Question for Tanking Advocates Who Think Rondo Is an Impediment

[Q_FBE]

I need to cut and paste this thread on Kieth Bogans locker.

[LilRip]

i am a pro-"tanker" although i'm not sure you can call it that. i think even if this team puts in effort (and i'm sure it will), they'll really just end up as one of the bottom 5 teams in the league. it's a developmental year for the young guys. they'll be able to showcase their skills. we'll have a few exciting wins, maybe a blowout win or two when things go right, and many blowout losses. that's fine.

but here's a question for the anti-"tankers" - exactly how do you plan on building a contender?

because in my opinion, whether you do it via draft or trade, at the end of the day, you need ASSETS. Tanking (or losing) this year doesn't mean that you are perpetually going to keep losing year on year. I don't like losing, but i recognize it as a step in a rebuilding process.

i see free agency being thrown around as one of the go-to arguments for anti-tankers but even that is FAR from such a sure thing as well. think about it. In order to sign a big free agent, you'll often need to gut your team (kinda like "tanking") to clear cap space. And then finally, when these star player(s) finally hit the FA market, you might miss out on them COMPLETELY. then what are you left with? if you perpetually live by the code of "losing is always bad", then you'll be forced by your mantra to sign expensive mid-tier stars like monta ellis, charlie villanueva, ben gordon, etc. and that's when the vicious cycle starts.

furthermore, there are only one or two of these game-changing stars hitting free agency every few years. And tell me, doesn't that sound an awful lot like a draft?

i swear, with the way some of the anti-tankers have been going on, you'd think no more good rookies will exist in any draft class from 2014 till goodness-knows-when, and that the only stars this league will ever have are 1) the established stars now playing on other teams, 2) Rondo, 3) Green and 4) the youngsters on the Celtics who are sure to develop into beasts or absolute studs. But i mean, take Olynyk as an example. He's the 13th pick in a weak draft, and yet summer league hits and all of a sudden, he's a terrific pick up, a player who will be great, etc. etc. i mean, what happened to all the hate for all things draft-related? Can't we pick up solid players in the draft? Maybe even franchise players in the draft? Can't we trade a high pick + filler for a future hall of famer, like maybe someone of Ray Allen's caliber?

I mean, for all the "let's build around Rondo" and "Rondo is a star and will carry this team to the playoffs" battle cries of the anti-tankers, ask yourself: how the heck did we even end up with Rondo in the first place? it wasn't through a "signing via Free Agency" nor was it through "Trading for a proven player". It was by drafting him, after we acquired the pick of the Phoenix Suns on draft night for cash.

[Fafnir]

LilRip I'm not sure you are doing the views of so-called "anti-tankers" justice.

They're not anti-draft as you imply. Rather they don't want to strip mine the roster of all existing talent to be bad.

Its not really a two-sides argument though, there is a lot of nuance to everyone's opinion.

[Pucaccia]

I don't call it taking if Brad Stevens translates his college success to the pros. To me, he is the wild card. The sooner he acclimated himself to the pro game the sooner we can start making our next run.

[LilRip]

LilRip I'm not sure you are doing the views of so-called "anti-tankers" justice.

They're not anti-draft as you imply. Rather they don't want to strip mine the roster of all existing talent to be bad.

Its not really a two-sides argument though, there is a lot of nuance to everyone's opinion.

being against strip mining the roster, that stance i would understand. but there have definitely been arguments put forth where depending on acquiring lottery picks is a cowardly move or something real GMs don't do. that i can't agree with. There have been arguments put forth that you can't draft your way to building a contender, and that you can only build one by signing "proven talent" or free agents. that i can't agree with either.

Whether or not we keep our draft pick/s in the 2014 draft, they will definitely help us get better. I trust DA would know what to do once he is given more options. the reason i am "pro-tanking" is because i'd want that pick to be as valuable as possible, while also showcasing our young players to pump up their value as much as possible in one year's time. it might cost us wins, but winning or making the playoffs should not be the priority right now. it's development.

[LooseCannon]

but here's a question for the anti-"tankers" - exactly how do you plan on building a contender?

because in my opinion, whether you do it via draft or trade, at the end of the day, you need ASSETS. Tanking (or losing) this year doesn't mean that you are perpetually going to keep losing year on year. I don't like losing, but i recognize it as a step in a rebuilding process.

i see free agency being thrown around as one of the go-to arguments for anti-tankers but even that is FAR from such a sure thing as well. think about it. In order to sign a big free agent, you'll often need to gut your team (kinda like "tanking") to clear cap space. And then finally, when these star player(s) finally hit the FA market, you might miss out on them COMPLETELY. then what are you left with? if you perpetually live by the code of "losing is always bad", then you'll be forced by your mantra to sign expensive mid-tier stars like monta ellis, charlie villanueva, ben gordon, etc. and that's when the vicious cycle starts.

Next summer, the Celtics have the ability to add a max contract guy through trade of free agency while still having Rondo, Bradley, Green, Sullinger, and Olynyk.  My tentative Plan A is to offer restricted free agent Larry Sanders a contract so big that Milwaukee doesn't want to match.

Not interested in tanking, but also not interested in signing bad contracts.  I don't see why trying to win obligates someone to sign a bad player like Monta Ellis.

[tyrone biggums]

This question is for those people who want the Celtics to tank and get a top three pick and think that Rondo makes the team too good to accomplish that.

If Rondo had a no-trade clause and refused to waive it and the league would punish the Celtics if it makes the obvious tanking move of sitting Rondo when he can play by stripping the team of its first-round pick (which I think is a reasonable punishment), would you prefer to amnesty Rondo and waive him rather than play him?

I'd want assets for him. But if he's all we've got and he won't take a trade then I'd just amnesty him if he's hurting our shot at Wiggins/Parker.
Depends on Danny's ultimate plan for this season. Are we keeping Hump and Wallace? Are we actually putting out a rookie/sophomore team to ensure we suck, but also ensuring our youngins improve?
Other options:
1)play him 5 minutes a quarter and sit him.
2)give him an all rookie/sophomore cast-we'll still be terrible and also ask him to just shoot threes. It might develop his three point shot and will also lose us plenty of the games we want to lose.

I am one of the tanking advocates you talk about so I'll be straight up and say if he refused to be traded and the result was possibly losing a top 3 pick then yeah we should amnesty him or sit him. It's perfectly legal for us to sit him if he won't do what the coaches/management want. Plenty of ways around it without losing the pick anyway but yeah I'd amnesty him and go balls deep for Wiggins/Parker. He'll be gone by 2015 anyway if it's that bad.

Wait...so you would cut a star player that is on a good contract just for the possibility of getting Wiggins??? Are you mad they didn't hire ML back?

[fantankerous]

but here's a question for the anti-"tankers" - exactly how do you plan on building a contender?

because in my opinion, whether you do it via draft or trade, at the end of the day, you need ASSETS. Tanking (or losing) this year doesn't mean that you are perpetually going to keep losing year on year. I don't like losing, but i recognize it as a step in a rebuilding process.

i see free agency being thrown around as one of the go-to arguments for anti-tankers but even that is FAR from such a sure thing as well. think about it. In order to sign a big free agent, you'll often need to gut your team (kinda like "tanking") to clear cap space. And then finally, when these star player(s) finally hit the FA market, you might miss out on them COMPLETELY. then what are you left with? if you perpetually live by the code of "losing is always bad", then you'll be forced by your mantra to sign expensive mid-tier stars like monta ellis, charlie villanueva, ben gordon, etc. and that's when the vicious cycle starts.

Next summer, the Celtics have the ability to add a max contract guy through trade of free agency while still having Rondo, Bradley, Green, Sullinger, and Olynyk.  My tentative Plan A is to offer restricted free agent Larry Sanders a contract so big that Milwaukee doesn't want to match.

Not interested in tanking, but also not interested in signing bad contracts.  I don't see why trying to win obligates someone to sign a bad player like Monta Ellis.

If this is the alternative, I prefer tanking.  It would take a very large, probably max, contract to pry Sanders away.  He's not a good enough player to pay 60m for.  Even with a max contract, I think the Bucks keep Sanders.  He'll be the face of the franchise beginning this season with Ellis (and maybe Jennings) gone.

As for the original question, Rondo will not be an impediment.  With a fully healthy Rondo, we're still a bottom five team.

[tyrone biggums]

but here's a question for the anti-"tankers" - exactly how do you plan on building a contender?

because in my opinion, whether you do it via draft or trade, at the end of the day, you need ASSETS. Tanking (or losing) this year doesn't mean that you are perpetually going to keep losing year on year. I don't like losing, but i recognize it as a step in a rebuilding process.

i see free agency being thrown around as one of the go-to arguments for anti-tankers but even that is FAR from such a sure thing as well. think about it. In order to sign a big free agent, you'll often need to gut your team (kinda like "tanking") to clear cap space. And then finally, when these star player(s) finally hit the FA market, you might miss out on them COMPLETELY. then what are you left with? if you perpetually live by the code of "losing is always bad", then you'll be forced by your mantra to sign expensive mid-tier stars like monta ellis, charlie villanueva, ben gordon, etc. and that's when the vicious cycle starts.

Next summer, the Celtics have the ability to add a max contract guy through trade of free agency while still having Rondo, Bradley, Green, Sullinger, and Olynyk.  My tentative Plan A is to offer restricted free agent Larry Sanders a contract so big that Milwaukee doesn't want to match.

Not interested in tanking, but also not interested in signing bad contracts.  I don't see why trying to win obligates someone to sign a bad player like Monta Ellis.

If this is the alternative, I prefer tanking.  It would take a very large, probably max, contract to pry Sanders away.  He's not a good enough player to pay 60m for.  Even with a max contract, I think the Bucks keep Sanders.  He'll be the face of the franchise beginning this season with Ellis (and maybe Jennings) gone.

As for the original question, Rondo will not be an impediment.  With a fully healthy Rondo, we're still a bottom five team.

Exactly how are the Celtics worse than the Sixers Bobcats Suns and the usual dreck in the lottery?

[Moranis]

but here's a question for the anti-"tankers" - exactly how do you plan on building a contender?

because in my opinion, whether you do it via draft or trade, at the end of the day, you need ASSETS. Tanking (or losing) this year doesn't mean that you are perpetually going to keep losing year on year. I don't like losing, but i recognize it as a step in a rebuilding process.

i see free agency being thrown around as one of the go-to arguments for anti-tankers but even that is FAR from such a sure thing as well. think about it. In order to sign a big free agent, you'll often need to gut your team (kinda like "tanking") to clear cap space. And then finally, when these star player(s) finally hit the FA market, you might miss out on them COMPLETELY. then what are you left with? if you perpetually live by the code of "losing is always bad", then you'll be forced by your mantra to sign expensive mid-tier stars like monta ellis, charlie villanueva, ben gordon, etc. and that's when the vicious cycle starts.

Next summer, the Celtics have the ability to add a max contract guy through trade of free agency while still having Rondo, Bradley, Green, Sullinger, and Olynyk.  My tentative Plan A is to offer restricted free agent Larry Sanders a contract so big that Milwaukee doesn't want to match.

Not interested in tanking, but also not interested in signing bad contracts.  I don't see why trying to win obligates someone to sign a bad player like Monta Ellis.

next summer Boston has no cap room.

[Yogi]

]next summer Boston has no cap room.

We'll have about 6M if we renounce the rights to every one except Bradley and Sullinger.  That is unlikely because we have a 10M trade exception, although we would only have a couple of days to use it. 

[Celtics4ever]

Injury list is what they do will with Rondo and Sully.  The clearing them to play will be prolonged etc.   Instant tanking but passive mode.

[LilRip]

but here's a question for the anti-"tankers" - exactly how do you plan on building a contender?

because in my opinion, whether you do it via draft or trade, at the end of the day, you need ASSETS. Tanking (or losing) this year doesn't mean that you are perpetually going to keep losing year on year. I don't like losing, but i recognize it as a step in a rebuilding process.

i see free agency being thrown around as one of the go-to arguments for anti-tankers but even that is FAR from such a sure thing as well. think about it. In order to sign a big free agent, you'll often need to gut your team (kinda like "tanking") to clear cap space. And then finally, when these star player(s) finally hit the FA market, you might miss out on them COMPLETELY. then what are you left with? if you perpetually live by the code of "losing is always bad", then you'll be forced by your mantra to sign expensive mid-tier stars like monta ellis, charlie villanueva, ben gordon, etc. and that's when the vicious cycle starts.

Next summer, the Celtics have the ability to add a max contract guy through trade of free agency while still having Rondo, Bradley, Green, Sullinger, and Olynyk.  My tentative Plan A is to offer restricted free agent Larry Sanders a contract so big that Milwaukee doesn't want to match.

Not interested in tanking, but also not interested in signing bad contracts.  I don't see why trying to win obligates someone to sign a bad player like Monta Ellis.

assuming we even had this magical cap space next summer, Sanders is a promising young player and a RFA. what makes you think the Bucks won't sign him or match? besides, isn't it under the new CBA rules that the home teams can technically offer the most money anyway? and don't they have his bird rights so they'll be able to sign him even if it means they're over the cap?

my point is, depending on the FA market is a risky venture as well. Clearing cap space entails sacrifice, like fielding a bunch of bad players on expiring contracts, or not being able to re-sign your own young players.

[Moranis]

]next summer Boston has no cap room.

We'll have about 6M if we renounce the rights to every one except Bradley and Sullinger.  That is unlikely because we have a 10M trade exception, although we would only have a couple of days to use it.

right, so my post in relation to signing a max contract player next summer was correct.  We don't have the cap room.  Don't forget the rookies and cap holds as well.

Boston has no cap room to do anything until 2015 and then it will still be limited by Rondo's cap hold (or new contract), Wallace, Green, Lee, Sullinger, Olynyk, the two 2014 rookies, the two 2015 rookies, Bradley (if we keep him), etc. 

Boston really doesn't clear enough cap space to be a major player in free agency until the summer of 2016.

[Yogi]

]next summer Boston has no cap room.

We'll have about 6M if we renounce the rights to every one except Bradley and Sullinger.  That is unlikely because we have a 10M trade exception, although we would only have a couple of days to use it.

right, so my post in relation to signing a max contract player next summer was correct.  We don't have the cap room.  Don't forget the rookies and cap holds as well.

Boston has no cap room to do anything until 2015 and then it will still be limited by Rondo's cap hold (or new contract), Wallace, Green, Lee, Sullinger, Olynyk, the two 2014 rookies, the two 2015 rookies, Bradley (if we keep him), etc. 

Boston really doesn't clear enough cap space to be a major player in free agency until the summer of 2016.

That's not necessarily true.  A lot of those contracts you mentioned can be moved.  In 2015, both Wallace and Lee are expirings that can be used in a sign-and-trade.  They can also be dumped for a price like Golden State did to sign Igoudala this year.