ESPN on C's future

[GreenWarrior]

I think they're correct in saying we need sully and or oly to take a big jump if we're going to be any better than where many are picking us to end up. and big surprise they mention Avery Bradley's contract...

but it's been a while since I've taken anything ESPN has to say seriously. I mainly watch to see just how idiotic they are now. when you have idiots like Stephen A. Smith saying things like "Ray Rice shouldn't lose his job because Riley Cooper didn't" and ESPN continuing to not only have this guy on the air but I imagine every time he steps off the set they're there to pat him on the back. but they actually suspend him for doing what he normally does - saying something stupid, instead of firing him...something that should've been done a long time ago.

[Nerf DPOY]

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

Well, that was one of my problems with their approach that seemed beyond absurd. They have this rigid weighting system they've established, then disregard it immediately by yanking Rondo off the roster without any compensation.

Factors out of anyone's control such as major injuries, the human element, ping pong balls and other miscellaneous forms of luck will probably have a bigger impact on the future than the factors they've used. I guess that wouldn't make for a very thought provoking article, though.

[action781]

24th seems about right considering this is a judgment over the "next 3 years".  I mean we are going to be pretty bad this season.  There isn't going to be a miraculous turnaround next season.  Hopefully something good is in place for the third season, but there are no guarantees for sure and even if it does, the 3 year average still wouldn't look that great.

[obnoxiousmime]

I think the ranking is fair. We're paying Bradley, Wallace, and Green 28 million for possibly the next 2-4 years. We don't have any young player with star talent besides MAYBE Smart. Barring an unexpected trade for a star or a supermax overpay, Rondo is not going to be on the roster. We might be able to get something for him, but it's impossible to speculate on that for the ranking. We do have a plethora of draft picks but besides our own, but it's unclear whether they will be worth much at this point.

The fact that Minnesota preferred Wiggins (and Bennett) over our offer of a bunch of picks and whatever young player speaks volumes about how much those assets are worth compared to just one player with star potential. When we lost the lottery we lost Love and thus are going to lose Rondo. It also tied us to further rebuilding for the forseeable future.

[Beat LA]

I think they're correct in saying we need sully and or oly to take a big jump if we're going to be any better than where many are picking us to end up. and big surprise they mention Avery Bradley's contract...

but it's been a while since I've taken anything ESPN has to say seriously. I mainly watch to see just how idiotic they are now. when you have idiots like Stephen A. Smith saying things like "Ray Rice shouldn't lose his job because Riley Cooper didn't" and ESPN continuing to not only have this guy on the air but I imagine every time he steps off the set they're there to pat him on the back. but they actually suspend him for doing what he normally does - saying something stupid, instead of firing him...something that should've been done a long time ago.

Yeah, I stopped watching ESPN a couple of years ago and haven't missed their nauseating amount of football coverage, in addition to everything else that just, for lack of a better word, sucks about that network at all   They're a joke. 

Of course, I also stopped watching csnne, especially because it's not basketball season.  Who wants to listen to those blabbering buffoons known as felger and mazz? 

Has Stephen A. been fired from first take, btw?  I don't watch that show either, but I will occasionally visit their youtube channel to see if there's actually anything interesting that's going on, and there really never is to be honest   They're all idiots.  I think someone had the line that ESPN is like the TMZ of sports , but I'll take it a step further and also add CNN to their cause haha.  Morons.

[Celtics4ever]

I think they're correct in saying we need sully and or oly to take a big jump if we're going to be any better than where many are picking us to end up. and big surprise they mention Avery Bradley's contract...

I think that this is so obvious that ESPN did not even need to say it.  Everyone knows this ....

[fairweatherfan]

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

How the heck are the Knicks lower on "money" than the Hawks and the Phoenix "Death before luxury tax" Suns?

I'm beginning to think this ESPN fluff article may be somewhat lacking in scientific rigor.

[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.

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

I know. I read the insider article.  I stand by what I said.

From the original article:

Boston chased Kevin Love but came up short, and with point guard Rajon Rondo now heading into the final season of his contract, a trade appears all but inevitable, and so too a lengthy rebuild... The good news is only the Philadelphia 76ers rank higher in terms of future draft value.

They think our team sucks, especially without rondo, and the roster is the most heavily weighted part of this poll. That's the important takeaway.

[Moranis]

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

How the heck are the Knicks lower on "money" than the Hawks and the Phoenix "Death before luxury tax" Suns?

I'm beginning to think this ESPN fluff article may be somewhat lacking in scientific rigor.

I'm sure money has more to do with cap flexibility than actual money. 

[Rondo9]

Espn has an opinion and they're entitled to it but I think they're wrong the celtics have a promising future

[fairweatherfan]

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

How the heck are the Knicks lower on "money" than the Hawks and the Phoenix "Death before luxury tax" Suns?

I'm beginning to think this ESPN fluff article may be somewhat lacking in scientific rigor.

I'm sure money has more to do with cap flexibility than actual money.

That's what I figure - it's the only way it makes even a little sense - but the Knicks will have somewhere around $50 million coming off their payroll next offseason, possibly close to $60 if JR Smith forgoes his option.  And that's ignoring the flexibility their expirings give them in trades this year.

I think any measure of a franchise's "money" should factor in how willing the franchise is to spend overall, not just how much they could hypothetically have under the cap.  If the Suns spend more than the Knicks in the next two offseasons I'll eat my hat.

[cb8883]

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

I've been saying for a year that the Celtics are a mid market team. Everyone gets so defensive. Apparently ESPN agrees.

[D.o.s.]

People from Minnesota get all hot and bothered when you tell them they're in a small market, too.

[LooseCannon]

I've been saying for a year that the Celtics are a mid market team. Everyone gets so defensive. Apparently ESPN agrees.

"Money" clearly isn't about market size in that ranking if the Lakers are #1 and the Bulls, Clippers, and Nets are the bottom three.