trying to make is that every player has their price, unless they're so good that they're priceless.  I know you are of the opinion that Rondo is, if not in that category, then very close to it.  You know, I think, that I don't really agree with that notion.

I'm kind of disregarding your flippant "So should we trade away young All-Star players if they're helping us win too many games?" question.  Of course you trade them, if you can get assets in return that you believe will be more useful in becoming a top contender than those players themselves (hence the Al Jefferson example).  But no, you don't just dump them for the sake of being bad. 

That's just so obvious that I figured that's not the answer you were really trying to elicit.

Tim does raise a good point.  The "untouchable once-in-a-generation, franchise cornerstone sort of player" doesn't come around very often. 

When you've got a top 15 player in the league on a good contract it doesn't really make sense to me to be desperate to trade him because he doesn't necessarily fit into the above category.  Having a player like Rondo actually makes it more likely that the franchise cornerstone type player will want to come join him. 

In a league where those top players more and more are in charge of their own destinies, you want to create a team that is attractive for top players to come play.  Stripping the team down to fill the roster with young assets with potential doesn't do much towards that end.

The risk of entering a cycle of badness and lottery picks that you can't get out of is too great.  Keep our best player and build around him moving forward.

yeah, but Boston has no cap room until Rondo's contract has expired and by then he will be 29 years old and wanting a much bigger contract.

Boston will also have his Bird Rights which will help in being able to re-sign him and sign other free agents.  Also, you are assuming that Danny will make no moves to create more cap flexibility between now and that time. 

[lightspeed5]

we're not tanking advocates, we're realistic championship seekers and people who dont want to be 1st round playoff exits.

[LooseCannon]

we're not tanking advocates, we're realistic championship seekers and people who dont want to be 1st round playoff exits.

Realistically, most eventual championship contenders go through a phase where they lose in the first round of the playoffs.

[PhoSita]

  So you'll be able to manage an answer if I re-ask the question with a reminder that players we draft are on a rookie contract?

Here's your answer:

Every player we draft is an asset.  I'll leave it up to Danny to determine if the player is an untouchable, once-in-a-generation, franchise cornerstone sort of player.  If the player is not, then he's movable in the right deal and the right set of circumstances like everybody else.

Al Jefferson was exactly the sort of All-Star caliber player you describe who Danny moved in the right deal to put us on track to a championship.

As fans we can of course spend days and weeks and even years debating what sort of asset we have on our hands, as we have done with Rondo.  I'm pretty sure it will be quite rare indeed that we draft a player as uniquely polarizing and awesome as Rondo, though.

  Haha. After all that all I get is "whatever Danny thinks is fine with me"? That was useful.

Come on, don't you think I've learned by now that there's no point in actually trying to persuade you to change any of your opinions on Rondo?




The basic point I'm trying to make is that every player has their price, unless they're so good that they're priceless.  I know you are of the opinion that Rondo is, if not in that category, then very close to it.  You know, I think, that I don't really agree with that notion.

I'm kind of disregarding your flippant "So should we trade away young All-Star players if they're helping us win too many games?" question.  Of course you trade them, if you can get assets in return that you believe will be more useful in becoming a top contender than those players themselves (hence the Al Jefferson example).  But no, you don't just dump them for the sake of being bad. 

That's just so obvious that I figured that's not the answer you were really trying to elicit.

  The question (fairly obviously) wasn't related to Rondo. It's also unrelated to Al Jefferson. It was, shockingly, exactly what I asked. People keep telling me that it's counter-productive to have players on the team that aren't superstars but are good enough to keep the team away from the highest lottery picks. It's reasonable to ask them what they intend to do if they draft such players.

  What if you get a PP or a Deron or a Bosh or a Carmelo, players who are stars but clearly a step below a LeBron or a Shaq or a Duncan? Do you keep them for 10-12 years and hope to somehow build a contender around them without top draft picks? Do you discard them for future draft picks to insure that you stay at the bottom until you get your Shaq/LeBron?

Well, to extrapolate from the answer I gave you . . . if you don't deem them to be cornerstone pieces, you keep them until you can flip them for assets that you think will put you closer to getting such a player.

Again, exactly what was done with Al Jefferson.

I think it depends on the player, too.  Pierce was good enough that the Celtics kept him around and tried to build around him.  They probably would have eventually traded him if the KG / Ray Allen trades didn't come together at the right time, though.  But Pierce, though maybe not good enough to be the centerpiece of a championship team, was still an All-Time great and a legitimate #1 scoring option.

When there are only two players in the league right now who fit the description of the "kind of cornerstone franchise centerpiece that you build around," it seems a little absurd to me to make your whole strategy to continue to turn the best players on your franchise over until you get the "next one." 

If we go the route of not even considering trying to be competitive until we land have the next Lebron James, Rajon Rondo may have retired by the time we have our next contender anyway. 

That's fine.  We'll be patient.  We'll wait.  As long as we don't actually have to go through having to root for the team to win games while we do so.

See, I don't at all agree with you that only two players in the league right now necessarily fall within that definition -- or could fall within that definition in the future.

Rather, I'm thinking more in terms of players I'd put in the top 10-15 players in the league.

Rondo doesn't fit in that category for me, though I'm sure you already figured that out.


I hope you'll also notice that what I've said does not necessitate "not trying to be competitive."  Building through the draft doesn't mean continually tanking until you get a superstar.  It does mean using top 5-10 draft picks as assets that you develop into or trade for such a player, though.

Another way of looking at is that until you have a core group of players that you believe can contend for a title, you are in "asset acquisition" mode.  That's where we are now. 

Until you have the potential championship core, you stay in "asset acquisition" mode, and you don't use up cap space or trade assets to try to win in the short term while you're in that mode.