Boston legitimately 4th seed

[BballTim]

The Eastern Conference legitimately bad.

The Celtics are still playing at a 37 win pace.  In a normal season that would put them in the 8-10 range.

  I think it's hard to argue that our play isn't improving as the season progresses. The start to the season weighs pretty heavily on our win pace.

[BballTim]

Boy the Celtics success must be legitimately killing you guys.

Sullinger was a #21 pick and is turning into a stud.

Rondo was a #21 pick and is a 4 time All Star, multiple time All-Defense and multiple time assists per game leading player.

Bradley was a #19 pick and has already been an All Defense team member and is becoming one heck of a shooter.

Yet you're lamenting these same players doing well so that the C's can get a top pick yet can't see the forest through the trees and see that you can get difference making All Star type players in the draft exactly where the C's are projected to be drafting.

This just illustrates what a master GM Danny Ainge is.  I'm not all that concerned.  I think we can cash in some assets now and become a solid middling playoff team for the foreseeable future.  One of those also-ran teams that nobody cares about.  Nuggets East.

Glad your outlook has become so rosy. Me, I see greatness for this team due to the players they have now, players that will be added in future drafts and their ability to develop those players into stars.

I also see Brooklyn absolutely sucking in a few years and the C's cashing in on a lottery superstar then that they will add to a playoff team with a young core of stars.

You see greatness... Do you see anyone on this team capable of being the #1 player on a champion?  Who do you envision as being our franchise player?  Sully?

Who knows?  If someone looked at the Pacers 3 years ago claiming to see greatness another person likely would have mocked them saying, "Who do you envision as being our franchise player?  Paul George?  Hibbert?"  To which any reader likely would have laughed.

No they wouldn't have.   Not Pacer fans at least.  I went to their board 3 years ago when the "Paul Pierce for Granger or Paul George" rumors started floating around... Pacer fans were absolutely ADAMANT that Paul George was a "phenom" and future superstar.  Adamant.  They laughed that the ridiculous trade offer and scoffed at the idea they'd trade their future franchise superstar for an old player like Pierce.  They were far more open to moving Granger.

So I'm asking you... who on this team do you envision as being the top dog on an eventual champion?   Olynyk?  You can't be serious.    Sully?... I'm impressed with him too, but... really?    Bradley?  No way.

But you're the one who sees greatness.   Who do you see as being potentially great?

  You tend to ridicule Celts fans that are high on young players. I doubt that some fans being high on George at that time is that different.

[BballTim]

You are correct that Boston is tied for Detroit for the 4th best record in the East, but Boston is still on pace for a whopping 37 wins and is 6 games from the worst record in the conference and 9 games from the best record.  In other words, not much has to happen for Boston to be solidly in the lottery.  Also, Brooklyn has won 4 of 5 and looks like a vastly different team now that they are getting healthy.  I would be surprised if Boston is still leading the Atlantic 10 games from now.

  In the long run, I don't think that 1st in the atlanic is our only ticket to the playoffs. Right now we're 3-5 against .500 or better teams, the Hawks are 2-6 and the 4 teams below us are a combined 4-36. It's not like those are quality teams that aren't likely to drop faster than we would.

[PhoSita]

The Eastern Conference legitimately bad.

The Celtics are still playing at a 37 win pace.  In a normal season that would put them in the 8-10 range.

  I think it's hard to argue that our play isn't improving as the season progresses. The start to the season weighs pretty heavily on our win pace.

The play has definitely improved a lot.  Sullinger has surprised me, Crawford looks like a legit player (another surprise), and Stevens is doing a marvelous job.

My opinion about the team has been proven wrong and forced to change -- heading into the season, I thought this team was going to be pretty awful and not competitive with most opponents.

All of that said, I still think it's an overall mediocre squad.  Good enough to have a chance to win against middle of the road opponents (like the Wolves and Hawks) on any given night, but still a few levels below the elite teams in the league.

The good news is that there is young talent there.  Olynyk looks like he'll be a nice role player eventually.  Sullinger is a young emerging star.  And we still have Rondo, who will hopefully come back from injury as good as ever. 

A lot of the players helping the team win at the moment, though, are middle-class players currently making (or soon to be making) middle-class money by NBA standards.  I'm talking about Green, Bass, Bradley, Lee, and perhaps Crawford (playing himself into a mini-MLE contract this summer). 

That puts a little bit of a damper on things, because it means the room for improvement with this particular group is probably not as much as you might hope considering the age of the team.  I still think the team will have to take some steps back before it takes more than a couple steps forward. 

Put another way, there are definitely some nice pieces here, but there's still some significant deck clearing / consolidation that needs to be done.  Yes, DA has all of those 1st round picks lined up to add to the roster, but those guys are going to need spots in the rotation and time to develop if we want them to become good players.

[BballTim]

Why are so many people hating on being a "middling team"?

I just don't get it. I want someone to find me the stats on the teams who won the championship that weren't "middling"... it seems to me that you don't go from bad(constantly missing playoffs) to great (champ), you go from good (playoffs/contender) to great (champ)!

There's nothing wrong with being "middling" if you have a clear idea of how you're going to climb higher than that.

My issue is with the idea that it's acceptable to just be a 3rd or 4th seed every year and maybe win a game or two against the Heat or Pacers in the second round.  I am not in favor of the team investing any of its resources for a "quick fix" that will just ensure they win 45ish games for a few years.


Trading for Asik and spending money to hold onto Bradley and Crawford after this season could ensure that this team is reasonably competitive for the next couple of years, with Rondo, Green, Sullinger, Bradley, Asik, and a handful of familiar role players off the bench.  That would be a nice feel-good underdog that could maybe peak with 50 wins or so.  But that team would be pretty much topped out money-wise, and there wouldn't be any lottery picks coming to give a major talent infusion.  That's called being stuck in neutral.


But if you're content to just have a team that's reasonably entertaining every night and can play a series or two in the playoffs each April, then that's a sound plan.

  If you assume that Rondo returns to full health and that Sully stays healthy, a Asik/Sully/Green/Bradley/Rondo lineup would be a good team, probably a 2nd round team that might make the conference finals on occasion. I think we've discussed this before. Nobody wants a team that tops out at that level, but if you could add, for instance, a star wing player or a star big without sacrificing much then you'd be IMO at least a dark horse contender. You could talk about how it's unlikely to *get* that other player, but one player away is closer than most scenarios get us.

[PhoSita]

Why are so many people hating on being a "middling team"?

I just don't get it. I want someone to find me the stats on the teams who won the championship that weren't "middling"... it seems to me that you don't go from bad(constantly missing playoffs) to great (champ), you go from good (playoffs/contender) to great (champ)!

There's nothing wrong with being "middling" if you have a clear idea of how you're going to climb higher than that.

My issue is with the idea that it's acceptable to just be a 3rd or 4th seed every year and maybe win a game or two against the Heat or Pacers in the second round.  I am not in favor of the team investing any of its resources for a "quick fix" that will just ensure they win 45ish games for a few years.


Trading for Asik and spending money to hold onto Bradley and Crawford after this season could ensure that this team is reasonably competitive for the next couple of years, with Rondo, Green, Sullinger, Bradley, Asik, and a handful of familiar role players off the bench.  That would be a nice feel-good underdog that could maybe peak with 50 wins or so.  But that team would be pretty much topped out money-wise, and there wouldn't be any lottery picks coming to give a major talent infusion.  That's called being stuck in neutral.


But if you're content to just have a team that's reasonably entertaining every night and can play a series or two in the playoffs each April, then that's a sound plan.

  If you assume that Rondo returns to full health and that Sully stays healthy, a Asik/Sully/Green/Bradley/Rondo lineup would be a good team, probably a 2nd round team that might make the conference finals on occasion. I think we've discussed this before. Nobody wants a team that tops out at that level, but if you could add, for instance, a star wing player or a star big without sacrificing much then you'd be IMO at least a dark horse contender. You could talk about how it's unlikely to *get* that other player, but one player away is closer than most scenarios get us.

That team would be kinda fun, but I don't think the majority of guys in that lineup are versatile enough for that team to really break into the upper echelon.  You'd need to swap out Asik for a guy like Joakim Noah or Marc Gasol, which is obviously a lot harder to do.

You're right that being "one player away" is not such a bad thing, but you could pretty easily argue that the Hawks of the last handful of years are an example of a team that was "one player away" but that gap ended up being too much, and they've had to clear away a lot of those pieces and rebuild around Horford.

I'd rather resist the urge to make a "quick fix" and stick with cheaper, younger players until we've got 3-4 really good players as the nucleus.  The good news is, we might already be halfway there with Rondo and Sullinger.

Maybe we'll get lucky and Olynyk or one of the two draft picks this summer will turn pretty quickly into one of those players.  Or maybe Ainge will turn some of our excess pieces and a future pick into a player who can be that -- e.g. Greg Monroe.  But I don't think that there's any rush.

[Moranis]

You are correct that Boston is tied for Detroit for the 4th best record in the East, but Boston is still on pace for a whopping 37 wins and is 6 games from the worst record in the conference and 9 games from the best record.  In other words, not much has to happen for Boston to be solidly in the lottery.  Also, Brooklyn has won 4 of 5 and looks like a vastly different team now that they are getting healthy.  I would be surprised if Boston is still leading the Atlantic 10 games from now.

  In the long run, I don't think that 1st in the atlanic is our only ticket to the playoffs. Right now we're 3-5 against .500 or better teams, the Hawks are 2-6 and the 4 teams below us are a combined 4-36. It's not like those are quality teams that aren't likely to drop faster than we would.

I don't disagree, I would just surprised if Boston wins the Atlantic.  I wouldn't be overly surprised if Boston backs its way into the playoffs as a 37ish win team facing Indiana or Miami in the first round, which to me would be a disappointment.  If you don't have any real shot at competing then I don't see the point in that. 

[Fafnir]

You are correct that Boston is tied for Detroit for the 4th best record in the East, but Boston is still on pace for a whopping 37 wins and is 6 games from the worst record in the conference and 9 games from the best record.  In other words, not much has to happen for Boston to be solidly in the lottery.  Also, Brooklyn has won 4 of 5 and looks like a vastly different team now that they are getting healthy.  I would be surprised if Boston is still leading the Atlantic 10 games from now.

  In the long run, I don't think that 1st in the atlanic is our only ticket to the playoffs. Right now we're 3-5 against .500 or better teams, the Hawks are 2-6 and the 4 teams below us are a combined 4-36. It's not like those are quality teams that aren't likely to drop faster than we would.

I don't disagree, I would just surprised if Boston wins the Atlantic.  I wouldn't be overly surprised if Boston backs its way into the playoffs as a 37ish win team facing Indiana or Miami in the first round, which to me would be a disappointment.  If you don't have any real shot at competing then I don't see the point in that.

I still think Ainge will be trying very hard to find buyers for vets to prevent that.

[LooseCannon]

You are correct that Boston is tied for Detroit for the 4th best record in the East, but Boston is still on pace for a whopping 37 wins and is 6 games from the worst record in the conference and 9 games from the best record.  In other words, not much has to happen for Boston to be solidly in the lottery.  Also, Brooklyn has won 4 of 5 and looks like a vastly different team now that they are getting healthy.  I would be surprised if Boston is still leading the Atlantic 10 games from now.

  In the long run, I don't think that 1st in the atlanic is our only ticket to the playoffs. Right now we're 3-5 against .500 or better teams, the Hawks are 2-6 and the 4 teams below us are a combined 4-36. It's not like those are quality teams that aren't likely to drop faster than we would.

I don't disagree, I would just surprised if Boston wins the Atlantic.  I wouldn't be overly surprised if Boston backs its way into the playoffs as a 37ish win team facing Indiana or Miami in the first round, which to me would be a disappointment.  If you don't have any real shot at competing then I don't see the point in that.

Unless they add a ton of talent through free agency, teams that become contenders usually pass through a stage where they are a first-round exit.

The problem with being a non-contending playoff team is if that is the limit of your talent.  The Celtics are young enough and have a lot of draft picks so that they would not be that sort of team.

The Houston Rockets were the eighth seed and a first-round exit last season.  They were not a legitimate contender.  Does that mean that they shouldn't have brought in the players that they did?

[quidinqui33]

What if I told you that this team that is on pace to win 37 games could make a trade tonight for a 4 time all-star point guard in his prime, who has led the league in assists, and has made the all defensive team, and was the starting point guard for a championship team, and they had to give up nothing.

The fact of the matter is that this team is about to add Rondo to the mix, Sully and Bradley have progressed quicker than we expected, Green is what we though he was (which is consistently solid: Gorman had a great stat last night, he averages right around 4.3 points a quarter), and crawford has been a revelation. And Stevens is the perfect coach for all of this.

For those on tank wagon, I jumped off a while ago, and I do think the Celts need to go after Asik.  My ideal scenatrio would be Hump (expiring contract) plus clippers pick.  I actually think this trade would help both teams for what they are trying to accomplish this year, but understand we may have to give up bass or lee instead.

You have starting line up of:
PG: Rondo (Your Alpha Dog),
SG: Bradley (Your Hustle Guy)
SF: Green (Your third Man)
PF: Sully (your Beta Dog/low post threat)
C: Asik (Your Defensive Anchor)

With a bench that at a minimum would have some combo of: Crawford, Wallace, Olynyk, Bass, Lee, etc. (depending on who goes in the Houston trade).

That starting five is a solid young core that you could ride for a few years while Danny works his magic with all the picks we have, and I agree, brooklyn's future picks are going to be better than planned.

Worst case, it doesn't work out and you are "middling" at best, but then you have assets, assets, and more assets.  Asik is a legit 7 footer, there will always be a market for him. 

I love where this team is at, and I love the options we have, and yes, I think we need to be buyers for big man who might be available for 75 cents to the dollar. And yes, I want to make the playoffs and yes, I think that is the best thing for this team because of the assets Danny already has accrued.  Good times.

[BballTim]

You are correct that Boston is tied for Detroit for the 4th best record in the East, but Boston is still on pace for a whopping 37 wins and is 6 games from the worst record in the conference and 9 games from the best record.  In other words, not much has to happen for Boston to be solidly in the lottery.  Also, Brooklyn has won 4 of 5 and looks like a vastly different team now that they are getting healthy.  I would be surprised if Boston is still leading the Atlantic 10 games from now.

  In the long run, I don't think that 1st in the atlanic is our only ticket to the playoffs. Right now we're 3-5 against .500 or better teams, the Hawks are 2-6 and the 4 teams below us are a combined 4-36. It's not like those are quality teams that aren't likely to drop faster than we would.

I don't disagree, I would just surprised if Boston wins the Atlantic.  I wouldn't be overly surprised if Boston backs its way into the playoffs as a 37ish win team facing Indiana or Miami in the first round, which to me would be a disappointment.  If you don't have any real shot at competing then I don't see the point in that.

  You don't see the point to that, and many posters would agree with you. Most nba teams disagree with the "be really good or else be really bad" philosophy though.

[djbilly33]

I'm sorry but Asik isn't all that and by no means is he worth trading for except Wallace, Bogans or Humphries.  Hes a career back up, goofy, white skinny center.

[djbilly33]

Why are so many people hating on being a "middling team"?

I just don't get it. I want someone to find me the stats on the teams who won the championship that weren't "middling"... it seems to me that you don't go from bad(constantly missing playoffs) to great (champ), you go from good (playoffs/contender) to great (champ)!

Last I checked the 2008 Celtics went from worst to first.  Middling is not where we want to be.

[obnoxiousmime]

Why are so many people hating on being a "middling team"?

I just don't get it. I want someone to find me the stats on the teams who won the championship that weren't "middling"... it seems to me that you don't go from bad(constantly missing playoffs) to great (champ), you go from good (playoffs/contender) to great (champ)!

There's nothing wrong with being "middling" if you have a clear idea of how you're going to climb higher than that.

My issue is with the idea that it's acceptable to just be a 3rd or 4th seed every year and maybe win a game or two against the Heat or Pacers in the second round.  I am not in favor of the team investing any of its resources for a "quick fix" that will just ensure they win 45ish games for a few years.


Trading for Asik and spending money to hold onto Bradley and Crawford after this season could ensure that this team is reasonably competitive for the next couple of years, with Rondo, Green, Sullinger, Bradley, Asik, and a handful of familiar role players off the bench.  That would be a nice feel-good underdog that could maybe peak with 50 wins or so.  But that team would be pretty much topped out money-wise, and there wouldn't be any lottery picks coming to give a major talent infusion.  That's called being stuck in neutral.


But if you're content to just have a team that's reasonably entertaining every night and can play a series or two in the playoffs each April, then that's a sound plan.

Your plan sounds even more sound than that. Let's get rid of everyone, get a bunch of picks, and what be the same Celtics for 20 years before KG, PP, and Ray. Sounds great.

I not once said anything about wanting to keep all of these players, we can keep the key players and build off the others and the many picks we already have. Just b/c I don't agree with the tanking strategy doesn't mean I want the team bounced in the 2nd round every season, that'd be stupid. I don't agree with tanking and unlike like some people, I know there are multiple ways to build a champion.

Again I ask, how many teams go from what some call "middling" to champion and how many go from constantly missing the playoffs (hoping to land LeBron) to champion? I don't know of any teams from scrub missing the playoffs to turn around and be a champ the next season or even 2. I'm thinking back to recent champs... Heat were making the playoffs with Wade even though they still stunk but theirs is a different tale, how often are you going to get 3 of the best players in the game willing to take the deals they did? Mavs, they were constantly winning a lot of games and making the playoffs. Spurs have been good and "middling" all the seasons they didn't win. Lakers didn't win out of nowhere. I dunno, my memory isn't that good but those teams went seasons just making the playoffs until they built themselves into champs, they were contenders or "middling" until they won it.

The Celtics were 24-58 in 07 and 66-16 in 08, winning the title. They didn't win the lottery but their record was bad enough for them to receive the fifth overall pick, which was then used as the main piece in the Ray Allen trade, which was then used to convince Garnett to approve coming here.

Of course the current situation is not exactly the same, but the point is you can turn it around quickly if you have enough assets. Even though we have a lot of picks to trade, we don't have a Pierce-level talent already on the roster. That's why my strategy would still be to hold out until such a star is available, then make sure after that you still have enough to make one more deal.

The draft is a great way to get a big asset, whether you decide to keep him or trade him for someone established. Even if it's unlikely every hyped guy in this year's draft will pan out, the point is they still have high perceived value across the league.

Let's say a GM has to deal his superstar away next summer. Despite how well Sullinger's playing and the fact that he should have been picked 4-7 overall last year, it would still be a tough sell for that GM to convince his fans and owner to make a deal where Sullinger is the main piece. Neither do a collection of late teen/twenties picks (as we stand now) get the job done. We have the pieces to get a guy like Asik, sure! But what about when Love becomes available? Durant?

Not to mention Wallace's deal is taking up a big spot that we would need to fit a superstar contract. Waiting for it to become an expiring is wiser than losing assets trying to dump it on someone right now.

[kozlodoev]

Why are so many people hating on being a "middling team"?

I just don't get it. I want someone to find me the stats on the teams who won the championship that weren't "middling"... it seems to me that you don't go from bad(constantly missing playoffs) to great (champ), you go from good (playoffs/contender) to great (champ)!

Last I checked the 2008 Celtics went from worst to first.  Middling is not where we want to be.

Yeah, and we were mediocre to average for many years before that.

Also, being "worst" didn't help us all that much -- we had the 5th pick in a draft that was not particularly deep, and  caught lightning in a bottle when two teams were interested in unloading their stars at the same time.