Are we just about guaranteed a top 10 pick?

[oldmanspeaks]

It will be really hard to have a really bad record because there will be so many bad teams beating each other up. I tried to make a playoff list prediction but couldn't come up with 8 solid teams in each conference. A great deal of the season will be one mediocre team playing another mediocre team. Celtics will most likely be around 10 and unlikely to be in the top 5 because they have more mediocre depth than most mediocre/poor teams. They will never put a "horrible" lineup out there. They will often put a below average lineup out there.
The good news is that some of their younger players may develop and they can start to move up in a year or two.

[Birdman]

oops, forgot about Utah and if Kobe dont come back they will have a losing record also..Milwaukee will not be bad as everyone is thinking..still with this being said, i put the Celtics in the 5-8 range

[guava_wrench]

Not even close. 
...
As long as the first "if" is true, then getting a top 10 pick might be tough.
...

Sounds like 'close' to me.

[Donoghus]

Depends on Rondo.

I really wouldn't be shocked if this team ends up as a 7 or 8 seed in a pretty weak Eastern Conference.

Now if Rondo is held out 'til Feb/Mar.....

[Chris]

It still boggles my mind that people expect a team with Jeff Green as its #1 scorer, and no starting-quality centers on the roster, to even come close to making the playoffs.

Well, I think they could very easily get a center if they so choose.  And I still expect them to, tank or not. 

And as far as Jeff Green being the #1 scorer, that is an issue.  But they also have a LOT of guys who are capable (and most have in the past) of scoring 12+ points per game, and they have probably the best distributor in the game.  So, I think they could very well be a balanced scoring team, in the vein of Denver.

Now, I don't think you can go deep in the playoffs without an elite scorer, but I think you can absolutely win a decent amount of regular season games with that kind of balance.

They just need to get chemistry, and to be on the same page.  Which is easier said than done, but very possible.

[Chris]

Not even close. 
...
As long as the first "if" is true, then getting a top 10 pick might be tough.
...

Sounds like 'close' to me.

Close to a guarantee?  No way.  Its close to a guarantee for teams like Charlotte and Philly.  Boston is about 50/50 I would say.

[Chris]

I also think it will be an enormous struggle for this team to even be average defensively.  Teams in the NBA are as good defensively as their best defensive big man, and we don't really have one.  Humphries? Sullinger?  Iverson?  Faverani?  Take your pick.

I disagree about this.  Teams can win a lot of games playing a ball-hawking type defense, particularly if their big man can cover the pick and roll (which Sully is good at, Bass is decent, and Oly has the potential to be very good at).

The C's are not going to be an elite defense.  But they can cause havoc and create turnovers, which, in theory, could help them win games in an up tempo system.

[connor]

I think it all comes down to Rondo. If he comes back and makes a point of putting this team on his back to prove he is a true superstar talent I think we could end up outside the top 10 and a fringe 8th seed contender. We have such a big hole in the front court though and will have tons of growing pains though so I think that would be a major feat of strength. I'd like to see him come back from his injury slowly (miss the start of the season, limited minutes when he does come back). 

Of the other top lottery teams I think there are only a few that are guaranteed to be at the top of the draft: Philly, Phoenix, Sacramento, Toronto, Orlando. Even then it all comes down to which team's young talent develops.

Boston- depends on Rondo/Green

Philadelphia- definitely high lottery pick

Phoenix- lottery team, how high depends on Bledsoe, Dragic, Gortat and Beasley.

Sacramento- does Cousins finally grow up? Probably not, top 5 pick is my guess.

Toronto- definitely top lottery pick, especially if they move Rudy Gay who is the only player that could keep them afloat.

Orlando- Oladipo could bump them up with young talent at C, PF, SF and SG

Milwaukee- had them pegged as a top 5 lottery team, but then they went out and got Mayo, head scratcher. If they bring back Jennings they could be competing for the 8th seed.

Charlotte- Does Big Al push them out of the lottery?

Portland- if Lillard continues to improve they could be good with Alrdridge and Batum.

Utah- if Kanter and Favors are ready then probably not, but if there are growing pains they could be high lottery.

I'd say Detroit, Washington, New Orleans, Minnesota and Cleveland are all improved enough to move out. Charlotte, Portland, Milwaukee and Orlando may have done enough to move out of the top 10.

Again it all comes back to Rondo, but I think we should be a top 10 lottery team and potentially much high depending on if teams like Sacramento, Portland and Orlando make major strides with their young guys.

[LooseCannon]

I also think it will be an enormous struggle for this team to even be average defensively.  Teams in the NBA are as good defensively as their best defensive big man, and we don't really have one.  Humphries? Sullinger?  Iverson?  Faverani?  Take your pick.

If the Celtics can find a solution at center who is adequate, I don't see why they couldn't be at least as good on defense as the Minnesota Timberwolves were last season.

[PhoSita]

I disagree about this.  Teams can win a lot of games playing a ball-hawking type defense, particularly if their big man can cover the pick and roll (which Sully is good at, Bass is decent, and Oly has the potential to be very good at).

Let's test this idea, based on last season.

Here's a list of the top 19 teams in defensive efficiency last season (19 was a significant cut-off point):

1 - Indiana (Hibbert)
2 - Memphis (Gasol)
3 - San Antonio (Duncan/Splitter)
4 - OKC (Collison / Ibaka / Perkins)
5 - Chicago (Noah)
6 - Boston (Garnett)
7 - Miami (Haslem / Bosh)
8 - Washington (Okafor / Nene)
9 - LAC (Jordan)
10 - Atlanta (Horford / Smith)
11 - Denver (Koufos / McGee / Faried)
12 - Milwaukee (Sanders / Udoh / Henson)
13 - Golden State (Fezeli / Bogut)
14 - Minnesota (Pekovic / Kirilenko / Stiemsma)
15 - Philadelphia (Allen / Hawes / Brown)
16 - Houston (Asik)
17 - New York (Chandler)
18 - Brooklyn (Lopez / Evans)
19 - LAL (Howard / Gasol)

I think the best possible support(s) for your argument would be Golden State or Philadelphia, and even then I'd question if the Celtics have the personnel to be on that level.  Those teams were decidedly in the "mediocre to average" category.

[PhoSita]

I also think it will be an enormous struggle for this team to even be average defensively.  Teams in the NBA are as good defensively as their best defensive big man, and we don't really have one.  Humphries? Sullinger?  Iverson?  Faverani?  Take your pick.

If the Celtics can find a solution at center who is adequate, I don't see why they couldn't be at least as good on defense as the Minnesota Timberwolves were last season.

Finding an "adequate" solution at center in today's league would likely require a significant expenditure of assets or $$.  Why would Danny do that at this juncture?  It makes more sense to just roll with what we have and lose more games as a result.

As it is, we have too many bigs on the roster, and we just signed another to a 3 year deal yesterday.  If Faverani isn't this answer you're talking about, I don't think there's one coming.

[LooseCannon]

I also think it will be an enormous struggle for this team to even be average defensively.  Teams in the NBA are as good defensively as their best defensive big man, and we don't really have one.  Humphries? Sullinger?  Iverson?  Faverani?  Take your pick.

If the Celtics can find a solution at center who is adequate, I don't see why they couldn't be at least as good on defense as the Minnesota Timberwolves were last season.

Finding an "adequate" solution at center in today's league would likely require a significant expenditure of assets or $$.  Why would Danny do that at this juncture?  It makes more sense to just roll with what we have and lose more games as a result.

As it is, we have too many bigs on the roster, and we just signed another to a 3 year deal yesterday.  If Faverani isn't this answer you're talking about, I don't think there's one coming.

I'm thinking more along the lines of finding a big man who comes out of nowhere to make a surprising contribution, like Lavoy Allen in Philadelphia or Ivan Johnson in Atlanta.  Don't make the mistake of thinking the solution has to come from an established veteran or a player who was perceived as good enough to be drafted in the first round.

There's not a guaranteed way to find that solution, but it's within the realm of possibility.  Maybe Faverani is better than you think.  Maybe Colton Iverson turns out to be an NBA-ready defender.

Or would you rather just pencil in Brandon Bass as the 30mpg starter at center in an attempt to lose as many games as possible?

[PhoSita]

I also think it will be an enormous struggle for this team to even be average defensively.  Teams in the NBA are as good defensively as their best defensive big man, and we don't really have one.  Humphries? Sullinger?  Iverson?  Faverani?  Take your pick.

If the Celtics can find a solution at center who is adequate, I don't see why they couldn't be at least as good on defense as the Minnesota Timberwolves were last season.

Finding an "adequate" solution at center in today's league would likely require a significant expenditure of assets or $$.  Why would Danny do that at this juncture?  It makes more sense to just roll with what we have and lose more games as a result.

As it is, we have too many bigs on the roster, and we just signed another to a 3 year deal yesterday.  If Faverani isn't this answer you're talking about, I don't think there's one coming.

I'm thinking more along the lines of finding a big man who comes out of nowhere to make a surprising contribution, like Lavoy Allen in Philadelphia or Ivan Johnson in Atlanta.  Don't make the mistake of thinking the solution has to come from an established veteran or a player who was perceived as good enough to be drafted in the first round.

There's not a guaranteed way to find that solution, but it's within the realm of possibility.  Maybe Faverani is better than you think.  Maybe Colton Iverson turns out to be an NBA-ready defender.

Or would you rather just pencil in Brandon Bass as the 30mpg starter at center in an attempt to lose as many games as possible?

No, right now I'd hope that Danny does his best to move Bass and / or Humphries before the start of the season, and then we roll into camp with some combination of Sullinger, Olynyk, Bass / Hump, Faverani, Iverson, and Melo manning the big positions.  Let them compete for playing time and just give minutes to the 4 most deserving guys from that group.

I'd guess we end up with a rotation of Sullinger, Olynyk, Bass and Humphries -- with perhaps Faverani or Iverson taking the place of Bass or Humphries if one of those guys gets dealt.


Long story short, I'd look for a solution that's already on the roster and then live with the results.  This year is about player development, not winning, after all, so it makes sense to just give playing time to the best guys you've got on the squad, even if they're out of position (e.g. Olynyk or Sullinger at center).

[LooseCannon]

I don't like treating the PF and C spots as fungible.

[chambers]

I disagree about this.  Teams can win a lot of games playing a ball-hawking type defense, particularly if their big man can cover the pick and roll (which Sully is good at, Bass is decent, and Oly has the potential to be very good at).

Let's test this idea, based on last season.

Here's a list of the top 19 teams in defensive efficiency last season (19 was a significant cut-off point):

1 - Indiana (Hibbert)
2 - Memphis (Gasol)
3 - San Antonio (Duncan/Splitter)
4 - OKC (Collison / Ibaka / Perkins)
5 - Chicago (Noah)
6 - Boston (Garnett)
7 - Miami (Haslem / Bosh)
8 - Washington (Okafor / Nene)
9 - LAC (Jordan)
10 - Atlanta (Horford / Smith)
11 - Denver (Koufos / McGee / Faried)
12 - Milwaukee (Sanders / Udoh / Henson)
13 - Golden State (Fezeli / Bogut)
14 - Minnesota (Pekovic / Kirilenko / Stiemsma)
15 - Philadelphia (Allen / Hawes / Brown)
16 - Houston (Asik)
17 - New York (Chandler)
18 - Brooklyn (Lopez / Evans)
19 - LAL (Howard / Gasol)

I think the best possible support(s) for your argument would be Golden State or Philadelphia, and even then I'd question if the Celtics have the personnel to be on that level.  Those teams were decidedly in the "mediocre to average" category.

Exactly, and they also have an abundance of offensive weapons. Look at their average points per game. They will outgun you and don't need to rely on defending. We won't have that offensive firepower. I'm not sure how people don't understand this. Our offense sucks just as much as our defense- but the worst two parts of our game will be interior/paint protection and shooting from 5-20 feet.