Enjoy the quick fix. Danny set this franchise back.

[Celtics18]

the 2008 Atlanta Hawks featured a rookie Al Horford... and essentially no one else from the modern day squad. To say they "turned out pretty good" and that they gained "valuable playoff experience" is like saying the 2002 Celtics "turned out pretty good" and gained "valuable playoff experience" for 2008.

'Tain't the same group of fellas.

Yes, Al Horford is still a Hawk.  If his rookie year experience of being in the playoffs and giving the Boston Celtics a good battle in the first round was a positive one for his development, then it's not a leap to say that it was good for the Hawks organization overall.

He is after all a fairly important member of their franchise. 

[PhoSita]

I'm getting sick of the labeling going on around here these days (tanker, hinkier, etc).

Thinking that it might not be the greatest thing for the franchise to make the playoffs with a roster that is still probably every bit as far away from true contention as the calculated tank job in Philly doesn't make some one a bad Celtics fan.

If you wouldn't take Embiid, right now, for anyone currently on our roster, injury and weight concerns and all, just know that you wouldn't make a very good NBA GM.

And so the labeling continues!!!

Yeah, to be clear, labeling isn't allowed around here:

Do not label or challenge fellow posters -- either individually or collectively -- in a way that is likely to provoke a negative response.  Dependent upon context, examples include, but are not limited to, "fake fan", "bandwagon fan", "not a real fan", "hater", "homer", "koolaid drinker"...

I'm not sure that the "if you don't agree with me, you're [pick appropriate insult] is much better, though.  It shouldn't be that hard to comply with the "respect others at all times" mandate.

Fair enough.

I'd encourage the mods to be a bit more pro-active in challenging posters to elevate the conversation.

[Donoghus]

I'm getting sick of the labeling going on around here these days (tanker, hinkier, etc).

Thinking that it might not be the greatest thing for the franchise to make the playoffs with a roster that is still probably every bit as far away from true contention as the calculated tank job in Philly doesn't make some one a bad Celtics fan.

If you wouldn't take Embiid, right now, for anyone currently on our roster, injury and weight concerns and all, just know that you wouldn't make a very good NBA GM.

And so the labeling continues!!!

Yeah, to be clear, labeling isn't allowed around here:

Do not label or challenge fellow posters -- either individually or collectively -- in a way that is likely to provoke a negative response.  Dependent upon context, examples include, but are not limited to, "fake fan", "bandwagon fan", "not a real fan", "hater", "homer", "koolaid drinker"...

I'm not sure that the "if you don't agree with me, you're [pick appropriate insult] is much better, though.  It shouldn't be that hard to comply with the "respect others at all times" mandate.

Fair enough.

I'd encourage the mods to be a bit more pro-active in challenging posters to elevate the conversation.

We do have lives outside this blog.  Also, it's not the easiest to go through multiple pages of dozens of threads.  Especially on a Monday coming off the weekend when we may not actively be on here when new threads pop up.

We try.

[D.o.s.]

the 2008 Atlanta Hawks featured a rookie Al Horford... and essentially no one else from the modern day squad. To say they "turned out pretty good" and that they gained "valuable playoff experience" is like saying the 2002 Celtics "turned out pretty good" and gained "valuable playoff experience" for 2008.

'Tain't the same group of fellas.

Yes, Al Horford is still a Hawk.  If his rookie year experience of being in the playoffs and giving the Boston Celtics a good battle in the first round was a positive one for his development, then it's not a leap to say that it was good for the Hawks organization overall.

He is after all a fairly important member of their franchise.

Well, as has already been established, that wasn't really the point of contention.

However: I'm sure Paul Pierce's experience chucking up threes with 'Toine better equipped him for actually playing winning basketball in the postseason five years later, in some capacity or another. A meaningful experience? Debatable (and largely impossible to determine without asking The Truth).

[oldtype]

I really can't believe this thread has devolved into people arguing that Cleveland is nicer than Boston. Tourists come to Boston from all over the world. Tourists from all over the world avoid Cleveland.

I'm not sure there are any metrics by which Cleveland is a better city.

You read some of the "free agents will never come to Boston" talk and you'd think we played in North Korea or something.

Fans of about 2/3 of the teams in the league would shake their heads in disbelief if they heard us complaining about Boston being a "small market."

[Celtics18]

the 2008 Atlanta Hawks featured a rookie Al Horford... and essentially no one else from the modern day squad. To say they "turned out pretty good" and that they gained "valuable playoff experience" is like saying the 2002 Celtics "turned out pretty good" and gained "valuable playoff experience" for 2008.

'Tain't the same group of fellas.

Yes, Al Horford is still a Hawk.  If his rookie year experience of being in the playoffs and giving the Boston Celtics a good battle in the first round was a positive one for his development, then it's not a leap to say that it was good for the Hawks organization overall.

He is after all a fairly important member of their franchise.

Well, as has already been established, that wasn't really the point of contention.

However: I'm sure Paul Pierce's experience chucking up threes with 'Toine better equipped him for actually playing winning basketball in the postseason five years later, in some capacity or another. A meaningful experience? Debatable (and largely impossible to determine without asking The Truth).

I'll bet it did.  But I agree that it is one of those things that can't really be accurately measured.  Even if you asked Paul Pierce (or Al Horford) how much impact their early playoff experiences had on them as pros and as individuals, they could fairly easily lie, embellish, romanticize, be overly cynical, or simply misremember things. 

Darn it, where are the objective measurables for this??!!

[Moranis]

I really can't believe this thread has devolved into people arguing that Cleveland is nicer than Boston. Tourists come to Boston from all over the world. Tourists from all over the world avoid Cleveland.

I'm not sure there are any metrics by which Cleveland is a better city.

You are right, no one ever goes to the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, Cedar Point, or the countless other things in the greater Cleveland area.  Movies like Captain America are never filmed in Cleveland because you know Cleveland sucks.  And that small little hospital that everyone in the world knows, must suck because you know it is in Cleveland.

Cleveland is an excellent city.  It doesn't have urban sprawl, has a very nice and active downtown, is clean, lacks the crime of other major cities, and has plenty to do both inside and outside.

[D.o.s.]

the 2008 Atlanta Hawks featured a rookie Al Horford... and essentially no one else from the modern day squad. To say they "turned out pretty good" and that they gained "valuable playoff experience" is like saying the 2002 Celtics "turned out pretty good" and gained "valuable playoff experience" for 2008.

'Tain't the same group of fellas.

Yes, Al Horford is still a Hawk.  If his rookie year experience of being in the playoffs and giving the Boston Celtics a good battle in the first round was a positive one for his development, then it's not a leap to say that it was good for the Hawks organization overall.

He is after all a fairly important member of their franchise.

Well, as has already been established, that wasn't really the point of contention.

However: I'm sure Paul Pierce's experience chucking up threes with 'Toine better equipped him for actually playing winning basketball in the postseason five years later, in some capacity or another. A meaningful experience? Debatable (and largely impossible to determine without asking The Truth).

I'll bet it did.  But I agree that it is one of those things that can't really be accurately measured.  Even if you asked Paul Pierce (or Al Horford) how much impact their early playoff experiences had on them as pros and as individuals, they could fairly easily lie, embellish, romanticize, be overly cynical, or simply misremember things. 

Darn it, where are the objective measurables for this??!!

I'm sure Hollinger is on the case as we speak. 


edit: and as someone who has lived in Boston and been to Cleveland but currently lives in neither...




Cleveland is yucky.

[Mencius]

Again, pure speculation. Can you put a number on the value between the 10th and the 15th pick? Can you put a number on the value of playoff experience? Because if you use the word "value", you have to subtract the second number from the first.

Saying that the 10th pick is a better asset than the 15th would be speculation only in your mind.  It's pure fact.

You're ignoring my question. Nice strawman.

Uh huh.  Well if you didn't like my short version of discounting this great value of getting blown out in the first round, here's a more fleshed out version.    I say getting blown out in the first round isn't going to add any value to our players, and that any minimal experiential value gained by a first round blow out will be more than offset by the loss in value of the pick, and the fact that we are still in middle of  the roster flux of a rebuild means that more than half the players on this team won't be here in two years, and probably not even next year, to reap any playoff experience reward that you feel would be of so much value. 

You really think getting blown out in the first round adds a lot of player value, or is it more likely that the league recognizes what a remarkable coach Stevens is to have gotten this constantly changing collection to the playoffs.  I say it's clearly the latter.  The 10th pick would have been more valuable than getting blown out + the 16th pick.  You place an absurd amount of value on getting blown out in the first round if you think otherwise.  We're still the same team after the inevitable blowout.  Just a team picking six spots later.  Everybody already recognizes Stevens as one of the best up and coming coaches (whether we made the playoffs or not)

...

…
So, no matter how much you want to cry about spilled milk, it has absolutely zero effect on the way this team handles their business going forward.

 

Nothing to do with spilled milk.  It is what it is.  I'll root them on now that Stevens has gotten them to the playoffs.  This conversation was just about recognizing which outcome would have been more beneficial going forward.  Short term small gratification is pleasant in the moment, but in this case, the cost is more than the meager reward of getting your ace handed to you in the first round.

[Celtics18]

Again, pure speculation. Can you put a number on the value between the 10th and the 15th pick? Can you put a number on the value of playoff experience? Because if you use the word "value", you have to subtract the second number from the first.

Saying that the 10th pick is a better asset than the 15th would be speculation only in your mind.  It's pure fact.

You're ignoring my question. Nice strawman.

Uh huh.  Well if you didn't like my short version of discounting this great value of getting blown out in the first round, here's a more fleshed out version.    I say getting blown out in the first round isn't going to add any value to our players, and that any minimal experiential value gained by a first round blow out will be more than offset by the loss in value of the pick, and the fact that we are still in middle of  the roster flux of a rebuild means that more than half the players on this team won't be here in two years, and probably not even next year, to reap any playoff experience reward that you feel would be of so much value. 

You really think getting blown out in the first round adds a lot of player value, or is it more likely that the league recognizes what a remarkable coach Stevens is to have gotten this constantly changing collection to the playoffs.  I say it's clearly the latter.  The 10th pick would have been more valuable than getting blown out + the 16th pick.  You place an absurd amount of value on getting blown out in the first round if you think otherwise.  We're still the same team after the inevitable blowout.  Just a team picking six spots later.  Everybody already recognizes Stevens as one of the best up and coming coaches (whether we made the playoffs or not)

...

…
So, no matter how much you want to cry about spilled milk, it has absolutely zero effect on the way this team handles their business going forward.

 

Nothing to do with spilled milk.  It is what it is.  I'll root them on now that Stevens has gotten them to the playoffs.  This conversation was just about recognizing which outcome would have been more beneficial going forward.  Short term small gratification is pleasant in the moment, but in this case, the cost is more than the meager reward of getting your ace handed to you in the first round.

This all assumes that we are going to get "blown out" in the first round.  That is, of course, not a given. 

[PhoSita]

I'm getting sick of the labeling going on around here these days (tanker, hinkier, etc).

Thinking that it might not be the greatest thing for the franchise to make the playoffs with a roster that is still probably every bit as far away from true contention as the calculated tank job in Philly doesn't make some one a bad Celtics fan.

If you wouldn't take Embiid, right now, for anyone currently on our roster, injury and weight concerns and all, just know that you wouldn't make a very good NBA GM.

And so the labeling continues!!!

Yeah, to be clear, labeling isn't allowed around here:

Do not label or challenge fellow posters -- either individually or collectively -- in a way that is likely to provoke a negative response.  Dependent upon context, examples include, but are not limited to, "fake fan", "bandwagon fan", "not a real fan", "hater", "homer", "koolaid drinker"...

I'm not sure that the "if you don't agree with me, you're [pick appropriate insult] is much better, though.  It shouldn't be that hard to comply with the "respect others at all times" mandate.

Fair enough.

I'd encourage the mods to be a bit more pro-active in challenging posters to elevate the conversation.

We do have lives outside this blog.  Also, it's not the easiest to go through multiple pages of dozens of threads.  Especially on a Monday coming off the weekend when we may not actively be on here when new threads pop up.

We try.

Totally.  I understand.  And it's not just on the mods to try and foster a culture of intelligent discussion around here, either.  I just think the average level of discussion around here has been, and could be better. 

Respect others at all times is the golden rule here, and should be. 

Part of respecting other posters, I think, is making an actual effort to add to the conversation and engage with what other people are saying instead of dragging it down into yet another food fight about who's a part of what faction of the fanbase.

[Donoghus]

I really can't believe this thread has devolved into people arguing that Cleveland is nicer than Boston. Tourists come to Boston from all over the world. Tourists from all over the world avoid Cleveland.

I'm not sure there are any metrics by which Cleveland is a better city.

You are right, no one ever goes to the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, Cedar Point, or the countless other things in the greater Cleveland area.  Movies like Captain America are never filmed in Cleveland because you know Cleveland sucks.  And that small little hospital that everyone in the world knows, must suck because you know it is in Cleveland.

Cleveland is an excellent city.  It doesn't have urban sprawl, has a very nice and active downtown, is clean, lacks the crime of other major cities, and has plenty to do both inside and outside.

You can scream 'til you're blue in the face about the merits of Cleveland on here but the fact of the matter is that no one here really cares.  It's not a Cavs blog.  With the exception of you & a couple of others, there really are no ties to Ohio here.   Smashing Bostonians while you're at it doesn't exactly help your cause.

And regarding your comment about "Mass-holes"?  You'd be surprised how many people actually take that term as a badge of honor rather than as an insult.

[celticsclay]

I really can't believe this thread has devolved into people arguing that Cleveland is nicer than Boston. Tourists come to Boston from all over the world. Tourists from all over the world avoid Cleveland.

I'm not sure there are any metrics by which Cleveland is a better city.

You are right, no one ever goes to the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, Cedar Point, or the countless other things in the greater Cleveland area.  Movies like Captain America are never filmed in Cleveland because you know Cleveland sucks.  And that small little hospital that everyone in the world knows, must suck because you know it is in Cleveland.

Cleveland is an excellent city.  It doesn't have urban sprawl, has a very nice and active downtown, is clean, lacks the crime of other major cities, and has plenty to do both inside and outside.

Disclaimer: Moranis moonlighted in the Cleveland Department of Tourism for several years and launched the famed "Rethink Cleveland, we have!" campaign.

[Evantime34]

I really can't believe this thread has devolved into people arguing that Cleveland is nicer than Boston. Tourists come to Boston from all over the world. Tourists from all over the world avoid Cleveland.

I'm not sure there are any metrics by which Cleveland is a better city.

You are right, no one ever goes to the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, Cedar Point, or the countless other things in the greater Cleveland area.  Movies like Captain America are never filmed in Cleveland because you know Cleveland sucks.  And that small little hospital that everyone in the world knows, must suck because you know it is in Cleveland.

Cleveland is an excellent city.  It doesn't have urban sprawl, has a very nice and active downtown, is clean, lacks the crime of other major cities, and has plenty to do both inside and outside.

You simply can't compare Boston to Cleveland. Boston is an international travel destination, Cleveland simply isn't. I've been to both cities as well as many other countries around the world, Boston is better than Cleveland
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AN0WqSeCKW8

[PhoSita]

I mean, hey, at least Cleveland has gotten their #1 industry back since that video was made.