Was this playoff appearance worth it?

[KeepRondo]

The thing I'm confused about with this debate is if we were to not make the playoffs how would we have gone about that? Would people have rather the C's started Young, Pressey, Gigi, Wallace and Jerebko for the last 5 games to openly tank? Would you have rather they kept Rondo and then not got the picks? Would you rather we not have traded for Thomas?

It's easy to answer the question would you rather have had a higher pick or a lower one and made the playoffs. The question I want answered is if you would have preferred they not make the playoffs what would you have liked the C's to have done differently?

The resentment, at least for me in reaching the playoffs, has more to do with Cs bad luck in the guise of "good" luck.

No Paul George, no Chris Bosh, sometimes no Dirty Wade, no Big Al, the Nets underachieving terribly and having a very tough schedule at the end,  us playing the Cavs at the very end of the season in 2 meaningless games for them when they were resting for the playoffs and rolled over for us, etc., etc., etc... We got in, not JUST because we played so well the last half of the season, but because the Nets, cHeat, Pacers and Hornets sucked so badly.

Where was that "luck" or anything like it from 2010-2013 when we really needed it?

I agree that we should not have done anything to overtly lose games. I agree that DA had to take IT when he was basically "given" to him for free as well as JJ and Gigi (funny, Prince won us games too, for the brief time that he was here).

What I don't agree with is the Polly-annish sentiments around here that the future of the franchise is better off by making and getting our arses kicked in the playoffs. And possibly even de-value our players' value by being so outclassed talent-wise in these playoffs, so that all our players' flaws are exposed and magnified, all at the expense of a more valued and versatile pick at 10 for a REAL crapshoot at 16.

10 (with a small chance of better due to lottery luck)  is better and a FAR more valuable asset than 16, despite what all the spin doctors around here say or how they want to characterize it.

If I had my druthers, we would've fought like hell, increased the value of our players in so doing, as we did, and just missed getting in and got the 10th pick. I didn't want us to lose, I just wanted the other teams to do better.

That's why to me it's not black and white, i.e tank completely or don't tank. Wanting the team fighting like crazy and not wanting them to make the playoffs is not tanking. It's pragmatic rooting. Willing to give up something short-term for a chance at something better. Just a chance.

A lot of anxiety about a 10th pick.  We have too many picks as it is, so we'll trade up, have our cake, and eat it too.

You make it seem like every GM is looking to trade out of the top 10 of the draft. It's going to take a nice trade package to get someone like Stanley Johnson or WCS in this draft. You're probably looking at trading a couple of those Nets picks. I doubt Ainge would do that and I would hope he wouldn't.

[Evantime34]

The thing I'm confused about with this debate is if we were to not make the playoffs how would we have gone about that? Would people have rather the C's started Young, Pressey, Gigi, Wallace and Jerebko for the last 5 games to openly tank? Would you have rather they kept Rondo and then not got the picks? Would you rather we not have traded for Thomas?

It's easy to answer the question would you rather have had a higher pick or a lower one and made the playoffs. The question I want answered is if you would have preferred they not make the playoffs what would you have liked the C's to have done differently?

The resentment, at least for me in reaching the playoffs, has more to do with Cs bad luck in the guise of "good" luck.

No Paul George, no Chris Bosh, sometimes no Dirty Wade, no Big Al, the Nets underachieving terribly and having a very tough schedule at the end,  us playing the Cavs at the very end of the season in 2 meaningless games for them when they were resting for the playoffs and rolled over for us, etc., etc., etc... We got in, not JUST because we played so well the last half of the season, but because the Nets, cHeat, Pacers and Hornets sucked so badly.

Where was that "luck" or anything like it from 2010-2013 when we really needed it?

I agree that we should not have done anything to overtly lose games. I agree that DA had to take IT when he was basically "given" to him for free as well as JJ and Gigi (funny, Prince won us games too, for the brief time that he was here).

What I don't agree with is the Polly-annish sentiments around here that the future of the franchise is better off by making and getting our arses kicked in the playoffs. And possibly even de-value our players' value by being so outclassed talent-wise in these playoffs, so that all our players' flaws are exposed and magnified, all at the expense of a more valued and versatile pick at 10 for a REAL crapshoot at 16.

10 (with a small chance of better due to lottery luck)  is better and a FAR more valuable asset than 16, despite what all the spin doctors around here say or how they want to characterize it.

If I had my druthers, we would've fought like hell, increased the value of our players in so doing, as we did, and just missed getting in and got the 10th pick. I didn't want us to lose, I just wanted the other teams to do better.

That's why to me it's not black and white, i.e tank completely or don't tank. Wanting the team fighting like crazy and not wanting them to make the playoffs is not tanking. It's pragmatic rooting. Willing to give up something short-term for a chance at something better. Just a chance.

A lot of anxiety about a 10th pick.  We have too many picks as it is, so we'll trade up, have our cake, and eat it too.

You make it seem like every GM is looking to trade out of the top 10 of the draft. It's going to take a nice trade package to get someone like Stanley Johnson or WCS in this draft. You're probably looking at trading a couple of those Nets picks. I doubt Ainge would do that and I would hope he wouldn't.

A couple of Nets picks? I think we could trade a future Nets pick and our pick to get a lot higher than 10.

[Moranis]

Your assumption that pick 10 is a far more valuable asset than pick 16 is just ridiculous.  It is six picks better sure, but I would say the chances of getting a star at 10 or 16 is just about the same, slim.

In terms of the difference in 10 to 16 in terms of getting a star, historically speaking it is about a coin flip as to which spot is more likely to yield a star.

However, the difference in value for trading up is great. It is much easier to trade up to the 6th pick using the 10th pick than the 16th pick. If the end goal is to trade up as high as you can then the 10th pick is a lot more valuable.

That isn't to say I would undo the deals we made to get us to the playoffs in order to get the 10th pick.

In the end if we see someone who we think can be a star in the 6-10 range then we have more than enough assets to get up there.

The thing is, anyone available at 16 was also available at 10, so even in the years where 16 has yielded a better player than 10, you still could have had that player at 10 if you were a better drafter.  The difference between 10 and 16 is the 6 players taken from 10-15 every single year, which you will never be able to draft at 16, and which give you a much higher likelihood of getting an impact player.

EDIT: 2011 is a good example of this.  the 10th pick was Jimmer Fredette. The 16th pick was Nikola Vucevic.  11 was Klay Thompson.  12-15 were Alec Burks, the Morris twins, and Kawhi Leonard.  Thus if the Kings weren't idiots, they would have had their pick of 3 all star level players in Leonard, Thompson, and Vucevic or 3 solid rotational players in Burks and the Morris brothers, but instead they took Fredette.  That is the advantage of 10 vs. 16.  And while 2011 was a bit rare with the shear quality of player still on the board at 10, every year there are a lot more quality players available at 10 than 16.

[KeepRondo]

The thing I'm confused about with this debate is if we were to not make the playoffs how would we have gone about that? Would people have rather the C's started Young, Pressey, Gigi, Wallace and Jerebko for the last 5 games to openly tank? Would you have rather they kept Rondo and then not got the picks? Would you rather we not have traded for Thomas?

It's easy to answer the question would you rather have had a higher pick or a lower one and made the playoffs. The question I want answered is if you would have preferred they not make the playoffs what would you have liked the C's to have done differently?

The resentment, at least for me in reaching the playoffs, has more to do with Cs bad luck in the guise of "good" luck.

No Paul George, no Chris Bosh, sometimes no Dirty Wade, no Big Al, the Nets underachieving terribly and having a very tough schedule at the end,  us playing the Cavs at the very end of the season in 2 meaningless games for them when they were resting for the playoffs and rolled over for us, etc., etc., etc... We got in, not JUST because we played so well the last half of the season, but because the Nets, cHeat, Pacers and Hornets sucked so badly.

Where was that "luck" or anything like it from 2010-2013 when we really needed it?

I agree that we should not have done anything to overtly lose games. I agree that DA had to take IT when he was basically "given" to him for free as well as JJ and Gigi (funny, Prince won us games too, for the brief time that he was here).

What I don't agree with is the Polly-annish sentiments around here that the future of the franchise is better off by making and getting our arses kicked in the playoffs. And possibly even de-value our players' value by being so outclassed talent-wise in these playoffs, so that all our players' flaws are exposed and magnified, all at the expense of a more valued and versatile pick at 10 for a REAL crapshoot at 16.

10 (with a small chance of better due to lottery luck)  is better and a FAR more valuable asset than 16, despite what all the spin doctors around here say or how they want to characterize it.

If I had my druthers, we would've fought like hell, increased the value of our players in so doing, as we did, and just missed getting in and got the 10th pick. I didn't want us to lose, I just wanted the other teams to do better.

That's why to me it's not black and white, i.e tank completely or don't tank. Wanting the team fighting like crazy and not wanting them to make the playoffs is not tanking. It's pragmatic rooting. Willing to give up something short-term for a chance at something better. Just a chance.

A lot of anxiety about a 10th pick.  We have too many picks as it is, so we'll trade up, have our cake, and eat it too.

You make it seem like every GM is looking to trade out of the top 10 of the draft. It's going to take a nice trade package to get someone like Stanley Johnson or WCS in this draft. You're probably looking at trading a couple of those Nets picks. I doubt Ainge would do that and I would hope he wouldn't.

A couple of Nets picks? I think we could trade a future Nets pick and our pick to get a lot higher than 10.

I can't see a team trading Stanley Johnson for (Lyles or Portis) and the Nets pick next year which might not even be a lottery pick.

Obviously we are hoping the Nets bottom out, but another team is probably not going to give up a great lottery pick to hope they can get a similar value next year.

[KeepRondo]

Your assumption that pick 10 is a far more valuable asset than pick 16 is just ridiculous.  It is six picks better sure, but I would say the chances of getting a star at 10 or 16 is just about the same, slim.

In terms of the difference in 10 to 16 in terms of getting a star, historically speaking it is about a coin flip as to which spot is more likely to yield a star.

However, the difference in value for trading up is great. It is much easier to trade up to the 6th pick using the 10th pick than the 16th pick. If the end goal is to trade up as high as you can then the 10th pick is a lot more valuable.

That isn't to say I would undo the deals we made to get us to the playoffs in order to get the 10th pick.

In the end if we see someone who we think can be a star in the 6-10 range then we have more than enough assets to get up there.

The thing is, anyone available at 16 was also available at 10, so even in the years where 16 has yielded a better player than 10, you still could have had that player at 10 if you were a better drafter.  The difference between 10 and 16 is the 6 players taken from 10-15 every single year, which you will never be able to draft at 16, and which give you a much higher likelihood of getting an impact player.

EDIT: 2011 is a good example of this.  the 10th pick was Jimmer Fredette. The 16th pick was Nikola Vucevic.  11 was Klay Thompson.  12-15 were Alec Burks, the Morris twins, and Kawhi Leonard.  Thus if the Kings weren't idiots, they would have had their pick of 3 all star level players in Leonard, Thompson, and Vucevic or 3 solid rotational players in Burks and the Morris brothers, but instead they took Fredette.  That is the advantage of 10 vs. 16.  And while 2011 was a bit rare with the shear quality of player still on the board at 10, every year there are a lot more quality players available at 10 than 16.

Interesting way to think about that. TP

[Evantime34]

The thing I'm confused about with this debate is if we were to not make the playoffs how would we have gone about that? Would people have rather the C's started Young, Pressey, Gigi, Wallace and Jerebko for the last 5 games to openly tank? Would you have rather they kept Rondo and then not got the picks? Would you rather we not have traded for Thomas?

It's easy to answer the question would you rather have had a higher pick or a lower one and made the playoffs. The question I want answered is if you would have preferred they not make the playoffs what would you have liked the C's to have done differently?

The resentment, at least for me in reaching the playoffs, has more to do with Cs bad luck in the guise of "good" luck.

No Paul George, no Chris Bosh, sometimes no Dirty Wade, no Big Al, the Nets underachieving terribly and having a very tough schedule at the end,  us playing the Cavs at the very end of the season in 2 meaningless games for them when they were resting for the playoffs and rolled over for us, etc., etc., etc... We got in, not JUST because we played so well the last half of the season, but because the Nets, cHeat, Pacers and Hornets sucked so badly.

Where was that "luck" or anything like it from 2010-2013 when we really needed it?

I agree that we should not have done anything to overtly lose games. I agree that DA had to take IT when he was basically "given" to him for free as well as JJ and Gigi (funny, Prince won us games too, for the brief time that he was here).

What I don't agree with is the Polly-annish sentiments around here that the future of the franchise is better off by making and getting our arses kicked in the playoffs. And possibly even de-value our players' value by being so outclassed talent-wise in these playoffs, so that all our players' flaws are exposed and magnified, all at the expense of a more valued and versatile pick at 10 for a REAL crapshoot at 16.

10 (with a small chance of better due to lottery luck)  is better and a FAR more valuable asset than 16, despite what all the spin doctors around here say or how they want to characterize it.

If I had my druthers, we would've fought like hell, increased the value of our players in so doing, as we did, and just missed getting in and got the 10th pick. I didn't want us to lose, I just wanted the other teams to do better.

That's why to me it's not black and white, i.e tank completely or don't tank. Wanting the team fighting like crazy and not wanting them to make the playoffs is not tanking. It's pragmatic rooting. Willing to give up something short-term for a chance at something better. Just a chance.

A lot of anxiety about a 10th pick.  We have too many picks as it is, so we'll trade up, have our cake, and eat it too.

You make it seem like every GM is looking to trade out of the top 10 of the draft. It's going to take a nice trade package to get someone like Stanley Johnson or WCS in this draft. You're probably looking at trading a couple of those Nets picks. I doubt Ainge would do that and I would hope he wouldn't.

A couple of Nets picks? I think we could trade a future Nets pick and our pick to get a lot higher than 10.

I can't see a team trading Stanley Johnson for (Lyles or Portis) and the Nets pick next year which might not even be a lottery pick.

Obviously we are hoping the Nets bottom out, but another team is probably not going to give up a great lottery pick to hope they can get a similar value next year.

They would be getting the 16th this year and similar value next year.

[LarBrd33]

Ask 2013 Philly how much their success in the 2012 playoffs mattered.  A year after upsetting the #1 seed Bulls and taking the Celtics to 7 games, their lack of talent landed them right back in the lotto where they belonged.

It might have mattered if they had passed on the Bynum deal, kept Iguodala, and moved forward with the Holiday, Turner, Iggy, Young core.

Not saying they'd have been better off long term, but you're ignoring the fact that they made a gamble that failed miserably and then chose to bottom out quite deliberately in light of that.

And if we let Bass/Crowder walk, trade a package of talent for an impact player and sign a perceived impact free agent, it might result in us falling right on our faces like 2013 Philly.

Standing pat keeps us irrelevant.  Taking a swing might result in a strike out.  No clear path towards relevance here.

[KeepRondo]

The thing I'm confused about with this debate is if we were to not make the playoffs how would we have gone about that? Would people have rather the C's started Young, Pressey, Gigi, Wallace and Jerebko for the last 5 games to openly tank? Would you have rather they kept Rondo and then not got the picks? Would you rather we not have traded for Thomas?

It's easy to answer the question would you rather have had a higher pick or a lower one and made the playoffs. The question I want answered is if you would have preferred they not make the playoffs what would you have liked the C's to have done differently?

The resentment, at least for me in reaching the playoffs, has more to do with Cs bad luck in the guise of "good" luck.

No Paul George, no Chris Bosh, sometimes no Dirty Wade, no Big Al, the Nets underachieving terribly and having a very tough schedule at the end,  us playing the Cavs at the very end of the season in 2 meaningless games for them when they were resting for the playoffs and rolled over for us, etc., etc., etc... We got in, not JUST because we played so well the last half of the season, but because the Nets, cHeat, Pacers and Hornets sucked so badly.

Where was that "luck" or anything like it from 2010-2013 when we really needed it?

I agree that we should not have done anything to overtly lose games. I agree that DA had to take IT when he was basically "given" to him for free as well as JJ and Gigi (funny, Prince won us games too, for the brief time that he was here).

What I don't agree with is the Polly-annish sentiments around here that the future of the franchise is better off by making and getting our arses kicked in the playoffs. And possibly even de-value our players' value by being so outclassed talent-wise in these playoffs, so that all our players' flaws are exposed and magnified, all at the expense of a more valued and versatile pick at 10 for a REAL crapshoot at 16.

10 (with a small chance of better due to lottery luck)  is better and a FAR more valuable asset than 16, despite what all the spin doctors around here say or how they want to characterize it.

If I had my druthers, we would've fought like hell, increased the value of our players in so doing, as we did, and just missed getting in and got the 10th pick. I didn't want us to lose, I just wanted the other teams to do better.

That's why to me it's not black and white, i.e tank completely or don't tank. Wanting the team fighting like crazy and not wanting them to make the playoffs is not tanking. It's pragmatic rooting. Willing to give up something short-term for a chance at something better. Just a chance.

A lot of anxiety about a 10th pick.  We have too many picks as it is, so we'll trade up, have our cake, and eat it too.

You make it seem like every GM is looking to trade out of the top 10 of the draft. It's going to take a nice trade package to get someone like Stanley Johnson or WCS in this draft. You're probably looking at trading a couple of those Nets picks. I doubt Ainge would do that and I would hope he wouldn't.

A couple of Nets picks? I think we could trade a future Nets pick and our pick to get a lot higher than 10.

I can't see a team trading Stanley Johnson for (Lyles or Portis) and the Nets pick next year which might not even be a lottery pick.

Obviously we are hoping the Nets bottom out, but another team is probably not going to give up a great lottery pick to hope they can get a similar value next year.

They would be getting the 16th this year and similar value next year.

There's no guarantee that the Nets will land the 8-10th pick next year. And then there's no guarantee that there will be equal value in next years draft at those picks.

I don't think GMs will take on such risk. They certainly won't want to be the gm who gave away great value for two average first round picks.

[LarBrd33]

I have enjoyed the playoffs and the late season win streak ...

But I would have enjoyed getting a young prospect via the lottery and watching him play here over the next 5+ years even more.

Yeah I think either scenario has some good upside. I'd prefer another high level prospect too, but the good news is either way I think the C's are well setup for the future.

Its nice to have some fun basketball to watch compared to last year and the early parts of this year of poor play.

The high of making the playoffs will be over Sunday with the realization that we simply didn't belong.  Soon, nobody will remember that Boston even made it.  You'll have several weeks of relevant teams playing in games that matter.   You'll watch the excitement over the lotto balls next month, but you'll be on the outside looking in while comparable teams to ours take steps forward.  Come draft time, when prospect hype is at it's apex and you begin to understand how good some of these kids can be... you'll be envious, angry and depressed.  You're not going to enjoy picking #16 and watching Philly land another superstar prospect.  We'll just be another 32-45 win team filled with role players and teams like that will have a clear path towards real NBA success.   

Always ready to tell others how they're going to feel, put up a massive wall of text, and be vague enough to always post an I told you so no matter what happens.

You just proved my point.

[celticsclay]

Ask 2013 Philly how much their success in the 2012 playoffs mattered.  A year after upsetting the #1 seed Bulls and taking the Celtics to 7 games, their lack of talent landed them right back in the lotto where they belonged.

It might have mattered if they had passed on the Bynum deal, kept Iguodala, and moved forward with the Holiday, Turner, Iggy, Young core.

Not saying they'd have been better off long term, but you're ignoring the fact that they made a gamble that failed miserably and then chose to bottom out quite deliberately in light of that.

And if we let Bass/Crowder walk, trade a package of talent for an impact player and sign a perceived impact free agent, it might result in us falling right on our faces like 2013 Philly.

Standing pat keeps us irrelevant.  Taking a swing might result in a strike out.  No clear path towards relevance here.

You kill me man.

[LarBrd33]

Ask 2013 Philly how much their success in the 2012 playoffs mattered.  A year after upsetting the #1 seed Bulls and taking the Celtics to 7 games, their lack of talent landed them right back in the lotto where they belonged.

It might have mattered if they had passed on the Bynum deal, kept Iguodala, and moved forward with the Holiday, Turner, Iggy, Young core.

Not saying they'd have been better off long term, but you're ignoring the fact that they made a gamble that failed miserably and then chose to bottom out quite deliberately in light of that.

And if we let Bass/Crowder walk, trade a package of talent for an impact player and sign a perceived impact free agent, it might result in us falling right on our faces like 2013 Philly.

Standing pat keeps us irrelevant.  Taking a swing might result in a strike out.  No clear path towards relevance here.

You kill me man.

Why?  We overachieved to sneak into the playoffs.  We clearly don't have the talent to beat a real playoff team.  One of our main contributors (Bass) is probably walking.   There's no clear path towards improving this roster.   What's the chance the guy we draft #16 is going to substantially improve this team?  The guy we drafted #17 last year (in what was thought to be a very deep draft) barely got out of the d-league this year.    What's the chance that we're actually going to lure an impact free agent here?  There are better destinations than Boston, many of the targets are restricted and some of them will just re-sign with their original teams.    What's the chance that we actually have enough assets to compete in the trade market when a star becomes available?  Nobody wanted our assets last year. 

I have some hope.  I have faith in Ainge.  But there's a good chance we'll be in the lotto again next year.  Glad we competed hard this year, but whether or not we made the playoffs or didn't (like Utah, Hornets, Miami) will have very little sway on our future.

[Celtics18]

Ask 2013 Philly how much their success in the 2012 playoffs mattered.  A year after upsetting the #1 seed Bulls and taking the Celtics to 7 games, their lack of talent landed them right back in the lotto where they belonged.

It might have mattered if they had passed on the Bynum deal, kept Iguodala, and moved forward with the Holiday, Turner, Iggy, Young core.

Not saying they'd have been better off long term, but you're ignoring the fact that they made a gamble that failed miserably and then chose to bottom out quite deliberately in light of that.

And if we let Bass/Crowder walk, trade a package of talent for an impact player and sign a perceived impact free agent, it might result in us falling right on our faces like 2013 Philly.

Standing pat keeps us irrelevant.  Taking a swing might result in a strike out.  No clear path towards relevance here.

I agree that there's no clear path to becoming a contender.  However, the path wouldn't have been any clearer had we missed the playoffs.

[GreenGoggles]

Ask 2013 Philly how much their success in the 2012 playoffs mattered.  A year after upsetting the #1 seed Bulls and taking the Celtics to 7 games, their lack of talent landed them right back in the lotto where they belonged.

It might have mattered if they had passed on the Bynum deal, kept Iguodala, and moved forward with the Holiday, Turner, Iggy, Young core.

Not saying they'd have been better off long term, but you're ignoring the fact that they made a gamble that failed miserably and then chose to bottom out quite deliberately in light of that.

And if we let Bass/Crowder walk, trade a package of talent for an impact player and sign a perceived impact free agent, it might result in us falling right on our faces like 2013 Philly.

Standing pat keeps us irrelevant.  Taking a swing might result in a strike out.  No clear path towards relevance here.

I agree that there's no clear path to becoming a contender.  However, the path wouldn't have been any clearer had we missed the playoffs.

I don't see how you can objectively say that. A higher draft pick is more valuable/easier to trade up in the draft or for a star.

We can't just have the narrative that making the playoffs provides so much "experience" and we're not missing out on anything.

No. We are missing out on something, and that's a better, more tradeable/valuable pick.

Then you compare the two and decide what you think helps this team progress to becoming a championship team. A first round sweep or a chance at a top 10 pick.

[fantankerous]

Ask 2013 Philly how much their success in the 2012 playoffs mattered.  A year after upsetting the #1 seed Bulls and taking the Celtics to 7 games, their lack of talent landed them right back in the lotto where they belonged.

It might have mattered if they had passed on the Bynum deal, kept Iguodala, and moved forward with the Holiday, Turner, Iggy, Young core.

Not saying they'd have been better off long term, but you're ignoring the fact that they made a gamble that failed miserably and then chose to bottom out quite deliberately in light of that.

And if we let Bass/Crowder walk, trade a package of talent for an impact player and sign a perceived impact free agent, it might result in us falling right on our faces like 2013 Philly.

Standing pat keeps us irrelevant.  Taking a swing might result in a strike out.  No clear path towards relevance here.

I agree that there's no clear path to becoming a contender.  However, the path wouldn't have been any clearer had we missed the playoffs.

I don't see how you can objectively say that. A higher draft pick is more valuable/easier to trade up in the draft or for a star.

We can't just have the narrative that making the playoffs provides so much "experience" and we're not missing out on anything.

No. We are missing out on something, and that's a better, more tradeable/valuable pick.

Then you compare the two and decide what you think helps this team progress to becoming a championship team. A first round sweep or a chance at a top 10 pick.

But you are making the same error that you are criticizing.  You can't "objectively" claim that the lottery pick would be more valuable (either in itself or in a trade) without knowing what prospect we missed out on or what trades would be available with that pick.  These aren't things one can know "objectively," especially in late April.

[Celtics18]

Ask 2013 Philly how much their success in the 2012 playoffs mattered.  A year after upsetting the #1 seed Bulls and taking the Celtics to 7 games, their lack of talent landed them right back in the lotto where they belonged.

It might have mattered if they had passed on the Bynum deal, kept Iguodala, and moved forward with the Holiday, Turner, Iggy, Young core.

Not saying they'd have been better off long term, but you're ignoring the fact that they made a gamble that failed miserably and then chose to bottom out quite deliberately in light of that.

And if we let Bass/Crowder walk, trade a package of talent for an impact player and sign a perceived impact free agent, it might result in us falling right on our faces like 2013 Philly.

Standing pat keeps us irrelevant.  Taking a swing might result in a strike out.  No clear path towards relevance here.

I agree that there's no clear path to becoming a contender.  However, the path wouldn't have been any clearer had we missed the playoffs.

I don't see how you can objectively say that. A higher draft pick is more valuable/easier to trade up in the draft or for a star.

We can't just have the narrative that making the playoffs provides so much "experience" and we're not missing out on anything.

No. We are missing out on something, and that's a better, more tradeable/valuable pick.

Then you compare the two and decide what you think helps this team progress to becoming a championship team. A first round sweep or a chance at a top 10 pick.

I think playoff experience is more valuable than six spots in the draft.  It's not just the playoff experience, but also the experience of playing for something meaningful for the last thirty or so games of the season.

I don't have hard data to prove it, but I strongly believe that playing in an environment where winning becomes the main goal every time you step on the court teaches valuable lessons to young players. 

That doesn't mean that I think that making the playoffs gives us a clear path to contention.  Danny still has a lot of work to do.