The next 10 games will obliterate our lottery chances.

[mmmmm]

won't get you past Miami or Indiana,

MIA has maybe two more good years and we won't be good in that time frame, I suspect.  Wade is up and down, Bosh can leave and I think LeBron may even leave and go somewhere like LA and that could mean the Clippers.

Miami is a title contender any year they have LeBron. He isn't going anywhere. The Celtics make that trade for Asik they'll just be stopped by Miami Indiana and whatever team decides to be smart and tank in the best draft in over a decade.

  Think about what you're saying. Best draft in a decade. That may be right. But you're acting like it's the best draft in the history of any sport. It's not.

  When you say "best draft in over 10 years" you're referring to the 2003 draft with LeBron, Wade, Bosh and Melo. Only *one* player in that draft has been anything like a perennial contender, LeBron. Bosh? Nope. Melo? Hardly. Wade? only when he has LeBron or Shaq on his team.

  So for the most part, picking top players in that best draft in over 10 years were treadmill picks. And when you say "Miami Indiana and whatever team decides to be smart and tank in the best draft in over a decade", you mean Miami, Indiana and maybe 1 of the 5-6 teams who are smart enough to tank. Almost all of the teams that were smart enough to tank will either get on the treadmill or suck until the next "best draft in over 10 years".

Yeah, I always find it interesting how folks don't really examine just what the outcome of that draft was for the teams.

For all the great players taken in that draft, of the teams that had picks in the top 10, only two have gone on to win a title.

Detroit, picking #2 with a pick they acquired in trade, won that very next season -- but of course their pick, Darko, was a gigantic bust.

Miami, picked Wade at #5 and went on to win a couple years later after loading up their roster with veterans to surround Wade:  Shaq, Mourning, Payton, Walker, etc.

Miami 'tanked' once again, going for Rose, getting Beasley at #2, but Beasley was a total bust who they sold for a bag of potatoes.  They then, once again, dipped into the FA & Trade waters to add Lebron & Bosh, two more of the 2003 class, to make the current title roster.

So on one hand, one can look at that draft and say, "Gee - 4 players drafted in the top 5 all have won a title!

But if you look at the fortunes of the other _teams_, not named Miami, that draft wasn't so special to them.  It hasn't helped anybody else win a title.

And Wade is the only guy from those top picks who is still on the team that drafted him.

[PhoSita]

There's a difference between non-tankers and anti-tankers. I think most non-tankers here are simply non-tankers, rather than anti-tankers. In that they are aware of the value of a higher pick but don't necessarily believe in putting all our chips in tanking.

+1

I don't understand why this is so difficult to understand.

Everyone can agree that a $10 bill is more valuable than a $1 bill.

But if it costs you $12 to earn that $10 bill, you aren't going forward.

There another side to this coin.  Going .500 the rest of the way and making a run at a low playoff seed would be a nice story and a moral victory, but it would cost more than it'd be worth.

Not getting a top 3-5 pick in this draft wouldn't be the end of the world, as tantalizing as the headliners of this draft are.  But since we have to endure a season watching a crappy team that's not even built to be cohesive and competitive, the least we can do is get a major building block for future competitive, well-built teams out of it.

[Celtics18]

There's a difference between non-tankers and anti-tankers. I think most non-tankers here are simply non-tankers, rather than anti-tankers. In that they are aware of the value of a higher pick but don't necessarily believe in putting all our chips in tanking.

+1

I don't understand why this is so difficult to understand.

Everyone can agree that a $10 bill is more valuable than a $1 bill.

But if it costs you $12 to earn that $10 bill, you aren't going forward.

There another side to this coin.  Going .500 the rest of the way and making a run at a low playoff seed would be a nice story and a moral victory, but it would cost more than it'd be worth.

Not getting a top 3-5 pick in this draft wouldn't be the end of the world, as tantalizing as the headliners of this draft are.  But since we have to endure a season watching a crappy team that's not even built to be cohesive and competitive, the least we can do is get a major building block for future competitive, well-built teams out of it.

But, if we go .500 (or above) the rest of the way, don't you think we'll be looking more "cohesive and competitive"?

[pokeKingCurtis]

There's a difference between non-tankers and anti-tankers. I think most non-tankers here are simply non-tankers, rather than anti-tankers. In that they are aware of the value of a higher pick but don't necessarily believe in putting all our chips in tanking.

+1

I don't understand why this is so difficult to understand.

Everyone can agree that a $10 bill is more valuable than a $1 bill.

But if it costs you $12 to earn that $10 bill, you aren't going forward.

There another side to this coin.  Going .500 the rest of the way and making a run at a low playoff seed would be a nice story and a moral victory, but it would cost more than it'd be worth.

Not getting a top 3-5 pick in this draft wouldn't be the end of the world, as tantalizing as the headliners of this draft are.  But since we have to endure a season watching a crappy team that's not even built to be cohesive and competitive, the least we can do is get a major building block for future competitive, well-built teams out of it.

Sure.


Again, at the end of the day it largely depends on how much you value, for the lack of a better phrase, not-blowing-the-roster-to-bits vs. the pick.




mmmmm's analogy is probably not all that apt. It's not just a $10 bill.

It's a lottery ticket. The ticket then would give you an earlier pick at one of many different start ups. Clumsy but more apt I think.

The pick could be sky high or it could be middling or it could be rock bottom. The quality of this year's picks may be higher but there's a lot of luck involved.

Some (not you) seem to have lost sight of this very fact. The expected value is, certainly, at least somewhat lower than the potential value of the pick.



On the other hand, (having thought about it a little), the most obvious value to not blowing up the team is that you keep a bird in hand.

Bass will be Bass. A pick, or a prospect, on the other hand, may very well end up holding less value than Bass.

Throwing away an asset for less than its intrinsic value so you get better odds at getting better value elsewhere entails risk.

In allowing the team to grow more organically, perhaps the years of irrelevancy will be cut down as we wouldn't have to seek out complimentary talent when the team starts looking competitive.

After all, it's only intuitive acquiring something of value should be easier when you yourself have something of value. And that missing piece may very well be what tips the scale.

Additionally, some may believe that there are other benefits in fielding a competitive team. Values of players are driven up. Brad Stevens gets experience. The locker room doesn't suck like the Cavs' does right now. Maybe young players grow better as a result. Perhaps the team would be a more attractive landing spot for players.




Right now, I feel there is a balance to be struck of not falling into that treadmill, and getting a higher pick.

There are, of course, many many other factors. The slew of draft picks mitigates our chances of sliding into eternal mediocrity. Trade targets could be a factor (there seemingly is a dearth of this).

[PhoSita]

There's a difference between non-tankers and anti-tankers. I think most non-tankers here are simply non-tankers, rather than anti-tankers. In that they are aware of the value of a higher pick but don't necessarily believe in putting all our chips in tanking.

+1

I don't understand why this is so difficult to understand.

Everyone can agree that a $10 bill is more valuable than a $1 bill.

But if it costs you $12 to earn that $10 bill, you aren't going forward.

There another side to this coin.  Going .500 the rest of the way and making a run at a low playoff seed would be a nice story and a moral victory, but it would cost more than it'd be worth.

Not getting a top 3-5 pick in this draft wouldn't be the end of the world, as tantalizing as the headliners of this draft are.  But since we have to endure a season watching a crappy team that's not even built to be cohesive and competitive, the least we can do is get a major building block for future competitive, well-built teams out of it.

But, if we go .500 (or above) the rest of the way, don't you think we'll be looking more "cohesive and competitive"?

Eh, I've seen what there is to see with this team.  I'm not convinced that the vast majority of players on the team currently are here for the long term.  I don't think we even know yet what style of basketball this team will be built to play, because the core players are not in place.

The team could go .500 over the rest of the season, and that would be a good sign for Rondo's recovery and Sullinger's development, but it wouldn't change the fact that this team still needs to gather assets to build the long term core. 

Missing out on a top 10 pick -- a prime opportunity to gather assets -- because the East is historically weak would be misfortune, plain and simple.

[KGs Knee]

Missing out on a top 10 pick -- a prime opportunity to gather assets -- because the East is historically weak would be misfortune, plain and simple.

This is no way a fact, it' simply an opinion.

The misfortune is believing this an absolute truth.

[Celtics4ever]

Lottery chances, an oxymoron if there ever was one.

[mmmmm]

There's a difference between non-tankers and anti-tankers. I think most non-tankers here are simply non-tankers, rather than anti-tankers. In that they are aware of the value of a higher pick but don't necessarily believe in putting all our chips in tanking.

+1

I don't understand why this is so difficult to understand.

Everyone can agree that a $10 bill is more valuable than a $1 bill.

But if it costs you $12 to earn that $10 bill, you aren't going forward.

There another side to this coin.  Going .500 the rest of the way and making a run at a low playoff seed would be a nice story and a moral victory, but it would cost more than it'd be worth.

Not getting a top 3-5 pick in this draft wouldn't be the end of the world, as tantalizing as the headliners of this draft are.  But since we have to endure a season watching a crappy team that's not even built to be cohesive and competitive, the least we can do is get a major building block for future competitive, well-built teams out of it.

But, if we go .500 (or above) the rest of the way, don't you think we'll be looking more "cohesive and competitive"?

Eh, I've seen what there is to see with this team.  I'm not convinced that the vast majority of players on the team currently are here for the long term.  I don't think we even know yet what style of basketball this team will be built to play, because the core players are not in place.

The team could go .500 over the rest of the season, and that would be a good sign for Rondo's recovery and Sullinger's development, but it wouldn't change the fact that this team still needs to gather assets to build the long term core. 

Missing out on a top 10 pick -- a prime opportunity to gather assets -- because the East is historically weak would be misfortune, plain and simple.

Whether the 'vast majority' of the players on this team are here for the long run is not the point.

If the talent on this team plays at a higher level by season's end, then the talent on the roster will have established that it has more value, whether to keep or trade.

Where a team picks in the draft has been, 'historically', pretty irrelevant to how long it takes to win another title.   Again, how well did picking in the top 10 of the 2003's 'historically deep' draft class help any team other than Miami?


Folks need to be a little less hyper-focused on the draft.  The draft will take care of itself.   Most of the top picks will have moved to other teams by the time they contribute to a title.

[Celtics18]

There's a difference between non-tankers and anti-tankers. I think most non-tankers here are simply non-tankers, rather than anti-tankers. In that they are aware of the value of a higher pick but don't necessarily believe in putting all our chips in tanking.

+1

I don't understand why this is so difficult to understand.

Everyone can agree that a $10 bill is more valuable than a $1 bill.

But if it costs you $12 to earn that $10 bill, you aren't going forward.

There another side to this coin.  Going .500 the rest of the way and making a run at a low playoff seed would be a nice story and a moral victory, but it would cost more than it'd be worth.

Not getting a top 3-5 pick in this draft wouldn't be the end of the world, as tantalizing as the headliners of this draft are.  But since we have to endure a season watching a crappy team that's not even built to be cohesive and competitive, the least we can do is get a major building block for future competitive, well-built teams out of it.

But, if we go .500 (or above) the rest of the way, don't you think we'll be looking more "cohesive and competitive"?

Eh, I've seen what there is to see with this team. I'm not convinced that the vast majority of players on the team currently are here for the long term.  I don't think we even know yet what style of basketball this team will be built to play, because the core players are not in place.

The team could go .500 over the rest of the season, and that would be a good sign for Rondo's recovery and Sullinger's development, but it wouldn't change the fact that this team still needs to gather assets to build the long term core. 

Missing out on a top 10 pick -- a prime opportunity to gather assets -- because the East is historically weak would be misfortune, plain and simple.

Well, this is the attitude that I would hope Danny Ainge is not taking with this team.  Luckily, he gets paid to evaluate his team's future, so it's almost certain that he's not taking this blasé, unwavering attitude towards the team's outlook for the future.

I'm sure Danny's assessments change almost daily, as well they should.  You, and a many of the local media and fans,  decided that this team sucked some time this off-season.  This seems to mean that the only reality that you are willing to accept is the one that supports your preconceived notion.  Everything else is just hogwash, since it doesn't mesh with "what everybody already knows about this team."

[LilRip]

There's a difference between non-tankers and anti-tankers. I think most non-tankers here are simply non-tankers, rather than anti-tankers. In that they are aware of the value of a higher pick but don't necessarily believe in putting all our chips in tanking.

+1

I don't understand why this is so difficult to understand.

Everyone can agree that a $10 bill is more valuable than a $1 bill.

But if it costs you $12 to earn that $10 bill, you aren't going forward.

There another side to this coin.  Going .500 the rest of the way and making a run at a low playoff seed would be a nice story and a moral victory, but it would cost more than it'd be worth.

Not getting a top 3-5 pick in this draft wouldn't be the end of the world, as tantalizing as the headliners of this draft are.  But since we have to endure a season watching a crappy team that's not even built to be cohesive and competitive, the least we can do is get a major building block for future competitive, well-built teams out of it.

But, if we go .500 (or above) the rest of the way, don't you think we'll be looking more "cohesive and competitive"?

Eh, I've seen what there is to see with this team.  I'm not convinced that the vast majority of players on the team currently are here for the long term.  I don't think we even know yet what style of basketball this team will be built to play, because the core players are not in place.

The team could go .500 over the rest of the season, and that would be a good sign for Rondo's recovery and Sullinger's development, but it wouldn't change the fact that this team still needs to gather assets to build the long term core. 

Missing out on a top 10 pick -- a prime opportunity to gather assets -- because the East is historically weak would be misfortune, plain and simple.

Whether the 'vast majority' of the players on this team are here for the long run is not the point.

If the talent on this team plays at a higher level by season's end, then the talent on the roster will have established that it has more value, whether to keep or trade.

Where a team picks in the draft has been, 'historically', pretty irrelevant to how long it takes to win another title.   Again, how well did picking in the top 10 of the 2003's 'historically deep' draft class help any team other than Miami?

Folks need to be a little less hyper-focused on the draft.  The draft will take care of itself.   Most of the top picks will have moved to other teams by the time they contribute to a title.

don't the two statements i've bolded contradict each other? I mean, if we're aiming for competitiveness and cohesiveness, then of course having the guys stick together has something to do with things. What is the point of further developing players if 1) they've already reached their potential and 2) we have plans to let them walk anyway? Is it to showcase them for a trade? Maybe. But other GMs are not as stupid or as willing to be fleeced as people may think. I would think guys like Bass and Hump and Wallace have pretty low value around the league, regardless of chemistry. And fairly certain that Green has lower value than what many of the posters here project him to have.


As strange as it seems, i wouldn't put a premium on developing team chemistry right now. This roster is horribly put together (purposefully!). There are terrific players in Rondo and Sully, but DA overloading the SG and PF positions tells me he's not looking to win but is more of in the mode of acquiring assets. That's my interpretation. I guess we're not on the same page if you think that the whole team (management included) is in win-now, make-the-playoffs mode.

[PhoSita]

Missing out on a top 10 pick -- a prime opportunity to gather assets -- because the East is historically weak would be misfortune, plain and simple.

This is no way a fact, it' simply an opinion.

The misfortune is believing this an absolute truth.

Okay, well, technically the Celtics could end up with a player every bit as good at #15 or #16 as at #8 or #9.

However, it's far less likely.  Also, the value of the pick in any potential draft day trade would indubitably be a lot lower.

[PhoSita]

Well, this is the attitude that I would hope Danny Ainge is not taking with this team.  Luckily, he gets paid to evaluate his team's future, so it's almost certain that he's not taking this blasé, unwavering attitude towards the team's outlook for the future.

I'm sure Danny's assessments change almost daily, as well they should.  You, and a many of the local media and fans,  decided that this team sucked some time this off-season.  This seems to mean that the only reality that you are willing to accept is the one that supports your preconceived notion.  Everything else is just hogwash, since it doesn't mesh with "what everybody already knows about this team."

Unless the team goes .500 over the rest of the season because the established players on the team suddenly morph into far more productive and valuable players than they've ever been in their careers, it doesn't much matter, does it? 

As LilRip says, it doesn't really matter how these guys play if they aren't in the long term plans -- and they aren't in the long term plans because they're highly paid role-players who are what they are and this team is a few years away from being truly competitive.

The reason people have said that this is not a very good team from the very beginning is because the collection of talent here is not very good.  Other than Rondo -- an established All-Star who is coming off major knee surgery -- there was nobody on the team entering this season with a history of high level play. 

Now we have Jared Sullinger who has shown that he can play at a pretty high level for stretches of the season.  Avery Bradley has also shown an ability to take on a bit more of a scoring load by developing his mid-range game.  Olynyk has had some nice games but has looked very much like a rookie so far.  Vitor might be a rotation player or might not be.

Kris Humphries, Jeff Green, Gerald Wallace, Brandon Bass, Keith Bogans, Jerryd Bayless -- these are known quantities.  They range from washed up (Bogans and Wallace) to decent at what they do (Bayless and Bass) to pretty-nice-as-a-complementary-piece (Humphries and Green).  None of them has really done anything to change that assessment.


I sure hope Ainge isn't the sort of GM who changes his opinions about his players based on one game or a short stretch of games, from day to day.  I expect that he looks at large sample sizes.

[Mr October]

Tankers rejoice. Celtics lost. Orlando and Cleveland won.

Things have a way of evening out.

[Clench123]

Tankers rejoice. Celtics lost. Orlando and Cleveland won.

Things have a way of evening out.

YES!

[pokeKingCurtis]

There's a difference between non-tankers and anti-tankers. I think most non-tankers here are simply non-tankers, rather than anti-tankers. In that they are aware of the value of a higher pick but don't necessarily believe in putting all our chips in tanking.

+1

I don't understand why this is so difficult to understand.

Everyone can agree that a $10 bill is more valuable than a $1 bill.

But if it costs you $12 to earn that $10 bill, you aren't going forward.

There another side to this coin.  Going .500 the rest of the way and making a run at a low playoff seed would be a nice story and a moral victory, but it would cost more than it'd be worth.

Not getting a top 3-5 pick in this draft wouldn't be the end of the world, as tantalizing as the headliners of this draft are.  But since we have to endure a season watching a crappy team that's not even built to be cohesive and competitive, the least we can do is get a major building block for future competitive, well-built teams out of it.

But, if we go .500 (or above) the rest of the way, don't you think we'll be looking more "cohesive and competitive"?

Eh, I've seen what there is to see with this team.  I'm not convinced that the vast majority of players on the team currently are here for the long term.  I don't think we even know yet what style of basketball this team will be built to play, because the core players are not in place.

The team could go .500 over the rest of the season, and that would be a good sign for Rondo's recovery and Sullinger's development, but it wouldn't change the fact that this team still needs to gather assets to build the long term core. 

Missing out on a top 10 pick -- a prime opportunity to gather assets -- because the East is historically weak would be misfortune, plain and simple.

Whether the 'vast majority' of the players on this team are here for the long run is not the point.

If the talent on this team plays at a higher level by season's end, then the talent on the roster will have established that it has more value, whether to keep or trade.

Where a team picks in the draft has been, 'historically', pretty irrelevant to how long it takes to win another title.   Again, how well did picking in the top 10 of the 2003's 'historically deep' draft class help any team other than Miami?

Folks need to be a little less hyper-focused on the draft.  The draft will take care of itself.   Most of the top picks will have moved to other teams by the time they contribute to a title.

don't the two statements i've bolded contradict each other? I mean, if we're aiming for competitiveness and cohesiveness, then of course having the guys stick together has something to do with things. What is the point of further developing players if 1) they've already reached their potential and 2) we have plans to let them walk anyway? Is it to showcase them for a trade? Maybe. But other GMs are not as stupid or as willing to be fleeced as people may think. I would think guys like Bass and Hump and Wallace have pretty low value around the league, regardless of chemistry. And fairly certain that Green has lower value than what many of the posters here project him to have.


As strange as it seems, i wouldn't put a premium on developing team chemistry right now. This roster is horribly put together (purposefully!). There are terrific players in Rondo and Sully, but DA overloading the SG and PF positions tells me he's not looking to win but is more of in the mode of acquiring assets. That's my interpretation. I guess we're not on the same page if you think that the whole team (management included) is in win-now, make-the-playoffs mode.

Prior to this season, to some, Hump was only valuable as an expiring. Jordan Crawford's was certainly not worth a first rounder. How about Courtney Lee? Even Brandon Bass added a little face up game to his repertoire.

I don't think Ainge intended to take on the horrid contract of Wallace and have logjams at the 2 and 4, positions our prospects play. It was just a price to pay for the many draft picks.




Some seem to think this season and most of our players are a complete waste of time, so there should no need to expend thought on them. Maybe it doesn't have to be as cut and dry as either we thinks that this roster and season is complete junk; or we think the team is seriously thinking of contending with this roster.

You could argue that the absolute value of some of our players will be more or less constant. But the relative value is much more important. Injuries are always a concern. Teams not playing up to their potential (ala the Pistons) also change things. Who knew Asik would stir up drama? There is, therefore, possibly, value in holding and waiting.

On the other hand, "dumping" Bass for a late 1st could very well net us less value all in all.

Some tankers allege that others are not thinking big picture. Suppose today you "dump" Bass. Maybe in the future, when the team wants to make a playoff push, we'd have to get a Bass level player but have to overpay. And overpaying role players is, from what I've seen, is what puts teams on the treadmill.

Admittedly that may have been an extreme example. Dumping one role player probably doesn't hurt all that much. But to repeatedly do such deals that involve us undervaluing our own assets several times could, conceivably, possibly, come back to bite us in the ass.

Is it, therefore, not intuitive to get the most out of your assets? Instead of leaving it ALL up to luck, perhaps taking a more moderate approach is prudent. Maximizing our chances at the lottery is valuable, but also not a sure thing.

I think some here believe (or at least I do) that it wouldn't be the worst thing to "go with the flow" and not tankering with the roster too much. When a deal comes along that's worth it, Ainge takes it (like the Courtney Lee deal). But Ainge doesn't have to actively look for deals.



There are other factors, as I've mentioned before, that make winning valuable. For example giving Stevens some experience, having more ticket sales, player development... Some don't believe there is much difference in fielding a marginally more competitive team in these aspects, which is fine.

But at the very least I think the "dumping" and "throw away" approach to this season should be tampered a little.