wow.... the c's are going to be worse than I expected

[Celtics4ever]

The last game was truly disappointing and tough to watch. But all the other preseason games have been fun to watch.

Agree.   

[Celtics4ever]

I think it was wild that Karl got fired.

[LooseCannon]

The post-Carmelo Denver Nuggets have already given us the blueprint of how a team without superstars can be solid and fun to watch if it is honest, hard-nosed, and plays the game the right way.

The Nuggets, with and without Carmelo Anthony, have given us the blueprint for the dreaded "treadmill of mediocrity" that everyone is worried about.

A .642 winning percentage over the last 2 seasons is surely a definition of mediocrity. That must be it.

Losing in the first round of the playoffs in nine out of the last ten seasons is pretty much the definition of being stuck in the scenario that everyone fears of not being good enough to be a contender but not being bad enough to get a decent shot at drafting a potential franchise player.

Agreed.

The Nuggets did have one nice season in 2009 with a trip to the Western Conference Finals, but otherwise they have been stuck on that treadmill, and even though they won over 55 games last season, they fired George Karl I think because they recognized that they were not clearly building towards anything with him at the helm.

  They've turned over their entire roster in that time, including unloading their "superstar". That's not really being on a treadmill. And as for going into the much-preferred bottom third of the league (where there are superstars in the draft to be had), how many bottom-feeders of those 9 years are contenders? OKC? Chicago (on a, what, 12 or so years on the outs treadmill? Spend multiple years at the bottom and people won't be looking down their noses at 55+ win teams.

They tend to clog up their cap space by handing out a lot of those mid-level long-term contracts.  Wilson Chandler is the main example, since they unloaded contracts such as Arron Afflalo and Al Harrington last off-season.

Their roster and payroll construction has made the team lack the ability to trade or sign a player who can get them past that string of first-round exits. 

Their win total also is a bit inflated due to the home court advantage they have playing in altitude with rosters that are generally deeper but flatter in talent level.

[PhoSita]

The post-Carmelo Denver Nuggets have already given us the blueprint of how a team without superstars can be solid and fun to watch if it is honest, hard-nosed, and plays the game the right way.

The Nuggets, with and without Carmelo Anthony, have given us the blueprint for the dreaded "treadmill of mediocrity" that everyone is worried about.

A .642 winning percentage over the last 2 seasons is surely a definition of mediocrity. That must be it.

Losing in the first round of the playoffs in nine out of the last ten seasons is pretty much the definition of being stuck in the scenario that everyone fears of not being good enough to be a contender but not being bad enough to get a decent shot at drafting a potential franchise player.

Agreed.

The Nuggets did have one nice season in 2009 with a trip to the Western Conference Finals, but otherwise they have been stuck on that treadmill, and even though they won over 55 games last season, they fired George Karl I think because they recognized that they were not clearly building towards anything with him at the helm.

  They've turned over their entire roster in that time, including unloading their "superstar". That's not really being on a treadmill.

Different pieces, same results, and there's not a player on their roster who I would expect to take them to the next level.

Yes, I'd say that's a treadmill.

The rest of what you said presents a false dichotomy.  Saying that the 'treadmill of mediocrity' is an undesirable outcome does not require one to believe that spending 5-6+ years in the bottom third of the league is desirable, either.

[BballTim]

The post-Carmelo Denver Nuggets have already given us the blueprint of how a team without superstars can be solid and fun to watch if it is honest, hard-nosed, and plays the game the right way.

The Nuggets, with and without Carmelo Anthony, have given us the blueprint for the dreaded "treadmill of mediocrity" that everyone is worried about.

A .642 winning percentage over the last 2 seasons is surely a definition of mediocrity. That must be it.

Losing in the first round of the playoffs in nine out of the last ten seasons is pretty much the definition of being stuck in the scenario that everyone fears of not being good enough to be a contender but not being bad enough to get a decent shot at drafting a potential franchise player.

Agreed.

The Nuggets did have one nice season in 2009 with a trip to the Western Conference Finals, but otherwise they have been stuck on that treadmill, and even though they won over 55 games last season, they fired George Karl I think because they recognized that they were not clearly building towards anything with him at the helm.

  They've turned over their entire roster in that time, including unloading their "superstar". That's not really being on a treadmill.

Different pieces, same results, and there's not a player on their roster who I would expect to take them to the next level.

Yes, I'd say that's a treadmill.

The rest of what you said presents a false dichotomy.  Saying that the 'treadmill of mediocrity' is an undesirable outcome does not require one to believe that spending 5-6+ years in the bottom third of the league is desirable, either.

  I'm guessing that must mean you don't think that one of the prizes of the best draft in the last 25 or so years isn't such a player. And you might not like the options, but if you unload Rondo to get to the bottom and don't like the way the ping-pong balls go you can't just decide you don't want to suck anymore and move to contender status. When you go to the bottom it could be for 3-4 years or it could be for a dozen.

[PhoSita]

The post-Carmelo Denver Nuggets have already given us the blueprint of how a team without superstars can be solid and fun to watch if it is honest, hard-nosed, and plays the game the right way.

The Nuggets, with and without Carmelo Anthony, have given us the blueprint for the dreaded "treadmill of mediocrity" that everyone is worried about.

A .642 winning percentage over the last 2 seasons is surely a definition of mediocrity. That must be it.

Losing in the first round of the playoffs in nine out of the last ten seasons is pretty much the definition of being stuck in the scenario that everyone fears of not being good enough to be a contender but not being bad enough to get a decent shot at drafting a potential franchise player.

Agreed.

The Nuggets did have one nice season in 2009 with a trip to the Western Conference Finals, but otherwise they have been stuck on that treadmill, and even though they won over 55 games last season, they fired George Karl I think because they recognized that they were not clearly building towards anything with him at the helm.

  They've turned over their entire roster in that time, including unloading their "superstar". That's not really being on a treadmill.

Different pieces, same results, and there's not a player on their roster who I would expect to take them to the next level.

Yes, I'd say that's a treadmill.

The rest of what you said presents a false dichotomy.  Saying that the 'treadmill of mediocrity' is an undesirable outcome does not require one to believe that spending 5-6+ years in the bottom third of the league is desirable, either.

  I'm guessing that must mean you don't think that one of the prizes of the best draft in the last 25 or so years isn't such a player. And you might not like the options, but if you unload Rondo to get to the bottom and don't like the way the ping-pong balls go you can't just decide you don't want to suck anymore and move to contender status. When you go to the bottom it could be for 3-4 years or it could be for a dozen.

That is one confusing double negative you set up there.

Assuming I understand what you mean, I think that a team that gets a top 5-7 pick in this draft has a very good chance of getting a player who can be a really valuable piece moving forward.

I think that any team looking to reset their core talent and return to contender status is best served by dipping into the dregs for a season or three to replenish the assets they have to work with.  Beyond that, I think you have to start making moves to get better and see what you can make of the guys you have (that's why I actually kind of like the Jefferson signing for the Bobcats).  If it becomes clear you're headed nowhere and major moves can't be made to get better, then it's time to reset again.

That is definitely a frustrating cycle to have to go through, but I really do believe it's the best one available to NBA GMs, because of the perverse incentive structure. 

The only exception in my mind is if you have an owner with tons of money and a great location.  Then you can realistically hope to combine mid-round draft acquisitions with free agency to get back to relevancy more quickly.

[SHAQATTACK]

This is a 25 win team at best. Crawford runniing the point is awful. No rim protector . This Is going to be a brutal season.

we tried telling people 

The post-Carmelo Denver Nuggets have already given us the blueprint of how a team without superstars can be solid and fun to watch if it is honest, hard-nosed, and plays the game the right way. Unfortunately, these Boston Celtics don't seem to be any of the three.

This is both surprising and disappointing, because:
1. I didn't expect this from players that were on those KG-PP-Doc teams.
2. It clearly says we're more than one or two pieces away.
3. It makes me skeptical about the ability of those players to be part of the solution rather than the problem.

So I still feel this was anything but forgone conclusion, although unfortunately it's taken a turn for the worse.

This team doesn't have as much talent as that Denver team.

They got players back as assets for Melo.  We basically got expiring contracts and picks for Pierce and KG.  It's good in the long run but in the short you have almost nothing to show for those two players.

I hate to be a wet blanket, but you HOPE it is good in the long run.

At least the long run there is hope which is something......short run is very bleak indeed......

[BballTim]

I think that any team looking to reset their core talent and return to contender status is best served by dipping into the dregs for a season or three to replenish the assets they have to work with.  Beyond that, I think you have to start making moves to get better and see what you can make of the guys you have (that's why I actually kind of like the Jefferson signing for the Bobcats).  If it becomes clear you're headed nowhere and major moves can't be made to get better, then it's time to reset again.

That is definitely a frustrating cycle to have to go through, but I really do believe it's the best one available to NBA GMs, because of the perverse incentive structure. 

  I'm talking about the reality, not the plan. Obviously teams that are bad for a while didn't plan on being bad for more than a year or three. The point is, unless you're stashing players like David Robinson on the end of your bench you can't just stop the ride and get off whenever you want.

[Moranis]

I think that any team looking to reset their core talent and return to contender status is best served by dipping into the dregs for a season or three to replenish the assets they have to work with.  Beyond that, I think you have to start making moves to get better and see what you can make of the guys you have (that's why I actually kind of like the Jefferson signing for the Bobcats).  If it becomes clear you're headed nowhere and major moves can't be made to get better, then it's time to reset again.

That is definitely a frustrating cycle to have to go through, but I really do believe it's the best one available to NBA GMs, because of the perverse incentive structure. 

  I'm talking about the reality, not the plan. Obviously teams that are bad for a while didn't plan on being bad for more than a year or three. The point is, unless you're stashing players like David Robinson on the end of your bench you can't just stop the ride and get off whenever you want.

It is certainly hard to go from the bottom to true contender status like say Oklahoma City or Chicago, but it isn't that difficult to get back to consistent playoff appearances by being bad.  Memphis, Atlanta, Portland, Utah, New Orleans (before the Paul trade), and it looks like Detroit and Cleveland (and maybe New Orleans again) are on the verge this year.  All of those teams stockpiled young players and made them into playoff teams (or are expected to).  The Charlotte's of the world that stay terrible for a decade are the exception not the rule.

[BballTim]

I think that any team looking to reset their core talent and return to contender status is best served by dipping into the dregs for a season or three to replenish the assets they have to work with.  Beyond that, I think you have to start making moves to get better and see what you can make of the guys you have (that's why I actually kind of like the Jefferson signing for the Bobcats).  If it becomes clear you're headed nowhere and major moves can't be made to get better, then it's time to reset again.

That is definitely a frustrating cycle to have to go through, but I really do believe it's the best one available to NBA GMs, because of the perverse incentive structure. 

  I'm talking about the reality, not the plan. Obviously teams that are bad for a while didn't plan on being bad for more than a year or three. The point is, unless you're stashing players like David Robinson on the end of your bench you can't just stop the ride and get off whenever you want.

It is certainly hard to go from the bottom to true contender status like say Oklahoma City or Chicago, but it isn't that difficult to get back to consistent playoff appearances by being bad.  Memphis, Atlanta, Portland, Utah, New Orleans (before the Paul trade), and it looks like Detroit and Cleveland (and maybe New Orleans again) are on the verge this year.  All of those teams stockpiled young players and made them into playoff teams (or are expected to).  The Charlotte's of the world that stay terrible for a decade are the exception not the rule.

  Avoiding being a consistent playoff team and not a contender is the reason for bottoming out in the first place.

[kozlodoev]

I'd like to remind everyone that last time we were really, really bad (like, historically bad), we would have netted Jeff Green from the draft.

I don't believe that a marginal improvement in the lotto balls chance is worth systematically dismantling your team.

You can still draft well in the lottery, or even in the first round proper. There are a handful of other things I consider more important, which include effectively doing the following:

1. Identifying and keeping core talent,
2. Not handing out bad contracts, and
3. Not wasting draft picks.

Do all of that, and I couldn't care less whether we're picking 5th or 13th.

[Snakehead]

I'd like to remind everyone that last time we were really, really bad (like, historically bad), we would have netted Jeff Green from the draft.

I don't believe that a marginal improvement in the lotto balls chance is worth systematically dismantling your team.

You can still draft well in the lottery, or even in the first round proper. There are a handful of other things I consider more important, which include effectively doing the following:

1. Identifying and keeping core talent,
2. Not handing out bad contracts, and
3. Not wasting draft picks.

Do all of that, and I couldn't care less whether we're picking 5th or 13th.

Jeff Green who got us Ray Allen by the way.

All these picks and young players have value and I really like our position.  Your point is totally fair in that not all picks pan out but something can be made of them rather quickly.  A package of picks and some young players and maybe an expiring could net a big return.

When players like Kevin Love could be available, you gotta just keep acquiring assets and see if a deal is possible.  I trust Danny on this, he obviously did it before with the Big Three.

I do hope we keep Rondo though so I agree, hope it's not a total dismantling.

[aporel#18]

I'd like to remind everyone that last time we were really, really bad (like, historically bad), we would have netted Jeff Green from the draft.

I don't believe that a marginal improvement in the lotto balls chance is worth systematically dismantling your team.

You can still draft well in the lottery, or even in the first round proper. There are a handful of other things I consider more important, which include effectively doing the following:

1. Identifying and keeping core talent,
2. Not handing out bad contracts, and
3. Not wasting draft picks.

Do all of that, and I couldn't care less whether we're picking 5th or 13th.

Agree, there's no gain in becoming the Bobcats... if you're lucky enough to be the '97 Spurs, getting a great pick without giving up your team, that's great, but if not, it's better to build a team around the right players and develop a winning culture.

I think the Cs can have their cake and eat it this upcoming 16/20 months, between now and the 2015 Deadline/Draft.

December, I'm sure Danny will make some trades, hopefully Lee, Bass and Humphries can be moved for a good return. Then there's Bogans and Crawford, who could be packaged in bigger trades or be sent for cap space/second rounders. I guess Danny will be trying every combination to improve cap flexibility/assets until the trade deadline in February. Showcasing the former players and developing the young kids is what this season is about. After the deadline, I think we will see what our future team will look like, and everything will fall into place. Disaster start + Decent finish = 26 to 34 wins.

In the 2014 Draft the Celtics are going to pick in the lottery, maybe a bottom 10 record, maybe a bottom 5. That could mean a great pick, and you add the Nets (21 to 26?) first rounder. A chance to get an All Star player and a chance to get a (hopefully) starter caliber player. That's great.

Wallace, Green, Bradley, Sully, Rondo, Olynyk, Fav and Pressey (maybe Brooks), IMO, are part of that future, and depending on how Danny plays his cards, we could have a good team as soon as next season, able to fight for the 5th/6th playoff spot and with a ton of room for improvement.

This season might be ugly, but could also set the foundation for a fast rebuild and a bright future in Celtic Land.

[Moranis]

I think that any team looking to reset their core talent and return to contender status is best served by dipping into the dregs for a season or three to replenish the assets they have to work with.  Beyond that, I think you have to start making moves to get better and see what you can make of the guys you have (that's why I actually kind of like the Jefferson signing for the Bobcats).  If it becomes clear you're headed nowhere and major moves can't be made to get better, then it's time to reset again.

That is definitely a frustrating cycle to have to go through, but I really do believe it's the best one available to NBA GMs, because of the perverse incentive structure. 

  I'm talking about the reality, not the plan. Obviously teams that are bad for a while didn't plan on being bad for more than a year or three. The point is, unless you're stashing players like David Robinson on the end of your bench you can't just stop the ride and get off whenever you want.

It is certainly hard to go from the bottom to true contender status like say Oklahoma City or Chicago, but it isn't that difficult to get back to consistent playoff appearances by being bad.  Memphis, Atlanta, Portland, Utah, New Orleans (before the Paul trade), and it looks like Detroit and Cleveland (and maybe New Orleans again) are on the verge this year.  All of those teams stockpiled young players and made them into playoff teams (or are expected to).  The Charlotte's of the world that stay terrible for a decade are the exception not the rule.

  Avoiding being a consistent playoff team and not a contender is the reason for bottoming out in the first place.

well sure, but you are making it seem like that if you bottom out and don't strike it rich you are going to be horrible for years and that is not the reality. 

And of those teams I mentioned, had they had one better draft along the way they might have looked a lot better.  Take Atlanta maybe instead of Marvin Williams they would have drafted Deron Williams or Chris Paul to pair with Josh Smith, they might have looked a lot different, especially if they still weren't a playoff team the following year and could have added another lottery pick (probably not the top 5 pick they wasted on Sheldon Williams, but maybe they end up at 8 and get Rudy Gay).  Now sure they likely don't end up with Horford, but Josh Smith and Chris Paul (at 20 or so each) sure would have been a great foundation to a potential contender.  Even the teams that don't have great management, like the Hawks, do well enough in the draft that they at least become mediocre again after 3-5 years, it is only the truly horrid franchises that don't climb out of the cellar.

[kozlodoev]

Jeff Green who got us Ray Allen by the way.

All these picks and young players have value and I really like our position.  Your point is totally fair in that not all picks pan out but something can be made of them rather quickly.  A package of picks and some young players and maybe an expiring could net a big return.

When players like Kevin Love could be available, you gotta just keep acquiring assets and see if a deal is possible.  I trust Danny on this, he obviously did it before with the Big Three.

I do hope we keep Rondo though so I agree, hope it's not a total dismantling.

I pointed out Jeff Green to indicate that being totally horrible doesn't necessarily guarantee you a stud. Yes, Jeff Green got us Ray Allen, but Al Jefferson got us Kevin Garnett, and Al Jefferson was picked in the teens. You can accumulate value without being god-awful, and being god-awful doesn't guarantee you what some people in this thread think it does (there are way too many examples of failure there).