Yes, another pro tanking thread. Lets look at recent NBA history for some facts.

[SHAQATTACK]

Jabari Parker is the 2nd coming of Paul Pierce

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oUmrfRYloKw

wow .......he even looks like a young pierce.......lol

[Roy H.]

Don't worry:  by March, 75%+ of the blog will be rooting for losses right along with you.  Danny won't give anybody the choice.

this sounds like the voice of experience 

Yep.  2007 isn't that long ago.  Game threads were full of people bashing Doc Rivers for playing the vets, injuries to Celtics players were almost celebrated, and Gerald Green dunks were much more exciting (and rooted for) than Celtics wins.

[chambers]

Don't worry:  by March, 75%+ of the blog will be rooting for losses right along with you.  Danny won't give anybody the choice.

I hate losing but the NBA doesn't really leave you a choice unless your owner is a billionaire in one of the biggest markets in the world.
If it means winning only 20 games instead of 30 to ensure we have a shot of one of these potential studs then we have to. (In my opinion).
Watch the Russian try and get a combination of Lebron, Love, Aldridge, Marc Gasol and Rondo all on the same team by 2015.

I just can't see a possible method for us to get anything out of this roster that's close to a contender before Rondo's contract is up. At least try and get some new young talent before he walks- and hopefully use that same young talent to keep him when the time comes.

[TeamGreen.dm]

Jabari Parker is the 2nd coming of Paul Pierce

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oUmrfRYloKw

wow .......he even looks like a young pierce.......lol

Only thing in this entire thread that seems note worthy

[BballTim]

Every single team in the NBA (from the very worst to the very best)have found themselves in the lottery at some point.  So, saying that being in the lottery is the key factor to building a champion is silly.  I may as well say that the key to winning a championship is having at least one minimum salary veteran on your roster. 

Sure, you need great players, but there are a number of NBA champions who have gotten great players by means other than drafting them in the top ten of the draft.

There aren't many. In fact look at the last 10 years of NBA finals teams. (I've posted this before you've probably seen it), but just to re-iterate.

2003 finals Spurs vs Nets Duncan, Kenyon Martin (this year the Marbury-Kidd trade was the Nets key contributing  key move, but Martin was a key factor too. It's arguable from 2000-2003 was one of the worst Eastern Conferences in NBA history).
2004Lakers vs Pistons(Kobe) Pistons (no home drafted star)
2005 Spurs vs Pistons(Duncan) (as above)
2006 Mavs vs Heat (Nowitzki) (Wade)
2007 Spurs vs Cavs (Duncan) (Lebron)
2008 Lakers vs Celtics (Pierce) (Kobe)[/b]
2009 Lakers vs Magic (Kobe) (Dwight Howard)[/b]
2010 Lakers vs Celtics (Kobe) (Pierce)[/b]
2011 Mavs vs Heat (Dirk) (Wade)
2012 OKC Thunder vs Heat (Durant) (Wade)
2013 Spurs vs Heat(Duncan) (Wade)[/b]

Same for the top 5 at each position in the NBA.

History sees a future for us without a championship unless we draft a superstar/franchise guy or we get a high pick and combine that pick in a trade for a superstar. There hasn't been a better year (in theory/potential wise) than the upcoming draft in 2014.

I'm not always in favor of tanking. If the free agent market were stacked this off season and next off season I'd be keen to try and build around Rondo and Green. But Rondo is a free agent in 2015 and I don't think we currently have the assets to put a franchise guy or 2 other all star around him and Green at this point with only 2 years left before he can walk.
If you can show me a potential way to land a franchise guy while Rondo's here then show me. I'm all ears/eyes.

Combine the fact that there are simply no game changing free agents other than Lebron/Melo in 2014 or this off season and the fact that Rondo's contract ends the year after, it's a good time to consider playing the game differently or the way that's most likely to land you a superstar.

Seems like a year to maximize our opportunity cost doesn't it?

  Kobe wasn't drafted in the top 10 or drafted by the Lakers. And you should start looking at the rosters of *all* nba teams, not just those that make it to the finals. How many teams don't have a player who was drafted by them in the top 10 at some point in time? There might be a few but it's probably not the norm. If it doesn't happen much more often for title teams than it does for lottery teams (hint: it probably doesn't) then your research isn't particularly revealing.

[BballTim]

Don't worry:  by March, 75%+ of the blog will be rooting for losses right along with you.  Danny won't give anybody the choice.

this sounds like the voice of experience 

Yep.  2007 isn't that long ago.  Game threads were full of people bashing Doc Rivers for playing the vets, injuries to Celtics players were almost celebrated, and Gerald Green dunks were much more exciting (and rooted for) than Celtics wins.

  ...and after we lost the lottery all of the people who were calling for the Celts to tank were crucifying Danny and Doc for tanking and calling for their heads for getting the team into the position it was in.

[SHAQATTACK]

even on Laker thread was predicting Celtics would possibly be getting a top four pick .......this bothers the LA fans.....Imthink they want to tank too ....

[PhoSita]

For what it's worth, you don't have to all-out tank to be in the top 10.

I agree with you that the most surefire way of getting highly valuable building blocks for a contender is to select in the top 10 of the draft.

Even in weak drafts, every season, we see high quality players get taken between 5 and 10 -- Lillard and Drummond are the most recent examples (#6 and #9).

I am a big advocate for making player development our focus this season, with the inevitable (and positive) result of getting a top 10 draft pick.  That doesn't require us to become the Bobcats.

[BUTerrier]

So here's an interesting question I've been wondering about while this whole pro-tanking/anti-tanking debate has been going on. I want to ask this sincerely, because I'm open to hearing other viewpoints on this:

Is there something wrong with playing young players at the expense of wins?

I mean, this doesn't just apply to the Celtics for this coming season; I've always wondered this every year when teams become mathematically eliminated from playoff contention. In baseball, when teams are eliminated from playoff contention -- and even when it looks unlikely that they'll make the playoffs -- you see older players traded to teams who need a short-term boost and positions handed to young players to see whether they can contribute to the team or not. It's low pressure enough, and you're not going to win, so you see what your assets are. Either you win with them (in which case they're either building blocks for the future or valuable trade assets) or they fail (in which case you know their limitations moving forward). I guess I'm just not sure why that mindset is such a terrible idea in basketball. Is it because there's fewer games? Fewer roster spots? Because I'd think that would only make one's incentive greater.

Forget for a moment the pros and cons of deliberately trying to get a high draft pick. Right now, we have players on our roster like Bass and Humphries who, pragmatically speaking, are known quantities. They've been in the NBA a while, and we're probably about 95% sure as to what they can and can't do. Players like Sullinger, Olynyk, Brooks, Melo -- and to a certain degree Bradley and Green -- are still unknown quantities. Can they be superstars? Solid pros? Decent rotation players? Utter busts? We don't really know yet, not like we do about the Basses and Humphries. So why not see what they can do while tempering expectations? If they're great and carry us, that's awesome. If they don't, we know not to keep them or play them big minutes. We always have Bass and Humphries and the other vets to fall back on, but what's wrong with making the focus on playing the young unproven guys?

And, while I'm not suggesting we shouldn't play hard, why is player development somehow less important than wins? Candidly, we're not going to win the NBA title next year, not with the roster we've constructed. I like our players, but it's just not going to be our year. And that's OK; you can say that about a lot of talented teams every year. Is there some moral victory to losing 95-90 instead of 95-75, assuming everyone's playing hard while they're on the court? Why is it suggesting that we play all our young players is somehow tantamount to trying to get a Wiggins, Randle, or Parker? If we do, sure, that's awesome, but why can't it just be about seeing what we've got now and what we still need to get?

Maybe I'm full of crap. I don't know. I just wonder if there isn't merit to worrying more about what these guys can do rather than the final record

[Celtics18]

Every single team in the NBA (from the very worst to the very best)have found themselves in the lottery at some point.  So, saying that being in the lottery is the key factor to building a champion is silly.  I may as well say that the key to winning a championship is having at least one minimum salary veteran on your roster. 

Sure, you need great players, but there are a number of NBA champions who have gotten great players by means other than drafting them in the top ten of the draft.

There aren't many. In fact look at the last 10 years of NBA finals teams. (I've posted this before you've probably seen it), but just to re-iterate.

2003 finals Spurs vs Nets Duncan, Kenyon Martin (this year the Marbury-Kidd trade was the Nets key contributing  key move, but Martin was a key factor too. It's arguable from 2000-2003 was one of the worst Eastern Conferences in NBA history).
2004Lakers vs Pistons(Kobe) Pistons (no home drafted star)
2005 Spurs vs Pistons(Duncan) (as above)
2006 Mavs vs Heat (Nowitzki) (Wade)
2007 Spurs vs Cavs (Duncan) (Lebron)
2008 Lakers vs Celtics (Pierce) (Kobe)[/b]
2009 Lakers vs Magic (Kobe) (Dwight Howard)[/b]
2010 Lakers vs Celtics (Kobe) (Pierce)[/b]
2011 Mavs vs Heat (Dirk) (Wade)
2012 OKC Thunder vs Heat (Durant) (Wade)
2013 Spurs vs Heat(Duncan) (Wade)[/b]

Same for the top 5 at each position in the NBA.

History sees a future for us without a championship unless we draft a superstar/franchise guy or we get a high pick and combine that pick in a trade for a superstar. There hasn't been a better year (in theory/potential wise) than the upcoming draft in 2014.

I'm not always in favor of tanking. If the free agent market were stacked this off season and next off season I'd be keen to try and build around Rondo and Green. But Rondo is a free agent in 2015 and I don't think we currently have the assets to put a franchise guy or 2 other all star around him and Green at this point with only 2 years left before he can walk.
If you can show me a potential way to land a franchise guy while Rondo's here then show me. I'm all ears/eyes.

Combine the fact that there are simply no game changing free agents other than Lebron/Melo in 2014 or this off season and the fact that Rondo's contract ends the year after, it's a good time to consider playing the game differently or the way that's most likely to land you a superstar.

Seems like a year to maximize our opportunity cost doesn't it?

To me, what the history shows is that it's way more important to draft well when you do get a high pick than to necessarily get a super high pick.  The Lakers, the Mavs, and the Celtics are all examples of that (even the Heat, to some extent--Wade was a steal at five).

As far as finding a way to get another franchise level guy while Rondo's still here, we are set to have tons of cap space in 2015 and (something that nobody ever mentions), we will have Rondo's Bird Rights if we want to re-sign him.  This will make it much easier to put something around him.  Patience is the way to go.  We also have multiple first round draft picks owed to us over the course of the next 3 seasons.  Most of them (if any) probably won't be high lottery, but they will still have a lot of value if Danny uses them correctly. 

Even without tanking our top draft pick will probably be no lower than 15 or 16 next season.  Couple that with Brooklyn's first rounder which could be in the early twenties and we are in a good position to make some good moves.

Also, we have two decent young prospects who play the same position in Olynyk and Sullinger.  I expect those guys to be developed enough within the next couple of seasons to get some good return on one of them.  As of now, I'd prefer to keep Olynyk.  Not only do I think that Sully will have more value sooner, but I also think that the Klynyk will end up being a better fit long term. 

Of course none of the above suggestions are sure fire, but I believe they represent a way to rebuild with more options for success than intentionally losing enough games to get in the top five of the lottery on a young, developing squad.   

[TeamGreen.dm]

Every single team in the NBA (from the very worst to the very best)have found themselves in the lottery at some point.  So, saying that being in the lottery is the key factor to building a champion is silly.  I may as well say that the key to winning a championship is having at least one minimum salary veteran on your roster. 

Sure, you need great players, but there are a number of NBA champions who have gotten great players by means other than drafting them in the top ten of the draft.

There aren't many. In fact look at the last 10 years of NBA finals teams. (I've posted this before you've probably seen it), but just to re-iterate.

2003 finals Spurs vs Nets Duncan, Kenyon Martin (this year the Marbury-Kidd trade was the Nets key contributing  key move, but Martin was a key factor too. It's arguable from 2000-2003 was one of the worst Eastern Conferences in NBA history).
2004Lakers vs Pistons(Kobe) Pistons (no home drafted star)
2005 Spurs vs Pistons(Duncan) (as above)
2006 Mavs vs Heat (Nowitzki) (Wade)
2007 Spurs vs Cavs (Duncan) (Lebron)
2008 Lakers vs Celtics (Pierce) (Kobe)[/b]
2009 Lakers vs Magic (Kobe) (Dwight Howard)[/b]
2010 Lakers vs Celtics (Kobe) (Pierce)[/b]
2011 Mavs vs Heat (Dirk) (Wade)
2012 OKC Thunder vs Heat (Durant) (Wade)
2013 Spurs vs Heat(Duncan) (Wade)[/b]

Same for the top 5 at each position in the NBA.

History sees a future for us without a championship unless we draft a superstar/franchise guy or we get a high pick and combine that pick in a trade for a superstar. There hasn't been a better year (in theory/potential wise) than the upcoming draft in 2014.

I'm not always in favor of tanking. If the free agent market were stacked this off season and next off season I'd be keen to try and build around Rondo and Green. But Rondo is a free agent in 2015 and I don't think we currently have the assets to put a franchise guy or 2 other all star around him and Green at this point with only 2 years left before he can walk.
If you can show me a potential way to land a franchise guy while Rondo's here then show me. I'm all ears/eyes.

Combine the fact that there are simply no game changing free agents other than Lebron/Melo in 2014 or this off season and the fact that Rondo's contract ends the year after, it's a good time to consider playing the game differently or the way that's most likely to land you a superstar.

Seems like a year to maximize our opportunity cost doesn't it?

To me, what the history shows is that it's way more important to draft well when you do get a high pick than to necessarily get a super high pick.  The Lakers, the Mavs, and the Celtics are all examples of that (even the Heat, to some extent--Wade was a steal at five).

As far as finding a way to get another franchise level guy while Rondo's still here, we are set to have tons of cap space in 2015 and (something that nobody ever mentions), we will have Rondo's Bird Rights if we want to re-sign him.  This will make it much easier to put something around him.  Patience is the way to go.  We also have multiple first round draft picks owed to us over the course of the next 3 seasons.  Most of them (if any) probably won't be high lottery, but they will still have a lot of value if Danny uses them correctly. 

Even without tanking our top draft pick will probably be no lower than 15 or 16 next season.  Couple that with Brooklyn's first rounder which could be in the early twenties and we are in a good position to make some good moves.

Also, we have two decent young prospects who play the same position in Olynyk and Sullinger.  I expect those guys to be developed enough within the next couple of seasons to get some good return on one of them.  As of now, I'd prefer to keep Olynyk.  Not only do I think that Sully will have more value sooner, but I also think that the Klynyk will end up being a better fit long term. 

Of course none of the above suggestions are sure fire, but I believe they represent a way to rebuild with more options for success than intentionally losing enough games to get in the top five of the lottery on a young, developing squad.   

^^^Completely agree. We have great young pieces on this team, including 3-4 players who can cornerstone our lineup and bench.(Rondo, Bradley, Olynyk and Sully). I very well believe with our current team we will land any where between 10-20 pick in addition to the Nets pick. Now with all of the other draft picks we've accumulated in future drafts and veteran contracts we can intertwine in trades we can definitely (hopefully hahaha)crack the top 7. Which is where we can get our next star ESPECIALLY with the inconsistency in the drafts of the usual bottom feeders. And on top of it all we will have pretty decent cap space too land other good vets to better contracts

[Boris Badenov]

To me, what the history shows is that it's way more important to draft well when you do get a high pick than to necessarily get a super high pick.  The Lakers, the Mavs, and the Celtics are all examples of that (even the Heat, to some extent--Wade was a steal at five).

I think this is a great point. Well-managed teams can put together great teams from a position of few assets, and poorly managed teams can squander even a series of top 5 picks.

It extends to contract offers, trades - everything. Every team ends up with opportunities. Very few teams systematically take advantage of them, and many teams screw up repeatedly.

I for one feel pretty good about our chances not because I think we are or are not tanking, or will/won't get one of these saviors from the 2014 draft.

I just think Danny will on average make smart decisions and improve the team pretty quickly. I wouldn't presume to know what path he will (or should) take, though.

[tyrone biggums]

Don't worry:  by March, 75%+ of the blog will be rooting for losses right along with you.  Danny won't give anybody the choice.

this sounds like the voice of experience 

Yep.  2007 isn't that long ago.  Game threads were full of people bashing Doc Rivers for playing the vets, injuries to Celtics players were almost celebrated, and Gerald Green dunks were much more exciting (and rooted for) than Celtics wins.

  ...and after we lost the lottery all of the people who were calling for the Celts to tank were crucifying Danny and Doc for tanking and calling for their heads for getting the team into the position it was in.

Most people were furious about the Allen trade. They didn't like the KG deal either because Big Al was rounding into "the next great Celtic". Hell, some people on here still regret those moves despite winning a title. The dynamic of losing ill never understand. It's kind of funny that the same teams always pick in the lottery despite the notion that you need to have a top 3 pick! Teams like the Cavs Bobcats Wizards Raptors have been lottery regulars since coming into the league. Warriors and Blazers seem to finally have gotten out of that cycle of waiting for LeBron Jr. It took them 20 years to get it right and become a relevant team again.

Some of these posts to give away Rondo are hysterical. He matches up very well with Jason Kidd in his prime. Would you give that talent up just so we can tank? Granted even with Rondo, Celtics probably still only win 25 games. But if you trade Rondo to a team for a 2014 pick that team will actually be better thus hurting the picks value. Seems to be an understated point. People wanted the Pelicans pick and Noel for Rondo. Well I would be shocked if the Pelicans didn't get the 7th seed with that talent and Jrue. Rondo would make them a playoff squad for sure.

[wdleehi]

The Celtics need assets to rebuild.  They don't have those assets yet. 



Until then, the team is going to take a big step back, even the Celtics are not trying to tank. 




As much as I rather the Celtics trying to build a contender now, there is no path open to them right now to get there. 


For now, I want every non-rookie deal player (outside of Rondo) to have a career type season (while the team struggles for wins) that makes them suddenly more attractive to contenders who give up better build assets. 

[tarheelsxxiii]

I'm slowly becoming more accepting of a "slow developmental process" (still, not purposely losing games). The lottery would undoubtedly help us.

That said, to be similarly repetitive, the lottery is called the lottery for a reason. I'm not sure of Randle, for example, having watched a few videos. His size and athleticism are no doubt impressive, but can he do that against athletic bigs in the league? He could be the second coming - I'd have no idea - but I'm just not hanging my hat on that.

If we are lucky enough to land a franchise- or all star-talent, there's still a lot of work to be done. Stevens will have to pan out, our current roster of young players will need to pan out (Olynyk) / improve (Bradley, Green) / stay healthy (Sully), and valuable FAs will need to be signed (requiring cap space and the allure of a coach, star, and young talent...all better than competitors').

Looking around the league, there are plenty of up-and-coming teams. And even if 2014 draft lives up to expectations, it offers other teams just as much (some, likely more) than us.