ESPN on C's future

[Eddie20]

The voters were  Chad Ford, Amin Elhassan, Tom Haberstroh and Kevin Pelton. Factors, such as management, ownership, coaching, a team's spending habits, its cap situation, the reputation of the city and the franchise and what kind of draft picks we expect the team to have in the future.

http://espn.go.com/blog/boston/celtics/post/_/id/4714608/insider-cs-24th-in-future-rankings

ESPN Insider projected the future success of all 30 NBA teams based on a five-category ranking system -- players, management, market, draft, and money -- and the Boston Celtics landed 24th overall.

A snippet from Insider's Kevin Pelton: "Our panel certainly isn't sold on the Celtics' talent, ranking the team 29th in players. To improve that score, Boston will need recent draft picks Kelly Olynyk and Jared Sullinger to take a major step in their development. Lottery pick Marcus Smart also figures to step into a larger role at point guard when -- not if -- Rondo is traded. Beyond that group, Boston is paying a lot of money to inconsistent wings Avery Bradley and Jeff Green and has young prospects with more questions than answers at this point."

• Rapid Reaction: It's worth noting that the "players" category is weighted at 50 percent of the total score, with each remaining category worth no more than 16.7 percent. With the panel believing a Rondo trade is inevitable and uncertain on the development of Boston's younger players, it should be no surprise that the Celtics landed in the bottom third of the future rankings. What remains to be seen is whether the team will ultimately elect to move on without Rondo, or whether they'll build around him and hope that, if he can rebound to All-Star form during the 2014-15 season, he might help accelerate the team's rebuilding process by attracting additional talent to town. The Celtics will hope that their treasure trove of assets gives them multiple routes to navigate this rebuild, while believing their younger players will make the strides necessary to help the team be competitive again. Ultimately, there are too many variables to accurately predict how bright Boston's future truly is, but the team certainly hopes it has positioned itself better than Insider's ratings predict. -- Chris Forsberg

[ImShakHeIsShaq]

That's their opinion, they are entitled to it, good thing it's not fact or I'd have to listen. 

I was about to argue against some of their points but I will just let others have it because it would be a waste of my time!

[GetLucky]

Every one of their "experts" said the Pats would beat the Dolphins. I don't know how much more definite an ESPN report can get guys...

[Celtics4ever]

I think we are tanking this year kinda given the no fireworks.  ESPN is a joke, not to mention a lot of Celtic haters!

[manl_lui]

I freakin' HATE ESPN. They've always been a Celtics hater

[D.o.s.]

IMO you bolded the wrong part:

it's worth noting that the "players" category is weighted at 50 percent of the total score, with each remaining category worth no more than 16.7 percent. With the panel believing a Rondo trade is inevitable and uncertain on the development of Boston's younger players, it should be no surprise that the Celtics landed in the bottom third of the future rankings.

[fantankerous]

IMO you bolded the wrong part:

it's worth noting that the "players" category is weighted at 50 percent of the total score, with each remaining category worth no more than 16.7 percent. With the panel believing a Rondo trade is inevitable and uncertain on the development of Boston's younger players, it should be no surprise that the Celtics landed in the bottom third of the future rankings.

Given the criteria, I'd say they are correct.  I suspect we'll be better than 24th in a few years, but I also suspect very little of our "young talent" will remain on our roster.

[ImShakHeIsShaq]

IMO you bolded the wrong part:

it's worth noting that the "players" category is weighted at 50 percent of the total score, with each remaining category worth no more than 16.7 percent. With the panel believing a Rondo trade is inevitable and uncertain on the development of Boston's younger players, it should be no surprise that the Celtics landed in the bottom third of the future rankings.

I'm back to say how STUPID it is to suggest that RR is any hindrance to our rookies, even those that play his position. No one would suggest that if Cavs were to get a good rookie to play behind LeBron at SF that it would be a bad thing. Sure, LeBron is better than RR but RR is and has been a great player in his own right, that can be beneficial to the development of our rookies. It gets on my nerves when people say it. If Smart gets to play behind/with and learn from RR, to me, it's better than just throwing him out there without an example of how to get it done. People really hate RR for no reason.

I absolutely wish Sully and KO had a chance to learn under KG, it would be good for them IMO. Well, Sully at least got half a season w/ him. I'm glad AB got to be under Ray's wings when he was here, I may not like RA right now but if I want my rookies to learn how to work and get it done, there aren't better examples to learn from! The player and leader PP grew into would have been great for our rookies to be aroound.

Do people really not like RR so much that they would suggest that our rookies couldn't learn from him? He doesn't get into trouble off the court and the arguments and things he has had are small in comparison to other great players, he works with the community, he is a hard worker, and a very smart guy. I just can't stand LeBron at all but I would love for our guys to get a chance to learn from him. Heck, I would even want our players to learn from Kobe!

It's not like RR is going to stop Smart from getting any PT and even if RR causes Smart to get few minutes a game, it doesn't stop Smart from becoming a better player. AB couldn't sniff the court but what he did outside of games helped to give him the chance to unseat Ray in the starting lineup! Many good player aren't handed an abundance of minutes off the bat. If they can't grow without getting handed a lot of minutes then that is a problem with what they are doing outside of games. Smart is going to get minutes, his work outside of those minutes will help him earn more!

Kelly and Sully are probably going to better for playing with guys even of Bass and Hump's level, those guys know how to put in work and maximize their lesser talents! They are by all accounts good guys off the court too, that is huge for young guys to be around. As much flack as Hump got for the KK marriage, the guy was nothing but a pro and didn't get into trouble. Bad choice of a spouse but he didn't commit any crime in that choice!

I'm not really bothered that they think we don't have a bright future, I'm more bothered by the things they use to to back up that theory. Not everyone is going to like my team and have faith in them but don't say things that don't make much sense!

[Eddie20]

IMO you bolded the wrong part:

it's worth noting that the "players" category is weighted at 50 percent of the total score, with each remaining category worth no more than 16.7 percent. With the panel believing a Rondo trade is inevitable and uncertain on the development of Boston's younger players, it should be no surprise that the Celtics landed in the bottom third of the future rankings.

What you quoted is what Forsberg wrote, what I bolded was what was written on the Insider article.

[Nerf DPOY]

IMO you bolded the wrong part:

it's worth noting that the "players" category is weighted at 50 percent of the total score, with each remaining category worth no more than 16.7 percent. With the panel believing a Rondo trade is inevitable and uncertain on the development of Boston's younger players, it should be no surprise that the Celtics landed in the bottom third of the future rankings.

I'm back to say how STUPID it is to suggest that RR is any hindrance to our rookies, even those that play his position. No one would suggest that if Cavs were to get a good rookie to play behind LeBron at SF that it would be a bad thing. Sure, LeBron is better than RR but RR is and has been a great player in his own right, that can be beneficial to the development of our rookies. It gets on my nerves when people say it. If Smart gets to play behind/with and learn from RR, to me, it's better than just throwing him out there without an example of how to get it done. People really hate RR for no reason.

I think you misinterpreted the quote. It wasn't saying that Rondo hindered the development of the young guys, but that they subtracted Rondo's presence in their assessment of the value of the current roster because they are expecting a trade. Their value of the roster(sans Rondo) accounted for fifty percent of their score.

It's not a very good formula.

[Rick Robeys Return]

Amen, Shak!! TP for you! Couldnt of said it better myself....

"I'm back to say how STUPID it is to suggest that RR is any hindrance to our rookies, even those that play his position. No one would suggest that if Cavs were to get a good rookie to play behind LeBron at SF that it would be a bad thing. Sure, LeBron is better than RR but RR is and has been a great player in his own right, that can be beneficial to the development of our rookies. It gets on my nerves when people say it. If Smart gets to play behind/with and learn from RR, to me, it's better than just throwing him out there without an example of how to get it done. People really hate RR for no reason."

[Nerf DPOY]

Okay I give up.

[Vox_Populi]

I didn't agree with their weighting system. I also disagreed with where Boston's management was ranked.

[Lucky17]

LOL, any forecast for the "future" of an NBA team that factors draft picks at less than 10% is pretty suspect.

[ImShakHeIsShaq]

IMO you bolded the wrong part:

it's worth noting that the "players" category is weighted at 50 percent of the total score, with each remaining category worth no more than 16.7 percent. With the panel believing a Rondo trade is inevitable and uncertain on the development of Boston's younger players, it should be no surprise that the Celtics landed in the bottom third of the future rankings.

I'm back to say how STUPID it is to suggest that RR is any hindrance to our rookies, even those that play his position. No one would suggest that if Cavs were to get a good rookie to play behind LeBron at SF that it would be a bad thing. Sure, LeBron is better than RR but RR is and has been a great player in his own right, that can be beneficial to the development of our rookies. It gets on my nerves when people say it. If Smart gets to play behind/with and learn from RR, to me, it's better than just throwing him out there without an example of how to get it done. People really hate RR for no reason.

I think you misinterpreted the quote. It wasn't saying that Rondo hindered the development of the young guys, but that they subtracted Rondo's presence in their assessment of the value of the current roster because they are expecting a trade. Their value of the roster(sans Rondo) accounted for fifty percent of their score.

It's not a very good formula.

Okay, thanks. If I'm wrong, I have no problem admitting it. I'm wrong here.

Question, what do they think we are getting for RR if we do trade him, nothing?

So, I'll just say that it's for others who feel that way.