Hypothetical regarding 2007 NBA draft

[DarkAzcura]

I still think we'd be looking for Banner #17.

Its certainly one of the more fascinating "what ifs" in Celtic history, though.

And that's what makes it more fascinating. Would you have swapped the 2008 title for a longer life span of contending with the possibility to win at least one if not more NBA titles after that group reached their full potential and gained chemistry?

In other words, I agree that there's no guarantee that group wins a title as of yet.

BUT what would've been more ideal

A.)Winning the 2008 title and then declining after 2012, leading into a rebuild in 2013

OR

B.)NOT winning a title or possibly not even making the playoffs in 2008 and 2009, but the team steadily improving in 2010, with a MUCH longer window of winning NBA titles between 2011 and 2020 (and perhaps beyond.)

I still take A.  2008 was special and I take the guarantee.

Playing the hypotheticals, Celtics are a KG & Perk injury away from a 3 Peat under A too.

Good point, but very hard to say for sure. People also do forget that the Lakers didn't have Bynum in 2008. Now would he have made a difference? Hell no!

However, if the Celts did play the Lakers again in the 2009 NBA finals, it's hard to say who would've won with Bynum actually playing in that series.

And then in 2010, with how well both Gasol and Bynum played, again it's hard to say if the Celts would've won even IF Perk was playing.

Or option C, and like mentioned before trading for Garnett without his extension anyway.

In 2008, I think we still would have made the Finals. Ray was completely useless in the first two rounds in 2008 anyway...maybe we would have needed him against Detroit..I dunno. I think Ray was absolutely pivotal in those Finals, though. Tough seeing us winning it all with a rookie Durant instead of Ray, but it's not out of the realm of possibilities.

I think we would have made the Finals for sure in 2009 even with Garnett's injury. We pushed a game 7 against the Magic with Perk and Glen Davis logging 35 MPG each with Scalabrine at their main backup. Rondo, Pierce, Durant, and 2009 Perkins would have been way too much for East team to handle.

I think 2010 is where we would made our breakthrough and won it all with Garnett back. I actually think the Celtics would have as good a chance to three peat as any other past great team from 2010-2012. 2013 may have been a fallout/bridge year, though.

Hypotheticals are fun, but yes, I would have taken Durant AND KG over what we got..as much as I love that 2008 championship. Yes I may be crazy to predict 5 straight Finals appearances especially with the wear and tear that players face season in, season out, but I can't really think of a more stacked team than Rondo/Pierce/Durant/Garnett from 2008-2012. Forget I mentioned 5 straight Finals appearances..I still think we would have been a more successful playoff team from 2009-now compared to what we got if we had been gotten Durant.

[gpap]

Why not keep Peirce and still make the KG trade? Or something along those lines.


Perkins
KG
Durant
Pierce
Rondo


Bench:
T.Allen
Powe


Put Durant on the fast-track for championships his rookie year like TD.

KG would have refused to come.
Even after Ray Allen was with the Cs, it took a bit of convincing, IIRC.

Nah KG refused to sign an extension. if Danny was as high on Kevin Durant as we all thought he was, I think he would have pulled the trigger on a trade for KG without the extension. KG would have signed on at the end of the season with the birds rights we would have had after seeing how good Rondo and Durant were. Rookie year Durant is honestly not that much worse than 07-08 Ray. By 08-09, it's not even a question who was better. We may have not won the 2008 championship, but I think back to back in 2009 and 2010 would have been possible (depends on KG injury I suppose).

It's a hypothetical, but I hope Ainge would have still pursued Garnett if he drafted Durant. I don't think he would have blown it up. It actually makes me really sad we didn't get that pick. Most people automatically assume we would have traded Pierce if we got Durant, but I never thought that way. We would have the absolute perfect mix of elite youth and elite veterans. Losing Garnett and Pierce this summer wouldn't even be that big a deal with Rondo and Durant in the stables.

Hell I bet Garnett and Pierce would have been allowed to retire Celtics in this scenario beause a huge roster overhaul/rebuild wouldn't even be necessary. It would have been the best of both worlds. 

That's also interesting. See I think it would've been one or the other. I may be wrong, but I don't think Danny would've drafted Durant and dealt for KG.

I think it was either go for a vet team and go all in for 2008, or go the younger route and put a better long-term team on the court.

Of course, that's just what I think. It's possible I don't know what the hell I'm talking about (lol!)

I just don't think the KG deal would've happened if the Celts drafted Durant instead of trading for Ray Allen.

[manl_lui]

I still think we'd be looking for Banner #17.

Its certainly one of the more fascinating "what ifs" in Celtic history, though.

And that's what makes it more fascinating. Would you have swapped the 2008 title for a longer life span of contending with the possibility to win at least one if not more NBA titles after that group reached their full potential and gained chemistry?

In other words, I agree that there's no guarantee that group wins a title as of yet.

BUT what would've been more ideal

A.)Winning the 2008 title and then declining after 2012, leading into a rebuild in 2013

OR

B.)NOT winning a title or possibly not even making the playoffs in 2008 and 2009, but the team steadily improving in 2010, with a MUCH longer window of winning NBA titles between 2011 and 2020 (and perhaps beyond.)

I still take A.  2008 was special and I take the guarantee.

Playing the hypotheticals, Celtics are a KG & Perk injury away from a 3 Peat under A too.

Good point, but very hard to say for sure. People also do forget that the Lakers didn't have Bynum in 2008. Now would he have made a difference? Hell no!

However, if the Celts did play the Lakers again in the 2009 NBA finals, it's hard to say who would've won with Bynum actually playing in that series.

And then in 2010, with how well both Gasol and Bynum played, again it's hard to say if the Celts would've won even IF Perk was playing.

Or option C, and like mentioned before trading for Garnett without his extension anyway.

In 2008, I think we still would have made the Finals. Ray was completely useless in the first two rounds in 2008 anyway...maybe we would have needed him against Detroit..I dunno. I think Ray was absolutely pivotal in those Finals, though. Tough seeing us winning it all with a rookie Durant instead of Ray, but it's not out of the realm of possibilities.

I think we would have made the Finals for sure in 2009 even with Garnett's injury. We pushed a game 7 against the Magic with Perk and Glen Davis logging 35 MPG each with Scalabrine at their main backup. Rondo, Pierce, Durant, and 2009 Perkins would have been way too much for East team to handle.

I think 2010 is where we would made our breakthrough and won it all with Garnett back. I actually think the Celtics would have as good a chance to three peat as any other past great team from 2010-2012. 2013 may have been a fallout/bridge year, though.

Hypotheticals are fun, but yes, I would have taken Durant AND KG over what we got..as much as I love that 2008 championship.

not sure if we would have won in 09, but in 2010 we definitely would have.

You can tell when KG came back from that injury, he definitely lost a step or two to the point Gasol called him out on it. With a helthy Perk, Wallace and KG, I do not think Bynum and Gasol can match that...

then fast forward to 2010 when we got Shaq...had he been healthy, I think a rotation of Shaq, KG, JO, Perk (assuming he didn't get traded) would be too much for Miami to handle. And I think that crew could definitely take on Dallas

too much what-ifs though! But fact is from 09 - 2012, an injury happened that could've helped us win

[DarkAzcura]

Why not keep Peirce and still make the KG trade? Or something along those lines.


Perkins
KG
Durant
Pierce
Rondo


Bench:
T.Allen
Powe


Put Durant on the fast-track for championships his rookie year like TD.

KG would have refused to come.
Even after Ray Allen was with the Cs, it took a bit of convincing, IIRC.

Nah KG refused to sign an extension. if Danny was as high on Kevin Durant as we all thought he was, I think he would have pulled the trigger on a trade for KG without the extension. KG would have signed on at the end of the season with the birds rights we would have had after seeing how good Rondo and Durant were. Rookie year Durant is honestly not that much worse than 07-08 Ray. By 08-09, it's not even a question who was better. We may have not won the 2008 championship, but I think back to back in 2009 and 2010 would have been possible (depends on KG injury I suppose).

It's a hypothetical, but I hope Ainge would have still pursued Garnett if he drafted Durant. I don't think he would have blown it up. It actually makes me really sad we didn't get that pick. Most people automatically assume we would have traded Pierce if we got Durant, but I never thought that way. We would have the absolute perfect mix of elite youth and elite veterans. Losing Garnett and Pierce this summer wouldn't even be that big a deal with Rondo and Durant in the stables.

Hell I bet Garnett and Pierce would have been allowed to retire Celtics in this scenario beause a huge roster overhaul/rebuild wouldn't even be necessary. It would have been the best of both worlds. 

That's also interesting. See I think it would've been one or the other. I may be wrong, but I don't think Danny would've drafted Durant and dealt for KG.

I think it was either go for a vet team and go all in for 2008, or go the younger route and put a better long-term team on the court.

Of course, that's just what I think. It's possible I don't know what the hell I'm talking about (lol!)

I just don't think the KG deal would've happened if the Celts drafted Durant instead of trading for Ray Allen.

You aren't stupid at all. The majority of people believe we would have went all in with the youth movement if we had drafted Durant. I don't like the extreme of youth movement or veteran teams. That's my opinion really. The ideal, perfect team is a balance between youth and veteran leadership. Rondo/Durant/Pierce/Garnett would have been that perfect mix. It's too good too pass up, IMO, and exactly why the Lakers were so successful for so long in the 80s.

What if the Lakers had traded Kareem because they wanted to go all in with a rebuild around Magic? Seems like a silly idea after how much they dominated the 80s, no? That's the situation we could have had here. They had more than a decade of straight playoff dominance because they stuck with both Magic and Kareem instead of waiting for Magic to figure it out and having maybe only 5-7 years of dominance in his prime.

[gpap]

I agree, you need that balance.

I believe the thinking at the time was that Paul Pierce was 30 yrs old in the summer of 2007.

Both Doc and Danny felt that in order to maximize Paul's opportunity to win a title before he got too old, that they needed to land a couple all-stars (KG and Ray.)

[DarkAzcura]

I agree, you need that balance.

I believe the thinking at the time was that Paul Pierce was 30 yrs old in the summer of 2007.

Both Doc and Danny felt that in order to maximize Paul's opportunity to win a title before he got too old, that they needed to land a couple all-stars (KG and Ray.)

Yep I remember that line of thinking. I just think rookie Durant was almost as good as Ray back then and definitely way better every year afterwards. I just wish in this hypothetical situation front management would have realized that before pulling the trigger on something dumb (trading Pierce). I think management cared more about maximizing the Celtics' potential rather than Pierce's. I think they would have taken the chance after figuring they would have consistent playoff runs for 12+ years straight (2008-2020) if managed correctly.

[gpap]

I agree, you need that balance.

I believe the thinking at the time was that Paul Pierce was 30 yrs old in the summer of 2007.

Both Doc and Danny felt that in order to maximize Paul's opportunity to win a title before he got too old, that they needed to land a couple all-stars (KG and Ray.)

Yep I remember that line of thinking. I just think rookie Durant was almost as good as Ray back then and definitely way better every year afterwards. I just wish in this hypothetical situation front management would have realized that before pulling the trigger on something dumb (trading Pierce).

Good point. It's funny last week on the Sports Hub they were discussing the Brooklyn deal after it became official.  Then a caller chimed in and took Ray Allen to task for the comment he made about how in 2010 the Celtics "didn't take game 7 seriously enough."

The caller said that if Ray Allen actually played a lick of defense on Kobe in that series, the Celts could've won
(lol.) So true!

[badshar]

For me, that one championship is worth more than anything that hypothetical lineup would have won. Watching KG, Pierce and Allen play their hearts out and have such an emotional celebration after the championship is something I will always remember. That moment right there defined what the Celtics are all about: Culture, Hard-work, Loyalty and winning.

Others might disagree, but I enjoyed that moment and the entire Big 3/Big 4 era more than any amount of championships this hypothetical lineup would have brought.