The next 10 games will obliterate our lottery chances.

[BballTim]

I've said it before, and I'll say it again -- if the reward for enduring this overlong and frequently unpleasant season is less than a top 10 pick, I'll be very disappointed, and while I think calling it a disaster might be hyperbole, it certainly would be a pretty significant bit of misfortune. 

In any normal season, this team would have no chance of falling outside of the top 7-8 teams.  But this is not a normal season, and there are going to be at least a few teams lacking in talent that will end up picking in the middle of the 1st round because of how bad the East is.

  I'm starting to think this isn't a one season only thing but the new (or at least current) nba. A few weeks ago I checked the number of bad teams (I might have used 30 wins or an equivalent winning% in strike years) every year to see if there was a spike in years like 2003. What I found was a pretty static number of bad teams and little to no relationship between the draft and the number of bad teams.

  What I did notice, however, was a significant increase in the number of bad teams (50% or so more) before the LeBron FA summer, and that higher level of bad teams has held pretty steady. I'm guessing the new CBA might be involved. You probably can't go back to any of the first 8-9 years of the century and find as many teams as we have now, but the last few years have had comparable numbers. Off topic no doubt, but IMO fairly interesting.

You may be onto something there, although my feeling is that it's not just the win totals -- I feel like the overall talent level is very low in the East this season, and the teams at the bottom are really bad.  There are probably a handful of teams that would be the clear-cut worst in the league in previous years.

  We're only a year or two removed from the worst team (record-wise) in the history of the nba. I think to a certain extent nobody has been paying much attention to the flotsam below the Celts since 2007 and are surprised by what they see.

[mmmmm]

I get the funny feeling that the tankers in the crowd will go apoplectic if we win 7 of 10 and don't make any trades over the next ten days yet, that is exactly what could happen.

I don't know how likely that is. Its probably more likely no trades are made than the team winning 7 of 10 games but anything is possible as a lot of teams that we play over the next t few weeks are tanking hard.

If that did happen I'd be furious. It would be the worst outcome for the future of this franchise.
Having that pick is the diamond in our asset collection.
No matter if you oppose rebuilding by drafting players or trading assets to get them-we need to nab one of those top 5 picks.
Considering Danny traded away Crawford and Lee though, it's very unlikely that this current roster stays the same over the trade deadline because they are still good enough to win 7 of 10 against the other scum of the league.
The veterans that likely don't have part in the future of this team are probably gone for breakeven returns at best.
Personally I hope Danny puts player development of Sullinger, Olynyk, Fav and Blue ahead of winning a few meaningless games.

Count me among the depressed as we watch our lottery chances get destroyed.  Say good-bye to Jabari Parker and say hello to Rodney Hood.  All in the name of seeing Bass and Humphries pad their statistics and play for their next contract.  Why isn't Olynyk playing?

Glad to see Rondo play well and Bradley healthy.  But I am sick to my stomach.  Hats off to the Lakers who know what they are doing.

  Who's to say the Lakers won't play better when Kobe comes back? All of the teams at the bottom have ups and downs. A few weeks ago Utah had the worst record all but locked up, now they're above us in the standings. When we played a tough schedule in January we "knew what we were doing". Now that we're playing some easy teams we're "obliterating our lottery chances". Sooner or later we'll have another tough stretch of games and the pendulum will swing back in the other direction. Same for most (if not all) of the other lottery teams.

This^.

There are still a lot of games to be played before the draft order is settled.  And a lot of different teams will go in very different directions through all that.

I was at the Garden for the win against the Raptors.  I can't help but notice that nobody was booing when we won the game.

I think that it's a hell of a lot easier for cynical internet bloggers, sitting at a computer and watching the occasional game on TV to 'root for losses'.   It's a whole different thing when you pay real $$ to go to a game - especially when you bring your kids.   Those aren't "meaningless wins".

This weird idea that the Celtics' future hinges so completely on where they draft in this coming draft has blown up into silly proportions.

The absolute last thing I would hope for would be for us to have a miserable season, have the lottery balls give us, say, the #7th or 8th pick, and end up with someone like Smart or Harris.   I'm sorry, but I have no faith that someone like that is going to be anything more than a 'decent starter' in the NBA.   I certainly don't see such a player as being the pivot point upon which the organizations' future hinges.

If we don't end up with a top 5 pick, i hope Danny trades down or into a future draft or for some real, existing and proven player(s).  I think that if you don't get into the top 5, that the value-relative-to-pick is going to prove better in picks 11-15 than in 6-10.

[mmmmm]

Okay, some people in this thread need to calm down and take a step off the ledge. Take a look at this sentence

"I would like a high draft pick, because I think it increases our odds of drafting an impact player or making a meaningful trade for one."

That is a reasonable thing to say. But, that is a very different thing from saying,

"It will be an unmitigated disaster if we don't get a high draft pick, it will ruin this franchise going forward, because the only possible route to salvation is to draft [Jabari/Embiid/insert your favorite college player here]."

If you can't tell the difference between these two statements, you need to go look up the word "hyperbole" in the dictionary. Too many people in this thread are saying the latter, which is patently absurd. There are numerous paths to "salvation" in the NBA, as history has proven time and time again. There is no such thing as a 100% in the lottery; look at every draft in NBA history. At least one player in the top 5 is a bust, guaranteed. In some drafts it is more. But there has never been an NBA draft without a bust in the top 5.

The path to a championship is through overall good management. This INCLUDES the lottery, but is not EXCLUSIVE to the lottery. Good management, as Danny Ainge, Larry Bird, Daryl Morey, and others have proven, is NOT following some pre-determined boilerplate template for success - in fact, that is the route to failure. It is inflexible and idiotic. Good management is the process of reacting to new situations and making the best out of them.

If you honestly think that there is any player in this draft that is a 100% sure thing, you are insane, because those don't exist. For every Lebron there is a Darko. If you honestly think that not getting this supposed sure thing means this championship never wins another title ever, you are also insane, because that assumes you can see the future.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion on what is best for this franchise. But stop acting like you are the only prescient one and that nobody else knows or cares as much about this franchise as you, and spewing wild vitriolic hyperbole is not conducive to having an enjoyable or productive discussion about our team.

Remember, say this:

"I would like a high draft pick, because I think it increases our odds of drafting an impact player or making a meaningful trade for one."

NOT this:

"It will be an unmitigated disaster if we don't get a high draft pick, it will ruin this franchise going forward, because the only possible route to salvation is to draft [Jabari/Embiid/insert your favorite college player here]."

One is the well-thought out opinion of a basketball fan, the other are the ramblings of a lunatic.

+ 1 billion.

TP.

Well said.

[BballTim]

I'm getting tired of beating this drum but it does seem to be contrary to the very notion of being a fan to wish that your team would lose.

I'm excited about the prospect of a top ten or top five or top three draft pick actually playing for the Celtics instead of being traded right away, but I don't ever wish for the C's to lose.

  I have similar feelings. I don't root for the team to lose even though a bad season won't break my heart. I'm not opposed to getting a high draft pick but I don't think the team should base too many personnel moves (such a trading away players or refusing to better the team through trades) for the sole purpose of improving our draft position. I also realize the players and coaches are going to try to win and that it's likely that the Celts value winning more than many people think they do, even if they aren't contending this year.

[mmmmm]

agreed, but in the same vein, rooting for a win streak could bee seen as either lunacy or being short-sighted as well. there's a difference between:
1. Rooting for wins, just to win, and
2. Rooting for development of the young guys

getting a high draft pick just makes too much sense this year. Whether that pick will be used to draft a rookie or trade for an all-star on a bad team, we'll let Ainge decide. But a top-3 pick will definitely hold more value than a 'barely-miss-the-playoffs' win streak by players who might not even be here in a year or two. IMO, falling to the 12th-14th pick will be the worst loss we suffer this season.

Go to an actual game at the Garden.  Stand up and tell all the thousands of people rooting for a win (people who paid real $$ to get themselves and possibly several friends and family to that game) that they should stop rooting for a win because it is 'short sighted' or 'lunacy'.

At the games I've been at, I've yet to detect a single person cheering at a loss or booing at the end of a win.   If they did so, they were hidden amongst the thousands doing the opposite.

Basically, I suspect that the 'pro tanking', 'root for losing' mindset so frequently expressed by a vocal group on this blog is actually a tiny minority of the actual Celtic fan base.

[Donoghus]

agreed, but in the same vein, rooting for a win streak could bee seen as either lunacy or being short-sighted as well. there's a difference between:
1. Rooting for wins, just to win, and
2. Rooting for development of the young guys

getting a high draft pick just makes too much sense this year. Whether that pick will be used to draft a rookie or trade for an all-star on a bad team, we'll let Ainge decide. But a top-3 pick will definitely hold more value than a 'barely-miss-the-playoffs' win streak by players who might not even be here in a year or two. IMO, falling to the 12th-14th pick will be the worst loss we suffer this season.

Go to an actual game at the Garden.  Stand up and tell all the thousands of people rooting for a win (people who paid real $$ to get themselves and possibly several friends and family to that game) that they should stop rooting for a win because it is 'short sighted' or 'lunacy'.

At the games I've been at, I've yet to detect a single person cheering at a loss or booing at the end of a win.   If they did so, they were hidden amongst the thousands doing the opposite.

Basically, I suspect that the 'pro tanking', 'root for losing' mindset so frequently expressed by a vocal group on this blog is actually a tiny minority of the actual Celtic fan base.

I honestly don't know how much of the fanbase is of the "pro-tanking/root for losing" mindset.  I suspect it might be a bit more than a "tiny minority" but I also wouldn't expect the crowd to be openly cheeering for a lose when they're actually attending a game at the Garden. Deep, down inside they could very well want them to lose but far fewer people are going to be explicit about it at an actual ballgame.

[djbilly33]

to all those opposed to tanking:

i hope you all enjoy theses meaningless wins that will stop us from getting a superstar in the next draft.sure it sucks losing but i rather hit rock bottom this year than be mediocre the next 5-10 years because we can't get a real superstar on the team.(no rondo is not,and don't expect a free-agent one either)the draft is the only way we'll get one,and after having one it will be easier to get more

I agree!!

[Timdawgg]

Okay, some people in this thread need to calm down and take a step off the ledge. Take a look at this sentence

"I would like a high draft pick, because I think it increases our odds of drafting an impact player or making a meaningful trade for one."

That is a reasonable thing to say. But, that is a very different thing from saying,

"It will be an unmitigated disaster if we don't get a high draft pick, it will ruin this franchise going forward, because the only possible route to salvation is to draft [Jabari/Embiid/insert your favorite college player here]."

If you can't tell the difference between these two statements, you need to go look up the word "hyperbole" in the dictionary. Too many people in this thread are saying the latter, which is patently absurd. There are numerous paths to "salvation" in the NBA, as history has proven time and time again. There is no such thing as a 100% in the lottery; look at every draft in NBA history. At least one player in the top 5 is a bust, guaranteed. In some drafts it is more. But there has never been an NBA draft without a bust in the top 5.

The path to a championship is through overall good management. This INCLUDES the lottery, but is not EXCLUSIVE to the lottery. Good management, as Danny Ainge, Larry Bird, Daryl Morey, and others have proven, is NOT following some pre-determined boilerplate template for success - in fact, that is the route to failure. It is inflexible and idiotic. Good management is the process of reacting to new situations and making the best out of them.

If you honestly think that there is any player in this draft that is a 100% sure thing, you are insane, because those don't exist. For every Lebron there is a Darko. If you honestly think that not getting this supposed sure thing means this championship never wins another title ever, you are also insane, because that assumes you can see the future.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion on what is best for this franchise. But stop acting like you are the only prescient one and that nobody else knows or cares as much about this franchise as you, and spewing wild vitriolic hyperbole is not conducive to having an enjoyable or productive discussion about our team.

Remember, say this:

"I would like a high draft pick, because I think it increases our odds of drafting an impact player or making a meaningful trade for one."

NOT this:

"It will be an unmitigated disaster if we don't get a high draft pick, it will ruin this franchise going forward, because the only possible route to salvation is to draft [Jabari/Embiid/insert your favorite college player here]."

One is the well-thought out opinion of a basketball fan, the other are the ramblings of a lunatic.

TP A+++++

[clover]

Okay, some people in this thread need to calm down and take a step off the ledge. Take a look at this sentence

"I would like a high draft pick, because I think it increases our odds of drafting an impact player or making a meaningful trade for one."

That is a reasonable thing to say. But, that is a very different thing from saying,

"It will be an unmitigated disaster if we don't get a high draft pick, it will ruin this franchise going forward, because the only possible route to salvation is to draft [Jabari/Embiid/insert your favorite college player here]."

If you can't tell the difference between these two statements, you need to go look up the word "hyperbole" in the dictionary. Too many people in this thread are saying the latter, which is patently absurd. There are numerous paths to "salvation" in the NBA, as history has proven time and time again. There is no such thing as a 100% in the lottery; look at every draft in NBA history. At least one player in the top 5 is a bust, guaranteed. In some drafts it is more. But there has never been an NBA draft without a bust in the top 5.

The path to a championship is through overall good management. This INCLUDES the lottery, but is not EXCLUSIVE to the lottery. Good management, as Danny Ainge, Larry Bird, Daryl Morey, and others have proven, is NOT following some pre-determined boilerplate template for success - in fact, that is the route to failure. It is inflexible and idiotic. Good management is the process of reacting to new situations and making the best out of them.

If you honestly think that there is any player in this draft that is a 100% sure thing, you are insane, because those don't exist. For every Lebron there is a Darko. If you honestly think that not getting this supposed sure thing means this championship never wins another title ever, you are also insane, because that assumes you can see the future.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion on what is best for this franchise. But stop acting like you are the only prescient one and that nobody else knows or cares as much about this franchise as you, and spewing wild vitriolic hyperbole is not conducive to having an enjoyable or productive discussion about our team.

Remember, say this:

"I would like a high draft pick, because I think it increases our odds of drafting an impact player or making a meaningful trade for one."

NOT this:

"It will be an unmitigated disaster if we don't get a high draft pick, it will ruin this franchise going forward, because the only possible route to salvation is to draft [Jabari/Embiid/insert your favorite college player here]."

One is the well-thought out opinion of a basketball fan, the other are the ramblings of a lunatic.

TP A+++++

The only way Danny succeeded was by landing the #5 pick in the 2007, then trading it for RA, which enabled him to land KG. So that pick was necessary, but not sufficient (that is, Danny also had to use it well after he had built up other tradeable assets) for him to bring us the C's last run of success.

As to Morey, "Houston traded or released just about every veteran except Martin, who was in the final year of his contract and due about $13 million this season." (http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/id/8562868/oklahoma-city-thunder-trade-james-harden-houston-rockets) Martin, of course, went with Lamb (Houston's #12 pick) and two first rounders, plus a second rounder, to the Thunder in order to land Harden.

I give Larry credit: he did build a team with smart drafting when he didn't have top picks. Paul George, however, is now the centerpiece to the team--and he was landed with a #10 pick.

[Spilling Green Dye]

Okay, some people in this thread need to calm down and take a step off the ledge. Take a look at this sentence

"I would like a high draft pick, because I think it increases our odds of drafting an impact player or making a meaningful trade for one."

That is a reasonable thing to say. But, that is a very different thing from saying,

"It will be an unmitigated disaster if we don't get a high draft pick, it will ruin this franchise going forward, because the only possible route to salvation is to draft [Jabari/Embiid/insert your favorite college player here]."

If you can't tell the difference between these two statements, you need to go look up the word "hyperbole" in the dictionary. Too many people in this thread are saying the latter, which is patently absurd. There are numerous paths to "salvation" in the NBA, as history has proven time and time again. There is no such thing as a 100% in the lottery; look at every draft in NBA history. At least one player in the top 5 is a bust, guaranteed. In some drafts it is more. But there has never been an NBA draft without a bust in the top 5.

The path to a championship is through overall good management. This INCLUDES the lottery, but is not EXCLUSIVE to the lottery. Good management, as Danny Ainge, Larry Bird, Daryl Morey, and others have proven, is NOT following some pre-determined boilerplate template for success - in fact, that is the route to failure. It is inflexible and idiotic. Good management is the process of reacting to new situations and making the best out of them.

If you honestly think that there is any player in this draft that is a 100% sure thing, you are insane, because those don't exist. For every Lebron there is a Darko. If you honestly think that not getting this supposed sure thing means this championship never wins another title ever, you are also insane, because that assumes you can see the future.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion on what is best for this franchise. But stop acting like you are the only prescient one and that nobody else knows or cares as much about this franchise as you, and spewing wild vitriolic hyperbole is not conducive to having an enjoyable or productive discussion about our team.

Remember, say this:

"I would like a high draft pick, because I think it increases our odds of drafting an impact player or making a meaningful trade for one."

NOT this:

"It will be an unmitigated disaster if we don't get a high draft pick, it will ruin this franchise going forward, because the only possible route to salvation is to draft [Jabari/Embiid/insert your favorite college player here]."

One is the well-thought out opinion of a basketball fan, the other are the ramblings of a lunatic.

TP A+++++

I understand the difference, but have to respectfully disagree a bit.  First, the "obliterate" being used in the subject of this thread doesn't denote that the Celtics chances for success are obliterated.  It is specific to the lottery, and given how close the bad teams are to each other in record, it is very possible that this 10-game stretch will determine if we draft in the top 5 or 5-12 range.

The reason people have an element of hyperbole here is because there is a historic chasm between drafting in the top 5 and the 5-12 range.  For those, like myself, who believe that the draft (and specifically THIS draft) is the best way to draft an impact player or obtain a trade asset, then where we draft is very important.

Of course there are no guarantees, everyone recognizes that.  And failure to get a top 5 pick doesn't ensure that we're ruined for 10-years.

However, where the hyperbole is somewhat acceptable IMO is that it is ridiculous to think that a couple of extra wins against horrible teams (when we are already horrible) is better than a much higher value top 5 draft pick when we know that this one of the surest ways to re-build. 

[nickagneta]

However, where the hyperbole is somewhat acceptable IMO is that it is ridiculous to think that a couple of extra wins against horrible teams (when we are already horrible) is better than a much higher value top 5 draft pick when we know that this one of the surest ways to re-build.

If the goal is to land a top 5 pick at all costs, then you are right, wins against bad teams are not going to be better than losses against those bad teams.

But at this point, what does ensuring those losses mean?

It means trying to purposely lose on the coaching and playing level instead of the upper management level. And for that, I think the price is too steep. The long term ramifications of doing that are way too large for my taste.

Let's just go out and play the games with the players we have and do what you are supposed to do when playing games, try to win.

If we win and it costs us a slot or three in the playoff rankings so be it. If we lose and maintain where we are or better our position, so be it.

But let's not try to lose just for the sake of a slot or two in the draft order.

[mmmmm]

Okay, some people in this thread need to calm down and take a step off the ledge. Take a look at this sentence

"I would like a high draft pick, because I think it increases our odds of drafting an impact player or making a meaningful trade for one."

That is a reasonable thing to say. But, that is a very different thing from saying,

"It will be an unmitigated disaster if we don't get a high draft pick, it will ruin this franchise going forward, because the only possible route to salvation is to draft [Jabari/Embiid/insert your favorite college player here]."

If you can't tell the difference between these two statements, you need to go look up the word "hyperbole" in the dictionary. Too many people in this thread are saying the latter, which is patently absurd. There are numerous paths to "salvation" in the NBA, as history has proven time and time again. There is no such thing as a 100% in the lottery; look at every draft in NBA history. At least one player in the top 5 is a bust, guaranteed. In some drafts it is more. But there has never been an NBA draft without a bust in the top 5.

The path to a championship is through overall good management. This INCLUDES the lottery, but is not EXCLUSIVE to the lottery. Good management, as Danny Ainge, Larry Bird, Daryl Morey, and others have proven, is NOT following some pre-determined boilerplate template for success - in fact, that is the route to failure. It is inflexible and idiotic. Good management is the process of reacting to new situations and making the best out of them.

If you honestly think that there is any player in this draft that is a 100% sure thing, you are insane, because those don't exist. For every Lebron there is a Darko. If you honestly think that not getting this supposed sure thing means this championship never wins another title ever, you are also insane, because that assumes you can see the future.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion on what is best for this franchise. But stop acting like you are the only prescient one and that nobody else knows or cares as much about this franchise as you, and spewing wild vitriolic hyperbole is not conducive to having an enjoyable or productive discussion about our team.

Remember, say this:

"I would like a high draft pick, because I think it increases our odds of drafting an impact player or making a meaningful trade for one."

NOT this:

"It will be an unmitigated disaster if we don't get a high draft pick, it will ruin this franchise going forward, because the only possible route to salvation is to draft [Jabari/Embiid/insert your favorite college player here]."

One is the well-thought out opinion of a basketball fan, the other are the ramblings of a lunatic.

TP A+++++

The only way Danny succeeded was by landing the #5 pick in the 2007, then trading it for RA, which enabled him to land KG. So that pick was necessary, but not sufficient (that is, Danny also had to use it well after he had built up other tradeable assets) for him to bring us the C's last run of success.

As to Morey, "Houston traded or released just about every veteran except Martin, who was in the final year of his contract and due about $13 million this season." (http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/id/8562868/oklahoma-city-thunder-trade-james-harden-houston-rockets) Martin, of course, went with Lamb (Houston's #12 pick) and two first rounders, plus a second rounder, to the Thunder in order to land Harden.

I give Larry credit: he did build a team with smart drafting when he didn't have top picks. Paul George, however, is now the centerpiece to the team--and he was landed with a #10 pick.

It can be argued that acquiring Ray was only "necessary" because our team sucked that year -- the rumors at the time were that KG didn't want to come to another losing team.

If Paul and Tony had not gotten injured, we would likely NOT have gotten the #5 pick (and possibly not have even been in the lottery at all).  If the roster looked more competitive to KG (he would have joined a starting lineup that would have been identical except for replacing Ray Allen with Tony Allen) it is entirely possible he still would have come.  Tony was an emerging young talent before the injury.  If healthy, that's a legit contender lineup.  Yes, it gives up a lot on offense.  But it would have been stifling on defense.

So the 'necessity' of the #5 pick is circular.  It was only necessary because we sucked bad enough to have the #5 pick.

[mmmmm]

Okay, some people in this thread need to calm down and take a step off the ledge. Take a look at this sentence

"I would like a high draft pick, because I think it increases our odds of drafting an impact player or making a meaningful trade for one."

That is a reasonable thing to say. But, that is a very different thing from saying,

"It will be an unmitigated disaster if we don't get a high draft pick, it will ruin this franchise going forward, because the only possible route to salvation is to draft [Jabari/Embiid/insert your favorite college player here]."

If you can't tell the difference between these two statements, you need to go look up the word "hyperbole" in the dictionary. Too many people in this thread are saying the latter, which is patently absurd. There are numerous paths to "salvation" in the NBA, as history has proven time and time again. There is no such thing as a 100% in the lottery; look at every draft in NBA history. At least one player in the top 5 is a bust, guaranteed. In some drafts it is more. But there has never been an NBA draft without a bust in the top 5.

The path to a championship is through overall good management. This INCLUDES the lottery, but is not EXCLUSIVE to the lottery. Good management, as Danny Ainge, Larry Bird, Daryl Morey, and others have proven, is NOT following some pre-determined boilerplate template for success - in fact, that is the route to failure. It is inflexible and idiotic. Good management is the process of reacting to new situations and making the best out of them.

If you honestly think that there is any player in this draft that is a 100% sure thing, you are insane, because those don't exist. For every Lebron there is a Darko. If you honestly think that not getting this supposed sure thing means this championship never wins another title ever, you are also insane, because that assumes you can see the future.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion on what is best for this franchise. But stop acting like you are the only prescient one and that nobody else knows or cares as much about this franchise as you, and spewing wild vitriolic hyperbole is not conducive to having an enjoyable or productive discussion about our team.

Remember, say this:

"I would like a high draft pick, because I think it increases our odds of drafting an impact player or making a meaningful trade for one."

NOT this:

"It will be an unmitigated disaster if we don't get a high draft pick, it will ruin this franchise going forward, because the only possible route to salvation is to draft [Jabari/Embiid/insert your favorite college player here]."

One is the well-thought out opinion of a basketball fan, the other are the ramblings of a lunatic.

TP A+++++

I understand the difference, but have to respectfully disagree a bit.  First, the "obliterate" being used in the subject of this thread doesn't denote that the Celtics chances for success are obliterated.  It is specific to the lottery, and given how close the bad teams are to each other in record, it is very possible that this 10-game stretch will determine if we draft in the top 5 or 5-12 range.

The reason people have an element of hyperbole here is because there is a historic chasm between drafting in the top 5 and the 5-12 range.  For those, like myself, who believe that the draft (and specifically THIS draft) is the best way to draft an impact player or obtain a trade asset, then where we draft is very important.

Of course there are no guarantees, everyone recognizes that.  And failure to get a top 5 pick doesn't ensure that we're ruined for 10-years.

However, where the hyperbole is somewhat acceptable IMO is that it is ridiculous to think that a couple of extra wins against horrible teams (when we are already horrible) is better than a much higher value top 5 draft pick when we know that this one of the surest ways to re-build.

But ... we don't know that.

If by "this" you specifically mean "having a top-5 pick" (and I admit I'm making that assumption based on your text that I put in italics up above), then I think you need to review just how 'sure' the correlation has been between "teams making a top 5 pick" and "re-building".

My assumption is that by "re-build" you mean "win a title".  If so, then the correlation is simply very, very weak.

If by "re-build" you have more modest goals, say, of simply returning to the playoffs, then the correlation is a little better.

The one "sure thing" about winning a title is that the vast majority of title teams have, indeed, had 'top 5 (drafted)' talent on them.

But another 'sure thing' about those 'top 5(drafted)' players that have won a title, is that the vast majority of them did NOT win a title on the team that draft them.

This is a fact and an important one because it establishes right off the bat that top draft talent moves around and is more likely to end up on a title team through trade / FA than via the draft itself.

There is nothing 'bad' about having a high draft pick, in itself.  But it is not at all the most 'sure way' to rebuild.   And being bad enough to get that pick may not be a good thing.

[BballTim]

Okay, some people in this thread need to calm down and take a step off the ledge. Take a look at this sentence

"I would like a high draft pick, because I think it increases our odds of drafting an impact player or making a meaningful trade for one."

That is a reasonable thing to say. But, that is a very different thing from saying,

"It will be an unmitigated disaster if we don't get a high draft pick, it will ruin this franchise going forward, because the only possible route to salvation is to draft [Jabari/Embiid/insert your favorite college player here]."

If you can't tell the difference between these two statements, you need to go look up the word "hyperbole" in the dictionary. Too many people in this thread are saying the latter, which is patently absurd. There are numerous paths to "salvation" in the NBA, as history has proven time and time again. There is no such thing as a 100% in the lottery; look at every draft in NBA history. At least one player in the top 5 is a bust, guaranteed. In some drafts it is more. But there has never been an NBA draft without a bust in the top 5.

The path to a championship is through overall good management. This INCLUDES the lottery, but is not EXCLUSIVE to the lottery. Good management, as Danny Ainge, Larry Bird, Daryl Morey, and others have proven, is NOT following some pre-determined boilerplate template for success - in fact, that is the route to failure. It is inflexible and idiotic. Good management is the process of reacting to new situations and making the best out of them.

If you honestly think that there is any player in this draft that is a 100% sure thing, you are insane, because those don't exist. For every Lebron there is a Darko. If you honestly think that not getting this supposed sure thing means this championship never wins another title ever, you are also insane, because that assumes you can see the future.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion on what is best for this franchise. But stop acting like you are the only prescient one and that nobody else knows or cares as much about this franchise as you, and spewing wild vitriolic hyperbole is not conducive to having an enjoyable or productive discussion about our team.

Remember, say this:

"I would like a high draft pick, because I think it increases our odds of drafting an impact player or making a meaningful trade for one."

NOT this:

"It will be an unmitigated disaster if we don't get a high draft pick, it will ruin this franchise going forward, because the only possible route to salvation is to draft [Jabari/Embiid/insert your favorite college player here]."

One is the well-thought out opinion of a basketball fan, the other are the ramblings of a lunatic.

TP A+++++

The only way Danny succeeded was by landing the #5 pick in the 2007, then trading it for RA, which enabled him to land KG. So that pick was necessary, but not sufficient (that is, Danny also had to use it well after he had built up other tradeable assets) for him to bring us the C's last run of success.

  I don't know that that's really true. If we'd had a lower pick we still probably could have worked something out with Seattle. Let's face it, the trade was more to get Ray off the roster than the return. It's also not set in stone that we couldn't have eventually gotten KG without Ray.

[clover]

Okay, some people in this thread need to calm down and take a step off the ledge. Take a look at this sentence

"I would like a high draft pick, because I think it increases our odds of drafting an impact player or making a meaningful trade for one."

That is a reasonable thing to say. But, that is a very different thing from saying,

"It will be an unmitigated disaster if we don't get a high draft pick, it will ruin this franchise going forward, because the only possible route to salvation is to draft [Jabari/Embiid/insert your favorite college player here]."

If you can't tell the difference between these two statements, you need to go look up the word "hyperbole" in the dictionary. Too many people in this thread are saying the latter, which is patently absurd. There are numerous paths to "salvation" in the NBA, as history has proven time and time again. There is no such thing as a 100% in the lottery; look at every draft in NBA history. At least one player in the top 5 is a bust, guaranteed. In some drafts it is more. But there has never been an NBA draft without a bust in the top 5.

The path to a championship is through overall good management. This INCLUDES the lottery, but is not EXCLUSIVE to the lottery. Good management, as Danny Ainge, Larry Bird, Daryl Morey, and others have proven, is NOT following some pre-determined boilerplate template for success - in fact, that is the route to failure. It is inflexible and idiotic. Good management is the process of reacting to new situations and making the best out of them.

If you honestly think that there is any player in this draft that is a 100% sure thing, you are insane, because those don't exist. For every Lebron there is a Darko. If you honestly think that not getting this supposed sure thing means this championship never wins another title ever, you are also insane, because that assumes you can see the future.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion on what is best for this franchise. But stop acting like you are the only prescient one and that nobody else knows or cares as much about this franchise as you, and spewing wild vitriolic hyperbole is not conducive to having an enjoyable or productive discussion about our team.

Remember, say this:

"I would like a high draft pick, because I think it increases our odds of drafting an impact player or making a meaningful trade for one."

NOT this:

"It will be an unmitigated disaster if we don't get a high draft pick, it will ruin this franchise going forward, because the only possible route to salvation is to draft [Jabari/Embiid/insert your favorite college player here]."

One is the well-thought out opinion of a basketball fan, the other are the ramblings of a lunatic.

TP A+++++

The only way Danny succeeded was by landing the #5 pick in the 2007, then trading it for RA, which enabled him to land KG. So that pick was necessary, but not sufficient (that is, Danny also had to use it well after he had built up other tradeable assets) for him to bring us the C's last run of success.

  I don't know that that's really true. If we'd had a lower pick we still probably could have worked something out with Seattle. Let's face it, the trade was more to get Ray off the roster than the return. It's also not set in stone that we couldn't have eventually gotten KG without Ray.

Okay, I'll amend it to "the only way Danny did succeed"--does that work for you?

Meanwhile, it should stick in the craw of any self-respecting Celtics fan to see the Lakers out-tanking the C's in such a big draft year:

27 Boston 16-33

Last Week: 26   Not much to see with the Celtics these days beyond fixating on Rajon Rondo's progress. Boston's home win on Super Sunday over Orlando was another step, with Rondo shooting 5-for-7 from outside the paint after entering the game 8-for-32 on such shots since returning from ACL surgery.

28 Los Angeles 16-31

Last Week: 28   The Lakers have surrendered 100-plus points in 14 consecutive games. They're in the midst of their third six-game losing streak of the season. And they just endured their worst month since suffering 12 losses in February 1964, according to the Elias Sports Bureau, by going 3-12 in January.

http://espn.go.com/nba/powerrankings