Thoughts

[mmmmm]

You'd have to take in to account our historic lack of free agency draw as one reason why Boston couldn't be that other team.

You'd also have to take into account the way the NBA owners locked the players out after The Decision and The Melodrama and came back with a new CBA that gives many more incentives to players staying with a team as one reason why Boston couldn't be that other team.

You'd also have to take into account the relatively tiny media market, high income tax, and (unless you're big on seasons) mediocre weather that comes with spending time in New England, especially if you're already leaving money on the table by coming to a team that isn't the team that drafted you, as one reason why Boston couldn't be that other team.

I do agree that trying to duplicate the Spurs 96-97 model is futile, but I definitely believe that they ended up deciding to tank that season after the injuries to Robinson, Person and Sean Elliot.

1) What exactly is a "historic lack of free agency draw" and why does that have anything to do with why Boston can't be that other team.  Seriously, your words here don't convey anything tangible.  Are you saying that there is some historical (compelling) evidence that free agents _don't_ want to come to Boston?  Do you have numbers?  The fact is, the Celtics have been over the salary cap for ages and have not really played much in the free agent market so I don't believe there is any evidence to really support that.  The fact that the Patriots, Bruins & Red Sox have signed a ton of big name free agents during that span suggests that Boston does not emit some innate 'free agent repellent'.

2) Yes, the owners got a few tighter controls on player movement, but nothing fundamental other than top-end salary control in the form of the repeater tax.  It remains to be seen whether that will truly hinder player movement.  If anything, some teams will be forced to trade players in order to avoid it so it may _cause_ movement as much as it inhibits it.

3) Since when is Boston a 'relatively tiny media market'?   Boston is ranked as the 7th largest TV media market (http://www.stationindex.com/tv/tv-markets).  Forbes ranks the Celtics as the 4th most valuable NBA team with estimated revenue of over $140M (http://www.forbes.com/nba-valuations/).  That's just a bizarre characterization of Boston.     Further, the "high income tax" thing is blown WAY out of proportion because local income tax differences only apply to home games since athletes pay tax in each state they play in.   

[Aside - Barron's does regular analysis which tends to show that the 'true tax' differences in most states ends up being negligible because states ultimately extract revenue one way or another.  If it is not income tax, then it is sales tax.  If it is not sales tax it is real estate tax.  If not that, then it is usage fees.  And so on.  That doesn't mean one state might be vastly better for a given individual of course.]

4) But, the fact is, those guys _were_ injured.   They weren't told to sit.   The NBA is cruel when it comes to injuries because rosters are small and there are no 'reserve' modes with which to stash players.  It is really hard to replace talent mid-season.  Especially if you are trying to keep your injured talent on the roster for the future's sake.  We Celtic fans should know this well by now after the last few years.  Hence with San Antonio.  Once those guys were injured, what choice did they have?  They _tried_ to bring Robinson back.  But he got hurt again.  And this wasn't the vague 'bad back' that had him sidelined earlier.  He broke his freaking foot.  The end.  Stick a fork in it.

They had to rely on guys like Dominique, signed at 37 years old to be just bench depth and who now was their leading scorer.  The Spurs roster to start that season was not a tanking roster.  And they didn't trade talent away or sit better players.  They were just plain not good enough to win in the NBA without Robinson & the others.   Sure, at some point resignation set in and they looked toward the draft and 'next year'.  But the fact is, the best odds they could possibly get at Duncan would be 1 in 4 (and their final odds were much less). That draft wasn't loaded with 5 or 6 'franchise changers' like 2014 is being hyped up.  It was Duncan and a 'bunch of guys'.  You don't purposely tank for those kind of odds.

They were just plain not good.  But they were lucky.

[LooseCannon]

Say ainge is in Cleveland's position, has the perfect draft every time (which no GM does) and he picks Harrison Barnes instead of waiters, (Lillard isnt realistic with Kyrie there already) and Vucevic instead of Thompson. I still think Cleveland are a pretty average outfit. As for Bennett and this year's draft, noone really jumps out at me as a top-line NBA player.

Ainge trades down for Houston's three first round picks at 12, 16, and 18.  He packages the 12 with the 24 to move up and take either Andre Drummond or Austin Rivers.  With 16 and 18 he takes Terrence Jones and Jared Sullinger.

[jdz101]

Say ainge is in Cleveland's position, has the perfect draft every time (which no GM does) and he picks Harrison Barnes instead of waiters, (Lillard isnt realistic with Kyrie there already) and Vucevic instead of Thompson. I still think Cleveland are a pretty average outfit. As for Bennett and this year's draft, noone really jumps out at me as a top-line NBA player.

Ainge trades down for Houston's three first round picks at 12, 16, and 18.  He packages the 12 with the 24 to move up and take either Andre Drummond or Austin Rivers.  With 16 and 18 he takes Terrence Jones and Jared Sullinger.

So with that model Cleveland's starting 5 is:

Kyrie
Miles
Terrence Jones
Varejao
Drummond

with sullinger, Bynum, Jack and Gee off the bench.

Instead of 5-12 right now that might make them 8-9, and they're probably in a similar hole to where they are now.

[D.o.s.]

1) What exactly is a "historic lack of free agency draw" and why does that have anything to do with why Boston can't be that other team.  Seriously, your words here don't convey anything tangible.  Are you saying that there is some historical (compelling) evidence that free agents _don't_ want to come to Boston?  Do you have numbers?  The fact is, the Celtics have been over the salary cap for ages and have not really played much in the free agent market so I don't believe there is any evidence to really support that.  The fact that the Patriots, Bruins & Red Sox have signed a ton of big name free agents during that span suggests that Boston does not emit some innate 'free agent repellent'.

Boston refers to the Celtics. Not the city. "Historic lack of free agency draw" is exactly what it reads as: our absence of marquee free agents for almost the entire existence of the franchise. Historically, we haven't been a franchise that has gone out of the way to prostrate ourselves at the altar of free agency, and I don't see that as very likely to change.

2) Yes, the owners got a few tighter controls on player movement, but nothing fundamental other than top-end salary control in the form of the repeater tax.  It remains to be seen whether that will truly hinder player movement.  If anything, some teams will be forced to trade players in order to avoid it so it may _cause_ movement as much as it inhibits it.

If you really think that there's no meaningful difference in the way, say, sign and trades are handled, or how many advantages the "home team" gets when negotiating contracts with players between this CBA and the old one, I don't know what else to tell you, other than "look again."

3) Since when is Boston a 'relatively tiny media market'?   Boston is ranked as the 7th largest TV media market (http://www.stationindex.com/tv/tv-markets).  Forbes ranks the Celtics as the 4th most valuable NBA team with estimated revenue of over $140M (http://www.forbes.com/nba-valuations/).  That's just a bizarre characterization of Boston.     Further, the "high income tax" thing is blown WAY out of proportion because local income tax differences only apply to home games since athletes pay tax in each state they play in.   

Boston isn't a big media market. We're far from an Oklahoma City, but we've got absolutely nothing on LA or New York or Chicago. The television and media industry opportunities that you're going to get playing in one of those cities far outstrips anything you'll see as a Celtic. NBA players parlay endorsement opportunities by being on a winning team and/or by being in a large market. Chris Paul wasn't the State Farm guy until he touched down in Los Angeles. This might sound blasphemous, but many athletes enjoy being famous, and New York/LA famous is leagues away from New England famous.

[mmmmm]

1) What exactly is a "historic lack of free agency draw" and why does that have anything to do with why Boston can't be that other team.  Seriously, your words here don't convey anything tangible.  Are you saying that there is some historical (compelling) evidence that free agents _don't_ want to come to Boston?  Do you have numbers?  The fact is, the Celtics have been over the salary cap for ages and have not really played much in the free agent market so I don't believe there is any evidence to really support that.  The fact that the Patriots, Bruins & Red Sox have signed a ton of big name free agents during that span suggests that Boston does not emit some innate 'free agent repellent'.

Boston refers to the Celtics. Not the city. "Historic lack of free agency draw" is exactly what it reads as: our absence of marquee free agents for almost the entire existence of the franchise. Historically, we haven't been a franchise that has gone out of the way to prostrate ourselves at the altar of free agency, and I don't see that as very likely to change.

In other words, you are just repeating mythology?

2) Yes, the owners got a few tighter controls on player movement, but nothing fundamental other than top-end salary control in the form of the repeater tax.  It remains to be seen whether that will truly hinder player movement.  If anything, some teams will be forced to trade players in order to avoid it so it may _cause_ movement as much as it inhibits it.

If you really think that there's no meaningful difference in the way, say, sign and trades are handled, or how many advantages the "home team" gets when negotiating contracts with players between this CBA and the old one, I don't know what else to tell you, other than "look again."

This sounds more like you just "don't know what to tell me".   I am very much aware of all those changes to the CBA but it remains that the most fundamental change is the size of the repeater tax and the ultimate influence of that remains to be seen.  It will play out, as I pointed out, in both directions.   A home team may have more retention rights, but the financial impact of the repeater tax will ultimately end up in opposition to aggregating and retaining large contracts - which will basically work at odds to the 'home team advantage'.   Players will still move under the new CBA.

3) Since when is Boston a 'relatively tiny media market'?   Boston is ranked as the 7th largest TV media market (http://www.stationindex.com/tv/tv-markets).  Forbes ranks the Celtics as the 4th most valuable NBA team with estimated revenue of over $140M (http://www.forbes.com/nba-valuations/).  That's just a bizarre characterization of Boston.     Further, the "high income tax" thing is blown WAY out of proportion because local income tax differences only apply to home games since athletes pay tax in each state they play in.   

Boston isn't a big media market. We're far from an Oklahoma City, but we've got absolutely nothing on LA or New York or Chicago. The television and media industry opportunities that you're going to get playing in one of those cities far outstrips anything you'll see as a Celtic. NBA players parlay endorsement opportunities by being on a winning team and/or by being in a large market. Chris Paul wasn't the State Farm guy until he touched down in Los Angeles. This might sound blasphemous, but many athletes enjoy being famous, and New York/LA famous is leagues away from New England famous.

So, basically, because you say "Boston isn't a big media market", that makes it so?  (Funny, up above, you said it was "tiny"?)  The 7th largest television market in the country is not big, because you say it isn't.   Ok.

If you had said that Boston wasn't "the biggest", you might have been more convincing.

I guess Peyton Manning gets to do all those TV commercials because he played in the giant media markets of ... Indianapolis and Denver?   Poor Tom Brady, if only he didn't play in the remote, tiny, backward wilderness that is Boston, he'd be doing more commercials!

Is your contention that free agents will only want to play in NY, LA or Chicago?

I guess we'll have to rely on trades.

[D.o.s.]

1) What exactly is a "historic lack of free agency draw" and why does that have anything to do with why Boston can't be that other team.  Seriously, your words here don't convey anything tangible.  Are you saying that there is some historical (compelling) evidence that free agents _don't_ want to come to Boston?  Do you have numbers?  The fact is, the Celtics have been over the salary cap for ages and have not really played much in the free agent market so I don't believe there is any evidence to really support that.  The fact that the Patriots, Bruins & Red Sox have signed a ton of big name free agents during that span suggests that Boston does not emit some innate 'free agent repellent'.

Boston refers to the Celtics. Not the city. "Historic lack of free agency draw" is exactly what it reads as: our absence of marquee free agents for almost the entire existence of the franchise. Historically, we haven't been a franchise that has gone out of the way to prostrate ourselves at the altar of free agency, and I don't see that as very likely to change.

In other words, you are just repeating mythology?

No differently than saying "most teams that draft championship winning players don't stay with that team."
 

2) Yes, the owners got a few tighter controls on player movement, but nothing fundamental other than top-end salary control in the form of the repeater tax.  It remains to be seen whether that will truly hinder player movement.  If anything, some teams will be forced to trade players in order to avoid it so it may _cause_ movement as much as it inhibits it.

If you really think that there's no meaningful difference in the way, say, sign and trades are handled, or how many advantages the "home team" gets when negotiating contracts with players between this CBA and the old one, I don't know what else to tell you, other than "look again."

This sounds more like you just "don't know what to tell me".   I am very much aware of all those changes to the CBA but it remains that the most fundamental change is the size of the repeater tax and the ultimate influence of that remains to be seen.  It will play out, as I pointed out, in both directions.   A home team may have more retention rights, but the financial impact of the repeater tax will ultimately end up in opposition to aggregating and retaining large contracts - which will basically work at odds to the 'home team advantage'.   Players will still move under the new CBA.

Players will still move under the new CBA, but the mechanisms in place to incentivize players to stay with the team that drafted them is entirely due to the Free Agency of guys like LeBron, Bosh, and Wade. It's going to be harder to maintain super teams, that's true, but I'd also suggest that it's going to be harder to pry players away from their teams (unless they're really ready to get out).

3) Since when is Boston a 'relatively tiny media market'?   Boston is ranked as the 7th largest TV media market (http://www.stationindex.com/tv/tv-markets).  Forbes ranks the Celtics as the 4th most valuable NBA team with estimated revenue of over $140M (http://www.forbes.com/nba-valuations/).  That's just a bizarre characterization of Boston.     Further, the "high income tax" thing is blown WAY out of proportion because local income tax differences only apply to home games since athletes pay tax in each state they play in.   

Boston isn't a big media market. We're far from an Oklahoma City, but we've got absolutely nothing on LA or New York or Chicago. The television and media industry opportunities that you're going to get playing in one of those cities far outstrips anything you'll see as a Celtic. NBA players parlay endorsement opportunities by being on a winning team and/or by being in a large market. Chris Paul wasn't the State Farm guy until he touched down in Los Angeles. This might sound blasphemous, but many athletes enjoy being famous, and New York/LA famous is leagues away from New England famous.
[/quote]

So, basically, because you say "Boston isn't a big media market", that makes it so?  (Funny, up above, you said it was "tiny"?)  The 7th largest television market in the country is not big, because you say it isn't.   Ok.

If you had said that Boston wasn't "the biggest", you might have been more convincing.

I guess Peyton Manning gets to do all those TV commercials because he played in the giant media markets of ... Indianapolis and Denver?   Poor Tom Brady, if only he didn't play in the remote, tiny, backward wilderness that is Boston, he'd be doing more commercials!

Is your contention that free agents will only want to play in NY, LA or Chicago?

I guess we'll have to rely on trades.

You can't bring the NFL into this disussion. The NFL is a behemoth, and an exception to everything about sports marketing for any other sport and any other league in the country. But the fact that you have to do so belies my point--where were the three most likely landing spots for LeBron in the free agency of 2010?

New York?

Chicago?

What?


Also, I think you should look at the actual size difference between the media markets, rather than the ranking. Boston doesn't qualify as "large."

[mmmmm]

1) What exactly is a "historic lack of free agency draw" and why does that have anything to do with why Boston can't be that other team.  Seriously, your words here don't convey anything tangible.  Are you saying that there is some historical (compelling) evidence that free agents _don't_ want to come to Boston?  Do you have numbers?  The fact is, the Celtics have been over the salary cap for ages and have not really played much in the free agent market so I don't believe there is any evidence to really support that.  The fact that the Patriots, Bruins & Red Sox have signed a ton of big name free agents during that span suggests that Boston does not emit some innate 'free agent repellent'.

Boston refers to the Celtics. Not the city. "Historic lack of free agency draw" is exactly what it reads as: our absence of marquee free agents for almost the entire existence of the franchise. Historically, we haven't been a franchise that has gone out of the way to prostrate ourselves at the altar of free agency, and I don't see that as very likely to change.

In other words, you are just repeating mythology?

No differently than saying "most teams that draft championship winning players don't stay with that team."
 

That statement makes absolutely no literal no sense and I don't recall anyone saying that.  Typo?  Or red herring?

2) Yes, the owners got a few tighter controls on player movement, but nothing fundamental other than top-end salary control in the form of the repeater tax.  It remains to be seen whether that will truly hinder player movement.  If anything, some teams will be forced to trade players in order to avoid it so it may _cause_ movement as much as it inhibits it.

If you really think that there's no meaningful difference in the way, say, sign and trades are handled, or how many advantages the "home team" gets when negotiating contracts with players between this CBA and the old one, I don't know what else to tell you, other than "look again."

This sounds more like you just "don't know what to tell me".   I am very much aware of all those changes to the CBA but it remains that the most fundamental change is the size of the repeater tax and the ultimate influence of that remains to be seen.  It will play out, as I pointed out, in both directions.   A home team may have more retention rights, but the financial impact of the repeater tax will ultimately end up in opposition to aggregating and retaining large contracts - which will basically work at odds to the 'home team advantage'.   Players will still move under the new CBA.

Players will still move under the new CBA, but the mechanisms in place to incentivize players to stay with the team that drafted them is entirely due to the Free Agency of guys like LeBron, Bosh, and Wade. It's going to be harder to maintain super teams, that's true, but I'd also suggest that it's going to be harder to pry players away from their teams (unless they're really ready to get out).

Again, though, you aren't really offering anything here to support your assertion.

3) Since when is Boston a 'relatively tiny media market'?   Boston is ranked as the 7th largest TV media market (http://www.stationindex.com/tv/tv-markets).  Forbes ranks the Celtics as the 4th most valuable NBA team with estimated revenue of over $140M (http://www.forbes.com/nba-valuations/).  That's just a bizarre characterization of Boston.     Further, the "high income tax" thing is blown WAY out of proportion because local income tax differences only apply to home games since athletes pay tax in each state they play in.   

Boston isn't a big media market. We're far from an Oklahoma City, but we've got absolutely nothing on LA or New York or Chicago. The television and media industry opportunities that you're going to get playing in one of those cities far outstrips anything you'll see as a Celtic. NBA players parlay endorsement opportunities by being on a winning team and/or by being in a large market. Chris Paul wasn't the State Farm guy until he touched down in Los Angeles. This might sound blasphemous, but many athletes enjoy being famous, and New York/LA famous is leagues away from New England famous.

So, basically, because you say "Boston isn't a big media market", that makes it so?  (Funny, up above, you said it was "tiny"?)  The 7th largest television market in the country is not big, because you say it isn't.   Ok.

If you had said that Boston wasn't "the biggest", you might have been more convincing.

I guess Peyton Manning gets to do all those TV commercials because he played in the giant media markets of ... Indianapolis and Denver?   Poor Tom Brady, if only he didn't play in the remote, tiny, backward wilderness that is Boston, he'd be doing more commercials!

Is your contention that free agents will only want to play in NY, LA or Chicago?

I guess we'll have to rely on trades.

You can't bring the NFL into this disussion. The NFL is a behemoth, and an exception to everything about sports marketing for any other sport and any other league in the country. But the fact that you have to do so belies my point--where were the three most likely landing spots for LeBron in the free agency of 2010?

New York?

Chicago?

What?


Also, I think you should look at the actual size difference between the media markets, rather than the ranking. Boston doesn't qualify as "large."

[/quote]
Every ranking of media and metro markets put Boston's Metro Area between 3rd and 6th.  The variance depends on whether you include just Providence (6th), just Manchester (5th) or both (3rd).   If you consider both as part of the market, then that puts Boston ahead of Chicago and about 3/4 of the size of the LA metro area.  Obviously, still only about half the size of the NYC metro market.

Size is relative.  Relative to the vast majority of urban metro centers around the country, the Boston area market is bigger.

You are moving goal posts if you seriously think that means that the Boston media market doesn't qualify as "large".   

And, of course, your original assertion was that it was "tiny".

Own it. 

Why is it so hard to admit that you just mis-stated something?

[Evantime34]

1) What exactly is a "historic lack of free agency draw" and why does that have anything to do with why Boston can't be that other team.  Seriously, your words here don't convey anything tangible.  Are you saying that there is some historical (compelling) evidence that free agents _don't_ want to come to Boston?  Do you have numbers?  The fact is, the Celtics have been over the salary cap for ages and have not really played much in the free agent market so I don't believe there is any evidence to really support that.  The fact that the Patriots, Bruins & Red Sox have signed a ton of big name free agents during that span suggests that Boston does not emit some innate 'free agent repellent'.

Boston refers to the Celtics. Not the city. "Historic lack of free agency draw" is exactly what it reads as: our absence of marquee free agents for almost the entire existence of the franchise. Historically, we haven't been a franchise that has gone out of the way to prostrate ourselves at the altar of free agency, and I don't see that as very likely to change.

In other words, you are just repeating mythology?

No differently than saying "most teams that draft championship winning players don't stay with that team."
 

That statement makes absolutely no literal no sense and I don't recall anyone saying that.  Typo?  Or red herring?

2) Yes, the owners got a few tighter controls on player movement, but nothing fundamental other than top-end salary control in the form of the repeater tax.  It remains to be seen whether that will truly hinder player movement.  If anything, some teams will be forced to trade players in order to avoid it so it may _cause_ movement as much as it inhibits it.

If you really think that there's no meaningful difference in the way, say, sign and trades are handled, or how many advantages the "home team" gets when negotiating contracts with players between this CBA and the old one, I don't know what else to tell you, other than "look again."

This sounds more like you just "don't know what to tell me".   I am very much aware of all those changes to the CBA but it remains that the most fundamental change is the size of the repeater tax and the ultimate influence of that remains to be seen.  It will play out, as I pointed out, in both directions.   A home team may have more retention rights, but the financial impact of the repeater tax will ultimately end up in opposition to aggregating and retaining large contracts - which will basically work at odds to the 'home team advantage'.   Players will still move under the new CBA.

Players will still move under the new CBA, but the mechanisms in place to incentivize players to stay with the team that drafted them is entirely due to the Free Agency of guys like LeBron, Bosh, and Wade. It's going to be harder to maintain super teams, that's true, but I'd also suggest that it's going to be harder to pry players away from their teams (unless they're really ready to get out).

Again, though, you aren't really offering anything here to support your assertion.

3) Since when is Boston a 'relatively tiny media market'?   Boston is ranked as the 7th largest TV media market (http://www.stationindex.com/tv/tv-markets).  Forbes ranks the Celtics as the 4th most valuable NBA team with estimated revenue of over $140M (http://www.forbes.com/nba-valuations/).  That's just a bizarre characterization of Boston.     Further, the "high income tax" thing is blown WAY out of proportion because local income tax differences only apply to home games since athletes pay tax in each state they play in.   

Boston isn't a big media market. We're far from an Oklahoma City, but we've got absolutely nothing on LA or New York or Chicago. The television and media industry opportunities that you're going to get playing in one of those cities far outstrips anything you'll see as a Celtic. NBA players parlay endorsement opportunities by being on a winning team and/or by being in a large market. Chris Paul wasn't the State Farm guy until he touched down in Los Angeles. This might sound blasphemous, but many athletes enjoy being famous, and New York/LA famous is leagues away from New England famous.

So, basically, because you say "Boston isn't a big media market", that makes it so?  (Funny, up above, you said it was "tiny"?)  The 7th largest television market in the country is not big, because you say it isn't.   Ok.

If you had said that Boston wasn't "the biggest", you might have been more convincing.

I guess Peyton Manning gets to do all those TV commercials because he played in the giant media markets of ... Indianapolis and Denver?   Poor Tom Brady, if only he didn't play in the remote, tiny, backward wilderness that is Boston, he'd be doing more commercials!

Is your contention that free agents will only want to play in NY, LA or Chicago?

I guess we'll have to rely on trades.

You can't bring the NFL into this disussion. The NFL is a behemoth, and an exception to everything about sports marketing for any other sport and any other league in the country. But the fact that you have to do so belies my point--where were the three most likely landing spots for LeBron in the free agency of 2010?

New York?

Chicago?

What?


Also, I think you should look at the actual size difference between the media markets, rather than the ranking. Boston doesn't qualify as "large."

Every ranking of media and metro markets put Boston's Metro Area between 3rd and 6th.  The variance depends on whether you include just Providence (6th), just Manchester (5th) or both (3rd).   If you consider both as part of the market, then that puts Boston ahead of Chicago and about 3/4 of the size of the LA metro area.  Obviously, still only about half the size of the NYC metro market.

Size is relative.  Relative to the vast majority of urban metro centers around the country, the Boston area market is bigger.

You are moving goal posts if you seriously think that means that the Boston media market doesn't qualify as "large".   

And, of course, your original assertion was that it was "tiny".

Own it. 

Why is it so hard to admit that you just mis-stated something?
[/quote]
That is a long block of quotes can anyone sum up what we are discussing in this thread.

[djbilly33]

I still think making the playoffs is bad for this team going forward.  Of the current roster, who will we bring back next year?  Of the players we bring back, how many already have playoff experience? Probably all but one?  This is the year to be bad and draft a superstar and then come back next year looking to build and make the playoffs.  A draft class like this comes once every decade.  I am proud to see we are winning but we are going to regret this come draft time.

[PhoSita]

Say ainge is in Cleveland's position, has the perfect draft every time (which no GM does) and he picks Harrison Barnes instead of waiters, (Lillard isnt realistic with Kyrie there already) and Vucevic instead of Thompson. I still think Cleveland are a pretty average outfit. As for Bennett and this year's draft, noone really jumps out at me as a top-line NBA player.

Ainge trades down for Houston's three first round picks at 12, 16, and 18.  He packages the 12 with the 24 to move up and take either Andre Drummond or Austin Rivers.  With 16 and 18 he takes Terrence Jones and Jared Sullinger.

So with that model Cleveland's starting 5 is:

Kyrie
Miles
Terrence Jones
Varejao
Drummond

with sullinger, Bynum, Jack and Gee off the bench.

Instead of 5-12 right now that might make them 8-9, and they're probably in a similar hole to where they are now.

Having Kyrie and Drummond to build around moving forward is a position that the majority of teams in the league would envy.

[D.o.s.]

You are moving goal posts if you seriously think that means that the Boston media market doesn't qualify as "large".   

And, of course, your original assertion was that it was "tiny".

Own it. 

Why is it so hard to admit that you just mis-stated something?

Talk about moving the goal posts--I said that "Boston's relatively tiny media market" was one possible reason why a free agent might be disinclined to come play for the Celtics.

That, I will own.

I also brought up the weather as a possible reason, but in your picking of nits you seem to have washed over that one.

No differently than saying "most teams that draft championship winning players don't stay with that team."
 

That statement makes absolutely no literal no sense and I don't recall anyone saying that.  Typo?  Or red herring?

That's a typo--I meant to say that the "most championship-winning players don't stay with the team that drafted them"  'factoid' is bandied about quite a bit as gospel around here, when it's entirely beholden to the past with no regard to the future. If that's  a fair game statement, there's no reason why "Boston hasn't been a big player in free agency" isn't either.

Again, though, you aren't really offering anything here to support your assertion

Neither are you. You think that the repeater tax is the most important thing that came out of the new CBA. I think that retention rights are. In this case, I think we're both arguing different sides of the same coin, since the new CBA was clearly designed to make it harder for teams to collect stars by making it easier for teams to keep the ones they've drafted.

[aingeforthree]

I still think making the playoffs is bad for this team going forward.  Of the current roster, who will we bring back next year?  Of the players we bring back, how many already have playoff experience? Probably all but one?  This is the year to be bad and draft a superstar and then come back next year looking to build and make the playoffs.  A draft class like this comes once every decade.  I am proud to see we are winning but we are going to regret this come draft time.

You could easily bring back 10 or 11 of the current roster next year.  Why tank ?

Ainge can find value in a draft like this with 2 opportunities, or he can trade for a Vet if needed.

[Boston Garden Leprechaun]

Say ainge is in Cleveland's position, has the perfect draft every time (which no GM does) and he picks Harrison Barnes instead of waiters, (Lillard isnt realistic with Kyrie there already) and Vucevic instead of Thompson. I still think Cleveland are a pretty average outfit. As for Bennett and this year's draft, noone really jumps out at me as a top-line NBA player.

Ainge trades down for Houston's three first round picks at 12, 16, and 18.  He packages the 12 with the 24 to move up and take either Andre Drummond or Austin Rivers.  With 16 and 18 he takes Terrence Jones and Jared Sullinger.

So with that model Cleveland's starting 5 is:

Kyrie
Miles
Terrence Jones
Varejao
Drummond

with sullinger, Bynum, Jack and Gee off the bench.

Instead of 5-12 right now that might make them 8-9, and they're probably in a similar hole to where they are now.

Having Kyrie and Drummond to build around moving forward is a position that the majority of teams in the league would envy.

yep. I laughed when i read that post also.

[Boston Garden Leprechaun]

1) What exactly is a "historic lack of free agency draw" and why does that have anything to do with why Boston can't be that other team.  Seriously, your words here don't convey anything tangible.  Are you saying that there is some historical (compelling) evidence that free agents _don't_ want to come to Boston?  Do you have numbers?  The fact is, the Celtics have been over the salary cap for ages and have not really played much in the free agent market so I don't believe there is any evidence to really support that.  The fact that the Patriots, Bruins & Red Sox have signed a ton of big name free agents during that span suggests that Boston does not emit some innate 'free agent repellent'.

Boston refers to the Celtics. Not the city. "Historic lack of free agency draw" is exactly what it reads as: our absence of marquee free agents for almost the entire existence of the franchise. Historically, we haven't been a franchise that has gone out of the way to prostrate ourselves at the altar of free agency, and I don't see that as very likely to change.

In other words, you are just repeating mythology?

2) Yes, the owners got a few tighter controls on player movement, but nothing fundamental other than top-end salary control in the form of the repeater tax.  It remains to be seen whether that will truly hinder player movement.  If anything, some teams will be forced to trade players in order to avoid it so it may _cause_ movement as much as it inhibits it.

If you really think that there's no meaningful difference in the way, say, sign and trades are handled, or how many advantages the "home team" gets when negotiating contracts with players between this CBA and the old one, I don't know what else to tell you, other than "look again."

This sounds more like you just "don't know what to tell me".   I am very much aware of all those changes to the CBA but it remains that the most fundamental change is the size of the repeater tax and the ultimate influence of that remains to be seen.  It will play out, as I pointed out, in both directions.   A home team may have more retention rights, but the financial impact of the repeater tax will ultimately end up in opposition to aggregating and retaining large contracts - which will basically work at odds to the 'home team advantage'.   Players will still move under the new CBA.

3) Since when is Boston a 'relatively tiny media market'?   Boston is ranked as the 7th largest TV media market (http://www.stationindex.com/tv/tv-markets).  Forbes ranks the Celtics as the 4th most valuable NBA team with estimated revenue of over $140M (http://www.forbes.com/nba-valuations/).  That's just a bizarre characterization of Boston.     Further, the "high income tax" thing is blown WAY out of proportion because local income tax differences only apply to home games since athletes pay tax in each state they play in.   

Boston isn't a big media market. We're far from an Oklahoma City, but we've got absolutely nothing on LA or New York or Chicago. The television and media industry opportunities that you're going to get playing in one of those cities far outstrips anything you'll see as a Celtic. NBA players parlay endorsement opportunities by being on a winning team and/or by being in a large market. Chris Paul wasn't the State Farm guy until he touched down in Los Angeles. This might sound blasphemous, but many athletes enjoy being famous, and New York/LA famous is leagues away from New England famous.

So, basically, because you say "Boston isn't a big media market", that makes it so?  (Funny, up above, you said it was "tiny"?)  The 7th largest television market in the country is not big, because you say it isn't.   Ok.

If you had said that Boston wasn't "the biggest", you might have been more convincing.

I guess Peyton Manning gets to do all those TV commercials because he played in the giant media markets of ... Indianapolis and Denver?   Poor Tom Brady, if only he didn't play in the remote, tiny, backward wilderness that is Boston, he'd be doing more commercials!

Is your contention that free agents will only want to play in NY, LA or Chicago?

I guess we'll have to rely on trades.

Can you please provide links to this mythology you speak of? Where has the Boston Celtics drew big time free agents on a regular basis? No, I am not asking for anything on the patriots, bruins, or red sox. This discussion is concerning the CELTICS.

[djbilly33]

So to clear this all up, everyone would rather make the playoffs and get knocked out in the first round instead of possibly getting into the lottery and drafting a top 5 player from college with the chance he could be a superstar?  I would take my chances on the draft then gaining experience.