Is Stevens going to start the rookies in April?

[BballTim]

...Im as pro tanking as it gets but 4-5 more franchise cornerstones?

Julius Randle is a franchise cornerstone?

It's debatable if even Wiggins/Parker/Embiid are.

  I kept hearing that there were 7-8 franchise cornerstones in the draft, including a couple of LeBron level players. Or maybe a LeBron and a Hakeem, I can't recall for sure. People were assuring me this was true.

I honestly doubt a player better than Wade will come out this draft. That's nothing to be ashamed of, since Wade's top 5 all time in his position, but it was hyped like it'd have guys around there.

I don't know about you guys, but my crystal ball's been broken, so I don't know whether the hype will be warranted.

The fact that people got caught up in the "best draft class in years with 6 or 7 ridiculously talented rookies..." part of "The best draft class in years with 6 or 7 ridiculously talented rookies with very high ceilings who will probably be great players in the NBA" isn't their fault.

  Who's fault is it then? And who's fault is it that anyone wouldn't take "6-7 great players in the draft" with a huge grain of salt?

[D.o.s.]

There's a pretty big echo chamber effect with social media & the internet, so when someone like Chad Ford comes out and says "there's six or seven franchise players in this draft class," it's easy for someone like Bill Simmons to latch on to it, and very quickly the noise just elevates until someone says "hey, these guys aren't the next coming of the messiah the way Chad Ford said they were" and "these scouts don't know what they're talking about" and "they must clearly be awful and everyone must be full of it."

Some people enjoy being contrarian. The truth, as always, is in the middle. These guys are most likely going to be outstanding rookies, barring injury. You could see one, or two, or seven of them hit the LeBron/Durant/'Melo rookie level. That's a big leap away from the 2013 versions of those respective players -- I mean, how many people really watched KD struggle as a shooting guard in Seattle? Five?

[LilRip]

There's a pretty big echo chamber effect with social media & the internet, so when someone like Chad Ford comes out and says "there's six or seven franchise players in this draft class," it's easy for someone like Bill Simmons to latch on to it, and very quickly the noise just elevates until someone says "hey, these guys aren't the next coming of the messiah the way Chad Ford said they were" and "these scouts don't know what they're talking about" and "they must clearly be awful and everyone must be full of it."

Some people enjoy being contrarian. The truth, as always, is in the middle. These guys are most likely going to be outstanding rookies, barring injury. You could see one, or two, or seven of them hit the LeBron/Durant/'Melo rookie level. That's a big leap away from the 2013 versions of those respective players -- I mean, how many people really watched KD struggle as a shooting guard in Seattle? Five?

Wholly agree with the second paragraph. I've said it before but this draft has gotten hyped to the point that I think some on here have expectations that the rookies will come in and play like current-day Lebron or Durant, or in Tim's case, think that others expect the rookies to play like that. Think about it. An MVP-level season from a rookie. That's unreasonable. Not impossible, but if that's the standard, then it's unreasonable.

I expect some very good rookies though, but even if we do land Wiggins, I don't even expect us to make the playoffs yet.

[BballTim]

There's a pretty big echo chamber effect with social media & the internet, so when someone like Chad Ford comes out and says "there's six or seven franchise players in this draft class," it's easy for someone like Bill Simmons to latch on to it, and very quickly the noise just elevates until someone says "hey, these guys aren't the next coming of the messiah the way Chad Ford said they were" and "these scouts don't know what they're talking about" and "they must clearly be awful and everyone must be full of it."

Some people enjoy being contrarian. The truth, as always, is in the middle. These guys are most likely going to be outstanding rookies, barring injury. You could see one, or two, or seven of them hit the LeBron/Durant/'Melo rookie level. That's a big leap away from the 2013 versions of those respective players -- I mean, how many people really watched KD struggle as a shooting guard in Seattle? Five?

Wholly agree with the second paragraph. I've said it before but this draft has gotten hyped to the point that I think some on here have expectations that the rookies will come in and play like current-day Lebron or Durant, or in Tim's case, think that others expect the rookies to play like that.

  Yes, claim I said something I didn't to make the other opinion seem less ridiculous. Good plan.

[LilRip]

There's a pretty big echo chamber effect with social media & the internet, so when someone like Chad Ford comes out and says "there's six or seven franchise players in this draft class," it's easy for someone like Bill Simmons to latch on to it, and very quickly the noise just elevates until someone says "hey, these guys aren't the next coming of the messiah the way Chad Ford said they were" and "these scouts don't know what they're talking about" and "they must clearly be awful and everyone must be full of it."

Some people enjoy being contrarian. The truth, as always, is in the middle. These guys are most likely going to be outstanding rookies, barring injury. You could see one, or two, or seven of them hit the LeBron/Durant/'Melo rookie level. That's a big leap away from the 2013 versions of those respective players -- I mean, how many people really watched KD struggle as a shooting guard in Seattle? Five?

Wholly agree with the second paragraph. I've said it before but this draft has gotten hyped to the point that I think some on here have expectations that the rookies will come in and play like current-day Lebron or Durant, or in Tim's case, think that others expect the rookies to play like that.

  Yes, claim I said something I didn't to make the other opinion seem less ridiculous. Good plan.

Yes, like 9-10 cornerstone players? Lol. Dos' confusing sentence summed it up well enough.

There's very little middle ground on this board it seems (or at least, a less vocal middle ground). You constantly read posts that are either overly enthusiastic about the draft and expect the pick to save the franchise or posts that would be shocked if these players will amount even to the level of Jeff Green or belittle the importance of draft picks. Since the former seems to have stuck with you more, which presumably led to your previous remarks, I made the assumption.

[ScoobyDoo]

For me, I certainly hope so.

I'd like to see Faverani (if he were healthy), Olynyk, Sully, Chris Johnson, Babb and Pressey play every minute of every game for the rest of the season. I'd maybe play Rondo, Hump, Green, Bayless and Bass spot minutes here and there, only as needed for a bit of rest for the young guys here and there.

There are so many reasons why this would be my path as owner / GM / Coach:

1. I already know what Hum, Bass, Bayless, Green and Rondo can do. There is no mystery here for me. The things they need to continue working on can be picked up again in trainign camp and all next season.

2. I do not need to showcase these guys either -the league already knows what each of them can do.

3. Most importantly, it's highly likely that Hump, Bass and Bayless, and maybe Green, will not be here next year. Therefore, why on earth would I invest my time and resources in them.

4. I need Olynyk and Sully to maximize their growth curve - on the court.

5. I need to know if Pressey can be a long term 3rd string point for me

6. I need to know if Babb and Johnson can be inexpensive long term 2nd and 3rd string two guards for me.

7. I need to know if Faverani can be a long term 2nd or 3rd string center for me.

I would maximize this time to accelerate these kids growth curves.

Furthermore - I don't need the mid level talents of Hump, Bass & Bayless, guys who may well not be here next season, eking out meaningless two point wins against other lottery bound teams and in the process decreasing my chances of landing a legit blue chip player.

If I want to try and land a Kevin Love type player this off season, I have a much better chance of doing that if I can go to the Wolves management with a top three pick and other pieces than with the 8th pick and the same peripheral pieces.

It's not tanking, it's strategic development. There is a huge and legitimate difference in my book. This team will be far better off by playing Olynyk, Sully - and to a lesser extent Johnson, Babb and pressey all the minutes they can these last 15 or so games.           

[D.o.s.]

It's not tanking, it's strategic development. There is a huge and legitimate difference in my book.

ScoobyDoo works in Philly's Front Office.

[Vox_Populi]

The fact that people got caught up in the "best draft class in years with 6 or 7 ridiculously talented rookies..." part of "The best draft class in years with 6 or 7 ridiculously talented rookies with very high ceilings who will probably be great players in the NBA" isn't their fault.

Man, that sentence took me like 5 read-throughs to comprehend.


That said -- I agree.  I don't even think we've seen anything to refute the idea that this draft class has at least 6 or 7 very talented players. 

However, I think a lot of people interpreted that as "6 or 7 players who are guaranteed to become stars and make an immediate impact in the league" (i.e. 'sure things'), and that notion seems to have been hype.

Maybe I gave the wrong impression.  I don't expect any of the rookies to immediately change a team. I mean, not even a transcendent sophomore like Davis has dramatically improved NO. I'm just making a prediction. This class is being called the best since 2003 and Wade was the second best player in that draft. By just my own consideration,  I just think it's unlikely there'll be a player potentially as good.

[ScoobyDoo]

In some ways, yes i do work in Philly's front office.

I don't believe in investing game minutes in players who are most likely part of my past.

I believe much more in investing minutes in players who are most likely part of my future.

Even if any of Bass, Bayless or Humphries stick around as part of our veteran core, I know what they bring. I also know they are not starters on a championship team  - all three of them are decent complimentary players.

The growth needed to be achieved by Olynyk, Sully, Pressey, babb, Johnson and Faverani far outweighs whatever growth can still be achieved by these mid talent vets.

D.o.s. - I know you're email was a bit mocking in tone - but I really do not consider that tanking. It's a choice on how to best invest my time and resources for the best possible outcome. If I know a sales guy will most likely not be with my compnay in 6-12 months, should I invest time in training him for a management position? Or should I invest my time grooming the young guys who by all indications, will be with the company longer term?

I think Hinkie took it to another level obviously. However, I don't really disagree with his trade of Evan Turner. Turner is a complimentary mid talent young vet who will never be a #1,2 or 3 piece of a championship team but will demand more money than warranted.

Outside of all that , we will have a higher level of success in 1-2, 3 years from now by developing Olynyk and Sully as fast as possible so they are either solid starters or higher grade trade chips to bring in the right pieces.

I actually like Hump, Bass and Bayless - but they are quantified as players   

[PhoSita]

D.o.s. - I know you're email was a bit mocking in tone - but I really do not consider that tanking. It's a choice on how to best invest my time and resources for the best possible outcome. If I know a sales guy will most likely not be with my compnay in 6-12 months, should I invest time in training him for a management position? Or should I invest my time grooming the young guys who by all indications, will be with the company longer term?

I agree about giving the younger, less-proven guys more time to develop and show what they can be, especially playing together.

However, I think Bayless, Hump, and Green could have a significant future here, depending on what the team looks to do with Rondo.

If the plan is to keep Rondo, those guys will be important as capable, experienced supporting pieces who have been spent some time here.  I could see Bayless and Hump re-signed at reasonable money to play key backup roles next season.  Couple that with a move over the summer of younger assets for an established player and a defensive center, and suddenly the focus is on the present.

If opportunities to upgrade the team right now, or in the next 8-10 months, don't present themselves, though, I'd expect the team to move Rondo and look for younger, cheaper guys to fill out the roster.

My premise for a while has been that if the Celtics want to keep Rondo, the roster will have to be ready to compete by next summer.

[D.o.s.]

In some ways, yes i do work in Philly's front office.

I don't believe in investing game minutes in players who are most likely part of my past.

I believe much more in investing minutes in players who are most likely part of my future.

Even if any of Bass, Bayless or Humphries stick around as part of our veteran core, I know what they bring. I also know they are not starters on a championship team  - all three of them are decent complimentary players.

The growth needed to be achieved by Olynyk, Sully, Pressey, babb, Johnson and Faverani far outweighs whatever growth can still be achieved by these mid talent vets.

D.o.s. - I know you're email was a bit mocking in tone - but I really do not consider that tanking. It's a choice on how to best invest my time and resources for the best possible outcome. If I know a sales guy will most likely not be with my compnay in 6-12 months, should I invest time in training him for a management position? Or should I invest my time grooming the young guys who by all indications, will be with the company longer term?

I think Hinkie took it to another level obviously. However, I don't really disagree with his trade of Evan Turner. Turner is a complimentary mid talent young vet who will never be a #1,2 or 3 piece of a championship team but will demand more money than warranted.

Outside of all that , we will have a higher level of success in 1-2, 3 years from now by developing Olynyk and Sully as fast as possible so they are either solid starters or higher grade trade chips to bring in the right pieces.

I actually like Hump, Bass and Bayless - but they are quantified as players   

I agree with you, I'm just pointing out that tanking 'usually' is defined by not putting the best possible basketball product on the floor given the construction of the roster.

Which seems to me to be very, very, similar to 'Development' time.

[ScoobyDoo]

Yep, that's true D.o.s, for sure - point well taken.

I think Philly is "tanking".
I think the Lakers are "tanking" for sure.

I'm not sure what Milwaukee is doing... that roster should've have won a lot more games than they have.

Sacramento is like Milwaukee - they "should" be winning more games than they have.

I think Utah and Boston are in that middle range and both have enough middle talent level players to help them win just a bit more games than preferred if you're after a top three pick.

For us, If you took out Hump, Bass and Bayless this year - I think we'd be with Philly and Milwaukee as far as win / loss.

[nickagneta]

If the Celtics play all the rookies and tank hard/develop young talent/invest in future assets/whatever you want to call it and ends up with the 4th worst record, if the teams with the 5th and 6th worst records end up winning the top two spots in the lottery does that mean the Celtics tanked too much?

[LooseCannon]

I believe much more in investing minutes in players who are most likely part of my future.

I believe that force-feeding minutes to young players is not necessarily the best way to maximize their growth.

[ScoobyDoo]

If the Celtics play all the rookies and tank hard/develop young talent/invest in future assets/whatever you want to call it and ends up with the 4th worst record, if the teams with the 5th and 6th worst records end up winning the top two spots in the lottery does that mean the Celtics tanked too much?

LOL > TP