Prediction: We contend next season...for worst record

[aporel#18]

I expect the Cs to struggle at the beginning of the season because of the new coach and schemes, but they have the players to play almost .500 ball after the initial slump, so my guess is they'll win something around 36 games.

But if Danny trades Humphries and Bass, they could lose 6-8 more games, because your bigmen rotation could be

Sully/Crash/?
Olynyk/Iverson/Melo

not terrible, but very unexperienced, so you guess the team would be around the 10-12 seed in the East, that is, bottom 10 in the NBA and maybe bottom 5.

Of course, by the end of the year, a lineup of Rondo/Lee/Green/Sully/Olynyk will be very competitive, but they'll lose a lot before they click.

And I think that's Danny's plan.

[nickagneta]

I'm not going to read through the whole thread but I don't see how, as currently constructed, this team can vie for worst record in the league.

Rondo
Bradley
Green
Humphries
Sullinger

with

Lee
Wallace
Brooks
Bass
Olynyk

Isn't the best rotation group in the league but they are far from the worst. They probably end up just outside the playoffs with a lottery shot somewhere around 10th-14th. Very long odds to end up in the top 3 picks.

Now, I do believe trades will come about before the season starts. Nothing huge. Just trades that will shed short and/or long term salary. So possibly any or all other the non-guaranteed guys may go to a team wanting to shed some salary for a player. Perhaps Wallace, Bass, and/or Lee go for someone's expiring contract.

If or when that happens then another dynamic will be introduced that could make this team either worse or better. We will see. But given the amount of teams that may be trying to be awful on purpose for the sake of next year's draft, I don't see the Celtics being so bad that they are fighting for the worst record in the league.

[SHAQATTACK]

We need that worst Record bad ......   needs a top pick

LEts start FAB Melo at point guard.  and Bradley at Center.

[syfy9]

So your argument is a guy that played 10 min a game, and the back-up to the back-up point guard of the Bulls makes the Hawks better than the Celtics.  OK then.

Paul Milsap is generously listed at 6'8 and Al Horford is generously listed at 6'10.  Sullinger is 6'9 and Olynyk is 7'0.  Milsap shot less than 50 percent from the field.  They are more experienced than the Celtics front court, but they're hardly going to dominate anything on the inside.   

I'm arguing that Mike Scott will fill the void that Pachulia will be leaving. I'm not saying he's the difference maker. I'm saying that the Hawks are not going to miss Pachulia, with Scott flying everywhere for boards.

Nate Robinson was the back-up for the first third of the season and then asserted himself to the starting role. Derrick Rose never came back, remember? Besides, Nate can ball. Try re-watching game 4 against Brooklyn and tell me that all you see is a back-up point guard. I'm not saying that he could start for any team, but I am saying that he could start and perform well for the Hawks.


Oh no, you pointed out that Millsap is undersized and that Horford is 6'10! Dang...I forgot, you have to be tall to bang down low. Size, strength, and gurth don't matter at all, right? Also the fact that they both have 7+ feet wingspans (Olynyk has a 6'10)? Not to mention that they are way more skilled than any of our front court players? But all well, the rookie and the 2nd year player have more inches combined, so it's not going to be that bad, against seasoned pros, right?


Neither Sully nor Olynyk are defensive stoppers in the post, in pick n roll, and in pick n pop. Millsap and Horford excel in all three of those. Sully is physical, I love that about him, but he's not near Paul and Al's ability. Horford and Millsap are probably around Sully's ceiling.

1.  You can speculate all you want about Mike Scott, but it is ridiculous to claim that Mike Scott will make a big jump in his second year and Sullinger won't.

2.  Nate Robinson is a solid bench player, but what is he going to do against Rondo?

3.  Sullinger and Olynyk have a higher standing reach than Millsap and Horford also.

4.  The Hawks have 0 depth.  Lee, Wallace, Bass are all young, athletic and experienced veterans coming off the bench for the Celtics. 

5.  I'll take Rondo, Bradley, Green, Sullinger and Olynyk over Nate Robinson?, Lou Williams, Kyle Korver, Paul Millsap and Al Horford any day.

1. Again, that is not what I'm arguing. I'm arguing that Scott will be just as good or better than Pachulia, who you made apparent as an important piece to Atlanta's success last season. I'd rather have Sully over Scott and I'm not the biggest fan of him, but he's effective and will be a decent back-up for the Hawks.

2. Again, I am not comparing the Hawks to the Celtics, but the 2014 Hawks to the 2013 Hawks. The 2013 Hawks had relative success last season, and I am saying that their talent level is more or less the same. Nate Robinson, Jeff Teague, and Brandon Jennings are all around the same caliber/tier.

3. Sullinger and Olynyk are not better rebounders than Millsap and Horford!!!!!!!!! It honestly doesn't matter what their physical features are - their front court is better at rebounding and fighting down low than ours. They have more experience at this and they're seasoned and know how to do it better.

4. As I said - Mike Scott, Kyle Korver, Ivan Johnson, Lou Williams, DeShawn Stevenson, and John Jenkins were the 2013 Hawks supporting cast, and they had success with them. Devin Harris is leaving, but he's not the difference maker. Plus, they aren't done with their point guard situation.

5. I'm not saying they are getting Nate - I'm thinking that they will be having a capable enough starting point guard. My prediction is that they match Teague's offer sheet.

And in the end, I'd takes ours as well. We have younger pieces and a better future. BUT they have a better, more proven roster right now. Al Horford is very underrated here.

[the_Bird]

I'm not going to read through the whole thread but I don't see how, as currently constructed, this team can vie for worst record in the league.

Rondo
Bradley
Green
Humphries
Sullinger

with

Lee
Wallace
Brooks
Bass
Olynyk

Isn't the best rotation group in the league but they are far from the worst. They probably end up just outside the playoffs with a lottery shot somewhere around 10th-14th. Very long odds to end up in the top 3 picks.

Now, I do believe trades will come about before the season starts. Nothing huge. Just trades that will shed short and/or long term salary. So possibly any or all other the non-guaranteed guys may go to a team wanting to shed some salary for a player. Perhaps Wallace, Bass, and/or Lee go for someone's expiring contract.

If or when that happens then another dynamic will be introduced that could make this team either worse or better. We will see. But given the amount of teams that may be trying to be awful on purpose for the sake of next year's draft, I don't see the Celtics being so bad that they are fighting for the worst record in the league.

You've also got guys on there that are pretty [dang] competitive (Rondo, AB, Gerald Wallace from what I read).  These aren't guys who are going to roll over and not compete - nor do I believe that ownership is paying Brad Stevens $3.7M/year to do an ML Carr impersonation. 

There's enough talent on the team for 35-40 wins, and I believe they'll play hard enough to get them.  Which is a little worse than what I would have expected if Pierce and KG were still around, but not a LOT worse.

[syfy9]

Look at it this way. We finished last season with a 41-40 record. A hair over .500.

Then we lost KG and Pierce - important pieces to our success.

I don't know about you guys, but our roster isn't better than the one we have last season. And last season, we only finished 41 and 40.

And who did we play against last season? The Wizards, Raptors, Bobcats, Cavs, and Pistons - teams that are significantly better this season. Our competition is going to harder and we aren't going to have as many easy wins against them anymore.

They've gotten better and we've gotten worse.

[the_Bird]

Look at it this way. We finished last season with a 41-40 record. A hair over .500.

Then we lost KG and Pierce - important pieces to our success.

I don't know about you guys, but our roster isn't better than the one we have last season. And last season, we only finished 41 and 40.

And who did we play against last season? The Wizards, Raptors, Bobcats, Cavs, and Pistons - teams that are significantly better this season. Our competition is going to harder and we aren't going to have as many easy wins against them anymore.

They've gotten better and we've gotten worse.

We're also getting Rondo back, Sully back (with a years' experience), and while it's obviously very early The Big KO looks like he's going to be able to contribute very early on.  Pierce is certainly still better than Jeff Green (and I've been plenty critical of Jeff Green over the years), but the gap is getting narrower and it's not just because Pierce is getting older.  Replacing KG just can't be done...   but if we assume that guys are healthy, this isn't a bottom-of-the-barrel roster.

I mean, just look at the talent on this team versus the 2006-2007 squad.  We're not counting on Orien Greene and Allen Ray here.

[Yogi]

1. Again, that is not what I'm arguing. I'm arguing that Scott will be just as good or better than Pachulia, who you made apparent as an important piece to Atlanta's success last season. I'd rather have Sully over Scott and I'm not the biggest fan of him, but he's effective and will be a decent back-up for the Hawks.

2. Again, I am not comparing the Hawks to the Celtics, but the 2014 Hawks to the 2013 Hawks. The 2013 Hawks had relative success last season, and I am saying that their talent level is more or less the same. Nate Robinson, Jeff Teague, and Brandon Jennings are all around the same caliber/tier.

3. Sullinger and Olynyk are not better rebounders than Millsap and Horford!!!!!!!!! It honestly doesn't matter what their physical features are - their front court is better at rebounding and fighting down low than ours. They have more experience at this and they're seasoned and know how to do it better.

4. As I said - Mike Scott, Kyle Korver, Ivan Johnson, Lou Williams, DeShawn Stevenson, and John Jenkins were the 2013 Hawks supporting cast, and they had success with them. Devin Harris is leaving, but he's not the difference maker. Plus, they aren't done with their point guard situation.

5. I'm not saying they are getting Nate - I'm thinking that they will be having a capable enough starting point guard. My prediction is that they match Teague's offer sheet.

And in the end, I'd takes ours as well. We have younger pieces and a better future. BUT they have a better, more proven roster right now. Al Horford is very underrated here.

1. To say that Mike Scott will match Zaza Pachulia's production is ridiculous.  Is it possible, absolutely.  However it is pretty outrageous to claim that a second year second round pick is going to be equally as valuable as a guy getting MLE money in the NBA. 

2. Actually you are comparing the Hawks to the Celtics.  Your initial premise is that the Hawks are better than the Celtics and they will make the playoffs and we will not. 

. Millsap and Horford will probably better be than Sullinger and Olynyk at rebounding.  They have their advantages, we have ours.  They will win the rebounding battle at the center and power forward positions.  We are at perimeter defense and passing.  That does not translate to the Hawks will make the playoffs and the Celtics wont. 

The Hawks supporting cast is yet to be established.  Williams and Korver are starting as of now.  Their bench as far as I can see is:

Schroeder, Mack, Jenkins, Stevenson, Scott and Nogueira

That is 2 rookies, 3 sophomores and Stevenson. 

Assuming Bass and Sullinger start for us, we have:

Lee, Crawford, Brooks, Bogans, Wallace, Humphries, Olynyk, Randolph. 

That is not even close in terms of quality and production.

5. Whether they get Teague, Jennings or Robinson for their point guard, we have an all-star at that position.   

[BeverlyGuy]

Alright, I will respond to your pedestrian thread.

First off, I don't see the Celts contending for the worst record unless they are decimated by injuries.  You immediately come off as someone that doesn't watch much NBA bball.  Suggesting that Toronto, Washington and Charlotte are up and coming teams is extraordinary.  Those teams have been very bad for some time.  They have to actually learn how to win and compete before they improve their position in the league.  Floormates do not change.

I think the Hawks and Detroit will still have major issues with their outside shooting.  They do have talent, but they are lacking in certain elements.  The Hawks lost more talent than it added.

I will agree that Cleveland could be a decent, competive team next year even without Bynum.  If Bynum plays, and plays with focus, then Cleveland should certainly make the playoffs.

At this point in time, I think that Atlanta and Milwaukee fall out of the playoffs next year.

The Celts will make the playoff based simply on some of the awful teams in their division.  More importantly, the Celts expect to win and are confident that through team effort, will win.

On the other hand, Philadelphia, Toronto, Washington, Charlotte, and Orlando have a team culture of losing.  Some of those teams have had very high draft picks for some time, and yet the high pick is no panacea.  They continue to be dreadful, and some of those high draft picks are scarred for life.

Finally, a real fan would never, could never hope for the team to tank, or be so awful as to garner a top three pick.

Stupefy9, be real!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[SHAQATTACK]

we gotta tank this puppy ...can't keep a roster with all that trash from the Nets forever.

Just long enough to make this a pre KG/ALLEN season  when Doc was here and we sucked so bad.

Bring on the bad Basketball

[Moranis]

Look at it this way. We finished last season with a 41-40 record. A hair over .500.

Then we lost KG and Pierce - important pieces to our success.

I don't know about you guys, but our roster isn't better than the one we have last season. And last season, we only finished 41 and 40.

And who did we play against last season? The Wizards, Raptors, Bobcats, Cavs, and Pistons - teams that are significantly better this season. Our competition is going to harder and we aren't going to have as many easy wins against them anymore.

They've gotten better and we've gotten worse.

We're also getting Rondo back, Sully back (with a years' experience), and while it's obviously very early The Big KO looks like he's going to be able to contribute very early on.  Pierce is certainly still better than Jeff Green (and I've been plenty critical of Jeff Green over the years), but the gap is getting narrower and it's not just because Pierce is getting older.  Replacing KG just can't be done...   but if we assume that guys are healthy, this isn't a bottom-of-the-barrel roster.

I mean, just look at the talent on this team versus the 2006-2007 squad.  We're not counting on Orien Greene and Allen Ray here.

The 06-07 squad if it was healthy would have been better than the 13-14 Celtics.  Just go position by position and the 06-07 squad is superior pretty much across the board (except PG). 

I mean this is the 06-07 squad

PG - West, Telfair, Rondo
SG - Pierce, Allen
SF - Gomes, Green, Wally
PF - Jefferson, Powe
C - Perkins, Scalabrine, Kandiman

The problem with that team was Pierce, Allen, Wally, and Kandi all missed significant time due to injury.  But on paper that team is better than next years team. 

[syfy9]

1. To say that Mike Scott will match Zaza Pachulia's production is ridiculous.  Is it possible, absolutely.  However it is pretty outrageous to claim that a second year second round pick is going to be equally as valuable as a guy getting MLE money in the NBA. 

2. Actually you are comparing the Hawks to the Celtics.  Your initial premise is that the Hawks are better than the Celtics and they will make the playoffs and we will not. 

. Millsap and Horford will probably better be than Sullinger and Olynyk at rebounding.  They have their advantages, we have ours.  They will win the rebounding battle at the center and power forward positions.  We are at perimeter defense and passing.  That does not translate to the Hawks will make the playoffs and the Celtics wont. 

The Hawks supporting cast is yet to be established.  Williams and Korver are starting as of now.  Their bench as far as I can see is:

Schroeder, Mack, Jenkins, Stevenson, Scott and Nogueira

That is 2 rookies, 3 sophomores and Stevenson. 

Assuming Bass and Sullinger start for us, we have:

Lee, Crawford, Brooks, Bogans, Wallace, Humphries, Olynyk, Randolph. 

That is not even close in terms of quality and production.

5. Whether they get Teague, Jennings or Robinson for their point guard, we have an all-star at that position.   

1. No, it is not ridiculous to compare the 2. The fact that he was a 2nd round pick doesn't matter, if he produces. Remember - 17 and 10 per 36 is pretty promising. This is not outrageous by any means. Zaza is a banger with little to no skill. His per 36 rebounding numbers are the same as Scott's. Scott outscores him 10 go 17 in the points department.

2. I'm comparing the 2014 Hawks to the 2013 Hawks. The 2013 Hawks made the playoffs. I'm saying that the 2014 Hawks are more or less the same caliber as the 2013 Hawks. The 2013 Hawks made the playoffs. Get the pattern? If they're similar in talent, they should be similar in success. The 2013 Hawks were better than the 2013 Celtics and the 2014 Celtics (given that the 2013 Celtics were better than the 2014 Celtics). Shouldn't, by logic, the 2014 Hawks be better than the 2014 Celtics, then?

3. You were arguing that our frontcourt wouldn't be dominated by theirs. That was the premise for good old number 3.

4.  Yet they made the playoffs as a 4-5 seed with their supporting cast. Says a lot about the Horford/Smith duo, and their team structure all together.

5. Yup. We sure do. We have the better point guard...but we don't have the better team.

[syfy9]

Alright, I will respond to your pedestrian thread.

First off, I don't see the Celts contending for the worst record unless they are decimated by injuries.  You immediately come off as someone that doesn't watch much NBA bball.  Suggesting that Toronto, Washington and Charlotte are up and coming teams is extraordinary.  Those teams have been very bad for some time.  They have to actually learn how to win and compete before they improve their position in the league.  Floormates do not change.

I think the Hawks and Detroit will still have major issues with their outside shooting.  They do have talent, but they are lacking in certain elements.  The Hawks lost more talent than it added.

I will agree that Cleveland could be a decent, competive team next year even without Bynum.  If Bynum plays, and plays with focus, then Cleveland should certainly make the playoffs.

At this point in time, I think that Atlanta and Milwaukee fall out of the playoffs next year.

The Celts will make the playoff based simply on some of the awful teams in their division.  More importantly, the Celts expect to win and are confident that through team effort, will win.

On the other hand, Philadelphia, Toronto, Washington, Charlotte, and Orlando have a team culture of losing.  Some of those teams have had very high draft picks for some time, and yet the high pick is no panacea.  They continue to be dreadful, and some of those high draft picks are scarred for life.

Finally, a real fan would never, could never hope for the team to tank, or be so awful as to garner a top three pick.

Stupefy9, be real!!!!!!!!!!!!

First - welcome to CelticsBlog!

Second - What the heck? It's the other way around. Those who don't watch other teams are usually the more ignorant ones. Those who take account and acknowledge other teams and their improvements are usually the ones who watch NBA ball.

I agree with you that those teams have been bad. But they've gotten better. You talk about all this "they need to prove themselves". I'm saying that this is the year. They're much improved. I'm not saying that they are going to contend for a championship - I'm saying that they are going to contend for the 7th or 8th seed.

I think the Hawks did lose more talent, as Smith > Millsap (in terms of talent). However, I do think that Millsap fits in better with Horford than Smith does.

You call these teams awful - on what measurement do you say this? Their record last year? In all honesty, they all have promising squads that can make the jump next year. Their teams have been built well and break-out seasons will occur.

Sorry I didn't fit your definition of a real fan. Just call me a bandwagon as I watch 95% of the Celtics games next season. Also, sorry that I don't think about short term success rather than long term. Wiggins in a Celtic jersey...Every Celtics fan would want to see that. You'd enjoy that and I'd enjoy that - having a once in a decade talent. That's how the majority of NBA teams win championships.

[Yogi]

1. No, it is not ridiculous to compare the 2. The fact that he was a 2nd round pick doesn't matter, if he produces. Remember - 17 and 10 per 36 is pretty promising. This is not outrageous by any means. Zaza is a banger with little to no skill. His per 36 rebounding numbers are the same as Scott's. Scott outscores him 10 go 17 in the points department.

2. I'm comparing the 2014 Hawks to the 2013 Hawks. The 2013 Hawks made the playoffs. I'm saying that the 2014 Hawks are more or less the same caliber as the 2013 Hawks. The 2013 Hawks made the playoffs. Get the pattern? If they're similar in talent, they should be similar in success. The 2013 Hawks were better than the 2013 Celtics and the 2014 Celtics (given that the 2013 Celtics were better than the 2014 Celtics). Shouldn't, by logic, the 2014 Hawks be better than the 2014 Celtics, then?

3. You were arguing that our frontcourt wouldn't be dominated by theirs. That was the premise for good old number 3.

4.  Yet they made the playoffs as a 4-5 seed with their supporting cast. Says a lot about the Horford/Smith duo, and their team structure all together.

5. Yup. We sure do. We have the better point guard...but we don't have the better team.

1.  If you think Mike Scotts garbage time numbers are going to translate well if he plays 36 quality minutes, then either you are an unbelievable NBA scout or about to be disappointed.

2.  You are getting caught up in the leaves and missing the forest.  This is ultimately a comparison between the Celtics and Hawks.  There is no way around it. 

3.  Yes.  I am not sure you understand what dominate means.

4.  It might say a lot about Horford-Smith, but it says nothing about Horford Millsap.  There is a reason Smith got 13+M for 4 years and Millsap got 9.5 for 2 years. 

5.  That is an opinion.  I disagree.   

[syfy9]

1. No, it is not ridiculous to compare the 2. The fact that he was a 2nd round pick doesn't matter, if he produces. Remember - 17 and 10 per 36 is pretty promising. This is not outrageous by any means. Zaza is a banger with little to no skill. His per 36 rebounding numbers are the same as Scott's. Scott outscores him 10 go 17 in the points department.

2. I'm comparing the 2014 Hawks to the 2013 Hawks. The 2013 Hawks made the playoffs. I'm saying that the 2014 Hawks are more or less the same caliber as the 2013 Hawks. The 2013 Hawks made the playoffs. Get the pattern? If they're similar in talent, they should be similar in success. The 2013 Hawks were better than the 2013 Celtics and the 2014 Celtics (given that the 2013 Celtics were better than the 2014 Celtics). Shouldn't, by logic, the 2014 Hawks be better than the 2014 Celtics, then?

3. You were arguing that our frontcourt wouldn't be dominated by theirs. That was the premise for good old number 3.

4.  Yet they made the playoffs as a 4-5 seed with their supporting cast. Says a lot about the Horford/Smith duo, and their team structure all together.

5. Yup. We sure do. We have the better point guard...but we don't have the better team.

1.  If you think Mike Scotts garbage time numbers are going to translate well if he plays 36 quality minutes, then either you are an unbelievable NBA scout or about to be disappointed.

2.  You are getting caught up in the leaves and missing the forest.  This is ultimately a comparison between the Celtics and Hawks.  There is no way around it. 

3.  Yes.  I am not sure you understand what dominate means.

4.  It might say a lot about Horford-Smith, but it says nothing about Horford Millsap.  There is a reason Smith got 13+M for 4 years and Millsap got 9.5 for 2 years. 

5.  That is an opinion.  I disagree.

1. Naturally players produce more when they are given more minutes. Is Scott some sort of exception? When he was giving starter's minutes, he put up numbers close to his per 36.

2. Yeah there is, and it's comparing the 2014 Hawks with the 2013 Hawks because the 2013 Hawks were better than the 2013 Celtics, who were better than the 2014 Celtics. Stating that there is no way around it is like saying that it is impossible to cross the river; you can build a boat and call it the S.S. Logic.

3. Okay, I take back the word "dominating". But they will certainly be much, much better than ours.

4. Smith > Millsap in terms of talent. But when you break down all of those horrible shot attempts Smith took and the conventional, higher-percentage play of Millsap, the talent isn't as big a problem. I think Horford/Smith is better than Horford/Millsap, but only by very little (and that very little is Smith's passing ability/ball-handling skills).

5. Saying otherwise is also an opinion.