Just doesn't add up that Rondo is coming back now

[guava_wrench]

Chris i think you care about Rondo more than anything. But Rondo is not Michael Jordan. He alone cannot help us get to the promise land. I don't care what he did in the past in  the playoffs, without some more help, no way he can do it.

I'm looking fwd to somehow make Rondo + 2014-2015 draft work. But Danny has to step in.  For Rondo to get his feet wet to prepare for next year imo is a little silly. So either he is coming back in hopes to get traded or the team is looking to win and get into the playoffs. Brad Stevens has not stopped pressing on the gas pedal and will do everything possible to win games. 

But this all equals for us to possibly fail in the 2014 draft and get nowhere in the short term/long term

You talk like there are 2 options:

1) don't play rondo to get better lottery chances
2) play rondo to make playoffs.

That is wrong. There are not the only 2 options, so stop insisting on this false dichotomy every time someone responds to you.

Danny needs to maximize assets for the future and he needs to field a roster for this season. Out best current asset is Rondo, so he needs to maximize that asset. Ainge would be an idiot if he purged all assets for the number 1 pick, because no single player gets you a championship and the expected return would be very low for such a move.

GMs can't think as black and white as what you are putting forth. They need to consider expected return. As people point out, having the worst record doesn't guarantee the top pick, but it greatly increases the chances of a top pick. Rondo also has great value as an all star player and he is already on our roster. Danny is trying to maximize his expected return for a few years down the road. This means developing players on the roster (thus no PT for Bogans) and accumulating future assets.

If a GM chooses to use a singular approach to maximizing assets -- only going for the top pick, the expected return will be less -- like how the area of a 9 x 1 rectangle is less than the area of a 5 x 5 square, even though 9+1 = 5+5. Having a fire sale and disenfranchising players with actual value (unlike Bogans) would be stupid moves unless you have culture problems on the team that forces you to ship guys out. Desperation also doesn't help you get value.

It is also pointless to say "Rondo won't get us to the promised land". It takes a team to get you there. Pierce couldn't get us there. KG couldn't get Minny there. No one player gets anyone there. It take multiple parts to get there. Remember Lebron in Cleveland? Rondo is one of the more valuable parts in the league. To waste that because he's not Jordan is asinine. Durant isn't Jordan, but he is pretty valuable. Unless you are saying we shouldn't pursue any players except Jordan, skip the Jordan references. Comparing players with Jordan is an exercise for the media, not for people managing teams.

I don't get it. What else do you need to assess?? you don't need Rondo to do that.

Without Rondo the picture is alot more clearer in terms of what these players bring to the table.  It is also not rocket science with the current team and Rondo we are not going to win a championship.

I do agree on one pt of my black and white scenerios. I'm hoping actually Rondo is back, some type of fire is stirred up, see what you can get back etc. but then if nothing is there, just to sit him out for the rest of the year. 

I just don't understand what it is you want out of Rondo coming back. You want him to play well but for the team to lose? you want him to play well and the team to play well and get into the playoffs (though we won't get nowhere).

You are giving me the process part, but the plan to win another ring is not explained

The answers to your questions are already in the post. You just choose not to engage them but instead reframe the issue very narrowly (play to lose, play to make playoffs). Teams play games because this is a business and they have an obligation to play the games. Players play because they have contracts and careers to build.

No matter what we do, the odds are against us winning any time soon. Milwaukee has a worse record than us, yet their odds of winning anything are probably even lower than ours. There are so many factors involved.

You seem to be saying that either we have to dedicate ourselves to winning a lot this season, or we have to do whatever is necessary to lose a lot. That is a very myopic view. If the league fined San Antonio for not caring about 1 single game when they decided to not play Duncan, Parker and Manu last season, we clearly can't decide to sit a healthy Rondo for the sake of losing. So people should stop repeating ideas about us shelving him so that we can lose more. It is not an option. If he tweaks his knee, yes, we could see him sit for precautionary reasons. If he sprains his ankle, perhaps they sit him to avoid injuries from compensating. Without a need to win nightly, I suspect we will not let him play through injuries much. But he will play otherwise.

What is an option is trading guys for picks or for shorter contracts. Without matching value, there is also no reason to move Rondo since an asset that you have is worth a lot more the chance at an equal valued potential asset. Even without Rondo, we are 3 games out of the playoffs. In other words, even with Rondo not playing, we might not have good odds at the top pick. What we can in fact count on is Rondo's value increasing as he plays and management seeing if our other parts are compatible with Rondo. If, for example, Green starts playing 50% better with Rondo, then maybe we take a big in the lottery instead of a wing.

One thing for sure -- if Danny is interested in fielding offers for Rondo, he needs to improve the offers he is receiving by showing Rondo is back to form on the court. Even if Danny would like to keep Rondo, he would bit on a good enough deal from a team driven to acquire Rondo.

[mmmmm]

Chris i think you care about Rondo more than anything. But Rondo is not Michael Jordan. He alone cannot help us get to the promise land. I don't care what he did in the past in  the playoffs, without some more help, no way he can do it.

I'm looking fwd to somehow make Rondo + 2014-2015 draft work. But Danny has to step in.  For Rondo to get his feet wet to prepare for next year imo is a little silly. So either he is coming back in hopes to get traded or the team is looking to win and get into the playoffs. Brad Stevens has not stopped pressing on the gas pedal and will do everything possible to win games. 

But this all equals for us to possibly fail in the 2014 draft and get nowhere in the short term/long term

You talk like there are 2 options:

1) don't play rondo to get better lottery chances
2) play rondo to make playoffs.

That is wrong. There are not the only 2 options, so stop insisting on this false dichotomy every time someone responds to you.

Danny needs to maximize assets for the future and he needs to field a roster for this season. Out best current asset is Rondo, so he needs to maximize that asset. Ainge would be an idiot if he purged all assets for the number 1 pick, because no single player gets you a championship and the expected return would be very low for such a move.

GMs can't think as black and white as what you are putting forth. They need to consider expected return. As people point out, having the worst record doesn't guarantee the top pick, but it greatly increases the chances of a top pick. Rondo also has great value as an all star player and he is already on our roster. Danny is trying to maximize his expected return for a few years down the road. This means developing players on the roster (thus no PT for Bogans) and accumulating future assets.

If a GM chooses to use a singular approach to maximizing assets -- only going for the top pick, the expected return will be less -- like how the area of a 9 x 1 rectangle is less than the area of a 5 x 5 square, even though 9+1 = 5+5. Having a fire sale and disenfranchising players with actual value (unlike Bogans) would be stupid moves unless you have culture problems on the team that forces you to ship guys out. Desperation also doesn't help you get value.

It is also pointless to say "Rondo won't get us to the promised land". It takes a team to get you there. Pierce couldn't get us there. KG couldn't get Minny there. No one player gets anyone there. It take multiple parts to get there. Remember Lebron in Cleveland? Rondo is one of the more valuable parts in the league. To waste that because he's not Jordan is asinine. Durant isn't Jordan, but he is pretty valuable. Unless you are saying we shouldn't pursue any players except Jordan, skip the Jordan references. Comparing players with Jordan is an exercise for the media, not for people managing teams.

I don't get it. What else do you need to assess?? you don't need Rondo to do that.

Without Rondo the picture is alot more clearer in terms of what these players bring to the table.  It is also not rocket science with the current team and Rondo we are not going to win a championship.

I do agree on one pt of my black and white scenerios. I'm hoping actually Rondo is back, some type of fire is stirred up, see what you can get back etc. but then if nothing is there, just to sit him out for the rest of the year. 

I just don't understand what it is you want out of Rondo coming back. You want him to play well but for the team to lose? you want him to play well and the team to play well and get into the playoffs (though we won't get nowhere).

You are giving me the process part, but the plan to win another ring is not explained

You can't just put a professional athlete on a shelf.  As mentioned above, CP3 took a whole year after his layoff to get his game back up to speed.  Jeff Green took half a season before.  You can't just park a player in the garage and then pull them out and expect them to start up and go.  These are human beings with a clock ticking.     And a contract that is going to run out.

Rondo is a paid professional entertainer.   The Celtics are an entertainment business that is paying him millions of dollars to help sell tickets and draw TV/radio ratings.   If he's healthy, there is no reason to NOT put him to work earning money.

Stop thinking like an internet fan who doesn't pay for tickets and only cares about bragging rights for titles.   It doesn't hurt an internet fan when the team loses games and ticket sales, merchandise sales and media revenues.    It doesn't p--- an internet fan off that a star player was sitting on the bench despite being healthy and able to play in front of the ticket-buying fans who payed out real dollars to see the game.

The draft position and player development will take care of itself.    If we don't lose enough games to get great lottery odds, then that means the players on roster will have performed better and will have more trade value.   No player from the 2014 draft is going to instantly propel us to a title.     Even if we drafted him ourselves, it would take several years before the team (and the player) was strong enough to contend (especially if the team is gutted to make it a lock for a top-5 pick).   It's more likely that Danny's plan is to just continue to try to make the team stronger and trade for that star player after he's been in the NBA a few years when someone inevitably becomes too expensive for some small-market team to keep.   Either plan will take a similar amount of time and the latter arguably could take less.

Because the fact is, most top-5 draft talent that has won a title has won it on a different team than they were drafted on.

My advice is to stop worrying about draft position.

[guava_wrench]

I think you could safely say that none of the teams currently in the mix for a Top 5 pick would trade that Top 5 pick for Rondo.

As Mark Cuban likes to say, picks are overvalued in the NBA.

I the Knicks could choose between getting Rondo, or getting Milwaukee's unprotected first rounder this season, they very well could take Rondo.

this upcoming years draft is different. its been said thousand times over

Yeah, but you are missing Cuban's point. People are overvaluing picks. You might be in the lottery, but end up with a 9th pick. That won't be worth much, even this year. And Cuban's main point is that teams regularly give up more valuable assets to get picks.

It is easy to get caught up in the best possible case without properly understanding the average case or the most likely case. If you want to remain a GM and have extended success, you need to have a more sophisticated analysis than "we need a chance at drafting a superstar". The chances of getting a bad result in the lottery, getting a bust, or preparing a Lebron to win a title elsewhere end up much higher than the odds of get a Duncan who leads you to a title.

[winsomme]

But how does he make that decision? I don't think it is just a matter of seeing how things play out. I don't think that is Danny's style. He is IMO an equation changer, so I'm kinda expecting that here given what is possible for the franchise.

We must be seeing two different Ainge's, because I think it is entirely his style to wait and see and avoid committing himself until it is absolutely necessary.  He held off on breaking up the team as long as he could and I am convinced that if Rondo was projected to be 100% before the season started, that Ainge would have explored adding someone like Paul Millsap instead of trading Garnett and Pierce.

But that point is right when the radical shift came. I mean we were here still debating "one more year" while Danny said "Doc is coming back" and then the sky fell and they all were gone....

I don't know what the heck he is gonna do, but I do think anything successful will be a ridiculously difficult feat....because right now we IMO don't have the assets to get us back to contender any time soon...

  I still don't see a reasonable argument that we don't have better assets now than we did in 2007.

Well it totally depends on our 2014 pick. If we land a top 5 pick, then I would argue we have MORE assets...but if that pick is 15, then I would argue we have less. That is a huge chip that tilts the scales.

I know some view Sully as valuable as Big Al was, but I don't see that. He's getting the stat lines, but his lack of athleticism is a drawback. He's still IMO more valuable to the Cs than he is to other teams.

[guava_wrench]

One thing to keep in mind about Rondo tonight -- this is his first time playing where he is clearly the best and most accomplished player on the team. There is no HOF caliber player on the team. There is not even a teammate close to all-star caliber at their present level. This is a completely new situation for Rondo and it will be interesting to see how it plays out as he gets his game back.

[Tr1boy]

Chris i think you care about Rondo more than anything. But Rondo is not Michael Jordan. He alone cannot help us get to the promise land. I don't care what he did in the past in  the playoffs, without some more help, no way he can do it.

I'm looking fwd to somehow make Rondo + 2014-2015 draft work. But Danny has to step in.  For Rondo to get his feet wet to prepare for next year imo is a little silly. So either he is coming back in hopes to get traded or the team is looking to win and get into the playoffs. Brad Stevens has not stopped pressing on the gas pedal and will do everything possible to win games. 

But this all equals for us to possibly fail in the 2014 draft and get nowhere in the short term/long term

You talk like there are 2 options:

1) don't play rondo to get better lottery chances
2) play rondo to make playoffs.

That is wrong. There are not the only 2 options, so stop insisting on this false dichotomy every time someone responds to you.

Danny needs to maximize assets for the future and he needs to field a roster for this season. Out best current asset is Rondo, so he needs to maximize that asset. Ainge would be an idiot if he purged all assets for the number 1 pick, because no single player gets you a championship and the expected return would be very low for such a move.

GMs can't think as black and white as what you are putting forth. They need to consider expected return. As people point out, having the worst record doesn't guarantee the top pick, but it greatly increases the chances of a top pick. Rondo also has great value as an all star player and he is already on our roster. Danny is trying to maximize his expected return for a few years down the road. This means developing players on the roster (thus no PT for Bogans) and accumulating future assets.

If a GM chooses to use a singular approach to maximizing assets -- only going for the top pick, the expected return will be less -- like how the area of a 9 x 1 rectangle is less than the area of a 5 x 5 square, even though 9+1 = 5+5. Having a fire sale and disenfranchising players with actual value (unlike Bogans) would be stupid moves unless you have culture problems on the team that forces you to ship guys out. Desperation also doesn't help you get value.

It is also pointless to say "Rondo won't get us to the promised land". It takes a team to get you there. Pierce couldn't get us there. KG couldn't get Minny there. No one player gets anyone there. It take multiple parts to get there. Remember Lebron in Cleveland? Rondo is one of the more valuable parts in the league. To waste that because he's not Jordan is asinine. Durant isn't Jordan, but he is pretty valuable. Unless you are saying we shouldn't pursue any players except Jordan, skip the Jordan references. Comparing players with Jordan is an exercise for the media, not for people managing teams.

I don't get it. What else do you need to assess?? you don't need Rondo to do that.

Without Rondo the picture is alot more clearer in terms of what these players bring to the table.  It is also not rocket science with the current team and Rondo we are not going to win a championship.

I do agree on one pt of my black and white scenerios. I'm hoping actually Rondo is back, some type of fire is stirred up, see what you can get back etc. but then if nothing is there, just to sit him out for the rest of the year. 

I just don't understand what it is you want out of Rondo coming back. You want him to play well but for the team to lose? you want him to play well and the team to play well and get into the playoffs (though we won't get nowhere).

You are giving me the process part, but the plan to win another ring is not explained

You can't just put a professional athlete on a shelf.  As mentioned above, CP3 took a whole year after his layoff to get his game back up to speed.  Jeff Green took half a season before.  You can't just park a player in the garage and then pull them out and expect them to start up and go.  These are human beings with a clock ticking.     And a contract that is going to run out.

Rondo is a paid professional entertainer.   The Celtics are an entertainment business that is paying him millions of dollars to help sell tickets and draw TV/radio ratings.   If he's healthy, there is no reason to NOT put him to work earning money.

Stop thinking like an internet fan who doesn't pay for tickets and only cares about bragging rights for titles.   It doesn't hurt an internet fan when the team loses games and ticket sales, merchandise sales and media revenues.    It doesn't p--- an internet fan off that a star player was sitting on the bench despite being healthy and able to play in front of the ticket-buying fans who payed out real dollars to see the game.

The draft position and player development will take care of itself.    If we don't lose enough games to get great lottery odds, then that means the players on roster will have performed better and will have more trade value.   No player from the 2014 draft is going to instantly propel us to a title.     Even if we drafted him ourselves, it would take several years before the team (and the player) was strong enough to contend (especially if the team is gutted to make it a lock for a top-5 pick).   It's more likely that Danny's plan is to just continue to try to make the team stronger and trade for that star player after he's been in the NBA a few years when someone inevitably becomes too expensive for some small-market team to keep.   Either plan will take a similar amount of time and the latter arguably could take less.

Because the fact is, most top-5 draft talent that has won a title has won it on a different team than they were drafted on.

My advice is to stop worrying about draft position.

This is a different draft. x 100

You stated most top 5 draft talent has won a title on a different team. And this might be true in the recent years but that has never been the case for the most part

Jordan, Pippen - Drafted by Bulls
SAS - Duncan, Parker, Ginobelli
80's celtics team, lakers team etc.
OKC and Pacers - Almost all their players are from the draft

Far more instances you win a championship from inhouse building vs having a situation like the 2008 celts and heat of the past two years
______________________________________________________

Let me ask you. If Rondo is capable to play but with one month left till the season ends, Ainge shelfs him bc he can rest and heal up, are you ok with it?
Does it violate what you stated about, him being a professional and getting paid to play?

[mmmmm]

I think you could safely say that none of the teams currently in the mix for a Top 5 pick would trade that Top 5 pick for Rondo.

As Mark Cuban likes to say, picks are overvalued in the NBA.

I the Knicks could choose between getting Rondo, or getting Milwaukee's unprotected first rounder this season, they very well could take Rondo.

this upcoming years draft is different. its been said thousand times over

Is it really all that different than say, 2003?

That draft recieved exactly the same sort of hype.  It was full of "can't miss", "franchise-changing-superstars".

And indeed, it was:  Lebron, Bosh, Melo, Wade ... some guy named Darko ...

So far, only two teams (Det, Miami) that had a top 10 pick in that draft have won a title.

Of the top 10 picks, only 2 have won a title on the team that drafted them.  Wade, of course.  And Darko, who sat on the bench while earning his ring.  Detroit, of course, didn't have to 'tank' to get in that draft.  They won 50 games.  They had that pick via trade.     

Two other players from that 'loaded draft' have won a title ... but only because they were acquired years later by Miami, joining one of the others.

Of the top 10 picks in that 'loaded' draft, only 2 players (Wade & Heinrich) remained on the team that drafted them past their 2nd contract.  And even Heinrich had a small sojourn through WA and ATL before returning to CHI.

Getting deep into a heavily hyped, 'loaded' draft doesn't guarantee anything and is not at all the only sure way to rebuild.

The 'value' of having a lousy record to get into such a draft is still hedged by uncertainty.  You have to get lucky with the lottery balls and then you have to get lucky with the player picked.   

And you still need to have a strong team around that player or you will probably just lose him in a few years to another team that IS strong and able to support his way to a title.

[mmmmm]

Chris i think you care about Rondo more than anything. But Rondo is not Michael Jordan. He alone cannot help us get to the promise land. I don't care what he did in the past in  the playoffs, without some more help, no way he can do it.

I'm looking fwd to somehow make Rondo + 2014-2015 draft work. But Danny has to step in.  For Rondo to get his feet wet to prepare for next year imo is a little silly. So either he is coming back in hopes to get traded or the team is looking to win and get into the playoffs. Brad Stevens has not stopped pressing on the gas pedal and will do everything possible to win games. 

But this all equals for us to possibly fail in the 2014 draft and get nowhere in the short term/long term

You talk like there are 2 options:

1) don't play rondo to get better lottery chances
2) play rondo to make playoffs.

That is wrong. There are not the only 2 options, so stop insisting on this false dichotomy every time someone responds to you.

Danny needs to maximize assets for the future and he needs to field a roster for this season. Out best current asset is Rondo, so he needs to maximize that asset. Ainge would be an idiot if he purged all assets for the number 1 pick, because no single player gets you a championship and the expected return would be very low for such a move.

GMs can't think as black and white as what you are putting forth. They need to consider expected return. As people point out, having the worst record doesn't guarantee the top pick, but it greatly increases the chances of a top pick. Rondo also has great value as an all star player and he is already on our roster. Danny is trying to maximize his expected return for a few years down the road. This means developing players on the roster (thus no PT for Bogans) and accumulating future assets.

If a GM chooses to use a singular approach to maximizing assets -- only going for the top pick, the expected return will be less -- like how the area of a 9 x 1 rectangle is less than the area of a 5 x 5 square, even though 9+1 = 5+5. Having a fire sale and disenfranchising players with actual value (unlike Bogans) would be stupid moves unless you have culture problems on the team that forces you to ship guys out. Desperation also doesn't help you get value.

It is also pointless to say "Rondo won't get us to the promised land". It takes a team to get you there. Pierce couldn't get us there. KG couldn't get Minny there. No one player gets anyone there. It take multiple parts to get there. Remember Lebron in Cleveland? Rondo is one of the more valuable parts in the league. To waste that because he's not Jordan is asinine. Durant isn't Jordan, but he is pretty valuable. Unless you are saying we shouldn't pursue any players except Jordan, skip the Jordan references. Comparing players with Jordan is an exercise for the media, not for people managing teams.

I don't get it. What else do you need to assess?? you don't need Rondo to do that.

Without Rondo the picture is alot more clearer in terms of what these players bring to the table.  It is also not rocket science with the current team and Rondo we are not going to win a championship.

I do agree on one pt of my black and white scenerios. I'm hoping actually Rondo is back, some type of fire is stirred up, see what you can get back etc. but then if nothing is there, just to sit him out for the rest of the year. 

I just don't understand what it is you want out of Rondo coming back. You want him to play well but for the team to lose? you want him to play well and the team to play well and get into the playoffs (though we won't get nowhere).

You are giving me the process part, but the plan to win another ring is not explained

You can't just put a professional athlete on a shelf.  As mentioned above, CP3 took a whole year after his layoff to get his game back up to speed.  Jeff Green took half a season before.  You can't just park a player in the garage and then pull them out and expect them to start up and go.  These are human beings with a clock ticking.     And a contract that is going to run out.

Rondo is a paid professional entertainer.   The Celtics are an entertainment business that is paying him millions of dollars to help sell tickets and draw TV/radio ratings.   If he's healthy, there is no reason to NOT put him to work earning money.

Stop thinking like an internet fan who doesn't pay for tickets and only cares about bragging rights for titles.   It doesn't hurt an internet fan when the team loses games and ticket sales, merchandise sales and media revenues.    It doesn't p--- an internet fan off that a star player was sitting on the bench despite being healthy and able to play in front of the ticket-buying fans who payed out real dollars to see the game.

The draft position and player development will take care of itself.    If we don't lose enough games to get great lottery odds, then that means the players on roster will have performed better and will have more trade value.   No player from the 2014 draft is going to instantly propel us to a title.     Even if we drafted him ourselves, it would take several years before the team (and the player) was strong enough to contend (especially if the team is gutted to make it a lock for a top-5 pick).   It's more likely that Danny's plan is to just continue to try to make the team stronger and trade for that star player after he's been in the NBA a few years when someone inevitably becomes too expensive for some small-market team to keep.   Either plan will take a similar amount of time and the latter arguably could take less.

Because the fact is, most top-5 draft talent that has won a title has won it on a different team than they were drafted on.

My advice is to stop worrying about draft position.

This is a different draft. x 100

You stated most top 5 draft talent has won a title on a different team. And this might be true in the recent years but that has never been the case for the most part

Jordan, Pippen - Drafted by Bulls
SAS - Duncan, Parker, Ginobelli
80's celtics team, lakers team etc.
OKC and Pacers - Almost all their players are from the draft

Far more instances you win a championship from inhouse building vs having a situation like the 2008 celts and heat of the past two years
______________________________________________________

Let me ask you. If Rondo is capable to play but with one month left till the season ends, Ainge shelfs him bc he can rest and heal up, are you ok with it?
Does it violate what you stated about, him being a professional and getting paid to play?

Okay, you need to catch up.

First of all, Jordan and Pippen were taken in the draft before the current weighted lottery system (designed to discourage tanking) was put in place. 

Second of all, neither Parker nor Ginobli were high draft picks.  Parker was the 28th pick in his draft.  Ginobli was 57th.  Kobe was a 13th pick (acquired via trade).  Shaq was acquired via trade.  Neither Indiana nor OKC has won a title.  The highest OKC drafted to build this current team was 10th, btw.

Since the weighted lottery was put in place the only #1 pick to win a title on the team that drafted him has been Duncan.  That's it.   Duncan won because he came to a team that was already loaded (they had won 50-60 games for several years in a row before stumbling the season Robinson got hurt).   

If you look at other top picks you get similar stories.  Since the weighted lottery was put in place the only two teams to get the #2 pick and win a title since then have been Detroit and Miami.   Detroit was a 50-win team that had the #2 via trade in 2003 and took Darko who was a total bust and sat on their bench while they won the title.  Miami did actually tank in 2008, hoping for Rose, but got the walking bust that is Michael Beasley instead.  They traded him for a bag of socks, dumped every contract they had to make cap room and won "The Decision" to bring Lebron to South Beach.

Wade (#5) is, I believe, the only top-5 pick since Duncan to win a title on the team that drafted him.  And it took a ton of help acquired via trade and free agency for him to do so.

History does not favor losing in order to get better.   It favors building a strong roster and acquiring top draft talent after it has proven it is not a bust in the NBA.

To your last question, yes, it would be 'not cool', in my mind if Ainge put RR on a shelf for the end of the season if he was perfectly healthy and at no inordinate risk of injury.

He is paid to entertain me when I buy a ticket.

[Quetzalcoatl]

Is it really all that different than say, 2003?

That draft recieved exactly the same sort of hype.  It was full of "can't miss", "franchise-changing-superstars".

And indeed, it was:  Lebron, Bosh, Melo, Wade ... some guy named Darko ...

So far, only two teams (Det, Miami) that had a top 10 pick in that draft have won a title.

Of the top 10 picks, only 2 have won a title on the team that drafted them.  Wade, of course.  And Darko, who sat on the bench while earning his ring.  Detroit, of course, didn't have to 'tank' to get in that draft.  They won 50 games.  They had that pick via trade.     

Two other players from that 'loaded draft' have won a title ... but only because they were acquired years later by Miami, joining one of the others.

Of the top 10 picks in that 'loaded' draft, only 2 players (Wade & Heinrich) remained on the team that drafted them past their 2nd contract.  And even Heinrich had a small sojourn through WA and ATL before returning to CHI.

I disagree

2003: Pistons won, although this actually counts against me and works for your argument, unless victory cigars are championship pieces.  They only drafted that high because of a trade with Memphis, too.
2004: Spurs won with Duncan, super touted draft and he was Finals MVP
2005: Heat - drafted Wade with a high pick in a touted draft, Finals MVP
2006: Spurs - Duncan again
2007: Celtics - Pierce - tenth overall, finals MVP
2008 & 2009: Lakers: Kobe was a lottery pick in a highly touted draft, although he did go 13th overall.  Finals MVP both times
2010: Dirk was 9th overall by the Mavs, Finals MVP
2011 & 2012: Heat won with LeBron and Wade

So basically every team but the Pistons and the two most recent Heat teams won with a lottery pick they drafted who was that team's most important player.  The Heat's second best player those two recent times was Wade, although it was he who brought those superstar free agents in.  High draft picks are huge

[guava_wrench]

This is a different draft. x 100

You stated most top 5 draft talent has won a title on a different team. And this might be true in the recent years but that has never been the case for the most part

Jordan, Pippen - Drafted by Bulls
SAS - Duncan, Parker, Ginobelli
80's celtics team, lakers team etc.
OKC and Pacers - Almost all their players are from the draft

Far more instances you win a championship from inhouse building vs having a situation like the 2008 celts and heat of the past two years
______________________________________________________

Let me ask you. If Rondo is capable to play but with one month left till the season ends, Ainge shelfs him bc he can rest and heal up, are you ok with it?
Does it violate what you stated about, him being a professional and getting paid to play?

You post is horribly flawed. You are cherry picking teams to try to support your point instead of looking at all the draft picks that were expected to be great. You are rigging the game and the argument is unimpressive.

Look at Shaq. Multiple rings, none with Orlando. Look at Durant. No rings whatsoever. Indiana is irrelevant since they don't have a top pick guy. George was not expected to be what he is. And Indiana has won nothing.

Cleveland, zero rings with Lebron. Hornets, zero rings with Kobe. Orlando, zero rings with Shaq. Denver, zero rings with Melo. Toronto, zero rings with Bosh. Washington, zero rings with Wall. OKC, zero rings with Durant. Portland, zero rings with Oden. Orlando, zero rings with Howard. Houston, zero rings with Yao. Rose, zero rings with Chicago. Grant Hill, no rings with Detroit. Even not as high picks like KG who became superstars got their rings elsewhere.

How many of these guys were trade for assets good enough to bring a ring to the drafting team? None?

With the Hornets win one with Anthony Davis? I expect him to leave town before then. LAC with Griffin? Maybe.

Yes, Duncan was great. But Duncan was drafted by a good team that had an off year due to Robinson being injured. Still, Duncan and Jordan are good enough that if they stay on your team, you will win a ring. But so is Lebron -- yet Cleveland has not championships. So is Kobe, but Charlotte has no banners.

Celtics and Lakers are irrelevant because free agency didn't have as much player movement in the 80s. Apples and oranges.

[D.o.s.]

An aside: The idea that Kobe Bryant was ever going to play for the Charlotte Hornets is silly, so the idea that they drafted him is equally silly. For all intents and purposes, Kobe was drafted by the Lakers.

In an bizarro universe where Brooks somehow turned into a superstar and won five rings with the Nets, you could easily say "MarShon Brooks--No Rings with Boston." Totally ignores the fact that we drafted him explicitly to trade him, just like Kobe and the Hornets.

[guava_wrench]

Is it really all that different than say, 2003?

That draft recieved exactly the same sort of hype.  It was full of "can't miss", "franchise-changing-superstars".

And indeed, it was:  Lebron, Bosh, Melo, Wade ... some guy named Darko ...

So far, only two teams (Det, Miami) that had a top 10 pick in that draft have won a title.

Of the top 10 picks, only 2 have won a title on the team that drafted them.  Wade, of course.  And Darko, who sat on the bench while earning his ring.  Detroit, of course, didn't have to 'tank' to get in that draft.  They won 50 games.  They had that pick via trade.     

Two other players from that 'loaded draft' have won a title ... but only because they were acquired years later by Miami, joining one of the others.

Of the top 10 picks in that 'loaded' draft, only 2 players (Wade & Heinrich) remained on the team that drafted them past their 2nd contract.  And even Heinrich had a small sojourn through WA and ATL before returning to CHI.

I disagree

2003: Pistons won, although this actually counts against me and works for your argument, unless victory cigars are championship pieces.  They only drafted that high because of a trade with Memphis, too.
2004: Spurs won with Duncan, super touted draft and he was Finals MVP
2005: Heat - drafted Wade with a high pick in a touted draft, Finals MVP
2006: Spurs - Duncan again
2007: Celtics - Pierce - tenth overall, finals MVP
2008 & 2009: Lakers: Kobe was a lottery pick in a highly touted draft, although he did go 13th overall.  Finals MVP both times
2010: Dirk was 9th overall by the Mavs, Finals MVP
2011 & 2012: Heat won with LeBron and Wade

So basically every team but the Pistons and the two most recent Heat teams won with a lottery pick they drafted who was that team's most important player.  The Heat's second best player those two recent times was Wade, although it was he who brought those superstar free agents in.  High draft picks are huge

This is a good list and shows the value of getting a superstar. It does have the problem though that Kobe was NOT drafted by LA (and Lebron was not drafted by the Heat, though Wade was). Ask Charlotte how that lottery pick turned out.

I think we can agree that for this conversation, having a top pick playing on your team is irrelevant. What is significant is having the lottery pick, because that is all we will end up with.

What you post misses though is the low percentage of lottery picks that end up leading to anything. If you gave up Rondo to be bad on purpose and ended up with Oden, Darko, or even Melo, you would still end up with zero rings. If you got the first 2, you would also probably have a horrible team.

How many teams in this league do not have a player drafted in the lottery? How many teams in the league can say that their best player was not a lottery pick? If we randomly assigned championships, we would probably still be able to say 'oh, look. Philly won it all. MCW was a lottery pick for them' -- despite the championship being randomly assigned.

[guava_wrench]

An aside: The idea that Kobe Bryant was ever going to play for the Charlotte Hornets is silly, so the idea that they drafted him is equally silly. For all intents and purposes, Kobe was drafted by the Lakers.

In an bizarro universe where Brooks somehow turned into a superstar and won five rings with the Nets, you could easily say "MarShon Brooks--No Rings with Boston." Totally ignores the fact that we drafted him explicitly to trade him, just like Kobe and the Hornets.

No, your point is silly.

The relevant point in this discussion is that the lottery pick became useless. The Lakers got Kobe and they didn't need to be in the lottery to get him. That is what is relevant to this discussion. So to mention that Kobe was a lottery pick only emphasizes that being in the lottery might not get you anywhere if the player doesn't stay with you.

Kobe refused to play for teams he didn't want to play for. You could take for a guy and then he might not want to play for you, even if you get the pick needed.

[mmmmm]

Is it really all that different than say, 2003?

That draft recieved exactly the same sort of hype.  It was full of "can't miss", "franchise-changing-superstars".

And indeed, it was:  Lebron, Bosh, Melo, Wade ... some guy named Darko ...

So far, only two teams (Det, Miami) that had a top 10 pick in that draft have won a title.

Of the top 10 picks, only 2 have won a title on the team that drafted them.  Wade, of course.  And Darko, who sat on the bench while earning his ring.  Detroit, of course, didn't have to 'tank' to get in that draft.  They won 50 games.  They had that pick via trade.     

Two other players from that 'loaded draft' have won a title ... but only because they were acquired years later by Miami, joining one of the others.

Of the top 10 picks in that 'loaded' draft, only 2 players (Wade & Heinrich) remained on the team that drafted them past their 2nd contract.  And even Heinrich had a small sojourn through WA and ATL before returning to CHI.

I disagree

2003: Pistons won, although this actually counts against me and works for your argument, unless victory cigars are championship pieces.  They only drafted that high because of a trade with Memphis, too.
2004: Spurs won with Duncan, super touted draft and he was Finals MVP
2005: Heat - drafted Wade with a high pick in a touted draft, Finals MVP
2006: Spurs - Duncan again
2007: Celtics - Pierce - tenth overall, finals MVP
2008 & 2009: Lakers: Kobe was a lottery pick in a highly touted draft, although he did go 13th overall.  Finals MVP both times
2010: Dirk was 9th overall by the Mavs, Finals MVP
2011 & 2012: Heat won with LeBron and Wade

So basically every team but the Pistons and the two most recent Heat teams won with a lottery pick they drafted who was that team's most important player.  The Heat's second best player those two recent times was Wade, although it was he who brought those superstar free agents in.  High draft picks are huge

I was talking about the outcome of the top 10 picks in the 2003 draft.

But if you want to talk about other title teams ...

2003 Detroit, as you concede supports my overall point that being bad is not the path to being good.  They had the #2 pick because of trade.  They were a 50 win team already.  Darko (#2 pick) was a bust.

2004 & 2006 Spurs - that's still just one team since the weighted lottery winning a title with a #1 pick that they made themselves.  Keep in mind that he joined at team that already had another overall #1 pick (David Robinson) on it.  They didn't strip down the roster to get Duncan.  They had injuries and then a ton of lottery ball luck.

2005 & 2011-12 Heat -- again, that's just one team other than the Spurs that has won a title since earning a top-5 pick.

Lakers traded for the Kobe pick and Shaq and later Gasol.   They didn't get real bad to get into the lottery to get any of those guys.

Of the other teams, the highest picks 'earned' by their teams (by being bad) were 9th (Dirk) and 10th (Pierce).   Pierce' team took 10 years before it won a title.  Dirk's took 13.

So, really, being bad to get good has only lead to a title (within less than a decade) has only worked for the Spurs and the Heat.  And each did a hell of a lot otherwise to build those rosters.

[Tr1boy]

guava_wrench to me your the one cherry picking. Teams winning by trading and getting FA's are not the norm.   And if these teams did in the past, they usually had to have assets to get them. That means lottery bound draft picks

Signing FA's and trading for superstars like i said before is an incredibly difficult task. Just ask the Rockets what kind of headache they went through for Howard this past summer.  There are multiple teams bidding for this star and chances of you getting him , unless you have alot of assets are not the greatest. Same with FAs

You think Danny really has much of a chance of enticing Lebron to come over this summer?

The players chosen from the draft you nitpick has its flaws but its at least something. There are possibilities.  The celtics right now have Rondo and some nice young players but noone in KG/PP/George/Wade/Bosh level.

So how are we going to get these kind of players? and the answer is by trade, FA signing or through the draft.