The Celtics' search for a star

[D.o.s.]

We are not going to get a star if we keep up what we did this season. I'd trade Avery etc for a pick that nabbed us Myles Turner. With the East getting better we prob won't even make the playoffs next year. IND MIA are two teams that will be getting make superstar players....we barely beat them into the playoffs.

Im sick of the Green Teamers who only watch when we are good and liken the NBA DRAFT to the NFL NHL or MLB. The drafts are completely dif and the NBA is a star ran league.

Sorry for being off topic. I only watch the Celtics and nothing else. So while many have moved onto baseball I'm still plugging away researching the draft.

I'll never understand this. Why are we going to be worse next year, or not even make the playoffs. We went something like 24-11 over our last 35 games with a core of guys all 26 or younger and even after that horrific start to the season we managed to reach 40 wins. Even assuming we don't make any moves (which I highly doubt), just bringing this group back with some development from Smart, Young, AB, Sully, etc. should get us to a few games over 500. Even if Indiana and Miami improve, Toronto looks like they're ready to blow it up, Milwaukee seemed like a much different team after the MCW trade and Brooklyn is MUCH more likely than us to fall out of the playoff picture, certainly if Lopez opts out.

I get that young teams take steps back some times, and I surely don't expect this group to keep up a 56 win pace all year. But still, in a season where we made 1000 trades and had a multitude of injuries amidst a bunch of other obstacles we still managed to just about reach .500, including that great stretch once this group came together. I'd be absolutely shocked if we won less than 38 games this year, and I'll be disappointed with anything less than 43-39. Besides, do you really think Ainge doesn't make any moves?

The relative level of optimism, I think, depends on how much you believe the team dramatically overachieved/was fortunate to be playing in the East. It's no coincidence that the C's went on a run during the second half of the season, after all.

[PhoSita]

^ Put another way, you have to ask yourself how much you think reaching 40 wins was a case of a lot going right for the Celtics versus not that much going wrong.

If every team enters the season with a certain range of wins that is within its reach, how close did this Celtics team come to bumping up against the upper bound of that range?

Yes, roster upheaval can be a drag on win totals.  But it can also be an advantage.  How often did the Celtics enter a game with the advantage of facing an opponent who had no familiarity with the team the Celtics were about to put on the floor?

[Celtics4ever]

That is true, PhoSita, we over achieved but I doubt it is sustainable giving the tanking and injuries on other teams in the EAST.  DA needs to make moves to keep us up with the Jones's even then it will be hard.

[slamtheking]

The article in the OP is a nice sentiment, but as I've stated plenty of times elsewhere, I pretty strongly disagree with the premise.

The 2015 Celts were a team of scrappy, mostly bench-caliber guys who were able to adapt to Stevens' system and take a lot of teams by surprise in the regular season.  Then the lack of shooting ability, size, and general talent caught up with them in the playoffs; a star-laden opponent that had time to scout and prepare for the matchup bulldozed them in four games.

I think this year's team is a good blueprint for future success in terms of style of play and roles, but the top 4 or 5 players need to be upgraded, with an emphasis on improving shooting, interior defense, and defensive rebounding.

this about sums it up

[D.o.s.]

^ Put another way, you have to ask yourself how much you think reaching 40 wins was a case of a lot going right for the Celtics versus not that much going wrong.

If every team enters the season with a certain range of wins that is within its reach, how close did this Celtics team come to bumping up against the upper bound of that range?

Yes, roster upheaval can be a drag on win totals.  But it can also be an advantage.  How often did the Celtics enter a game with the advantage of facing an opponent who had no familiarity with the team the Celtics were about to put on the floor?

Also known as the Jeremy Lin phenomenon.

[slamtheking]

That is true, PhoSita, we over achieved but I doubt it is sustainable giving the tanking and injuries on other teams in the EAST.  DA needs to make moves to keep us up with the Jones's even then it will be hard.

This is very much the reality of the situation.

Indy getting George back, Miami getting Bosh back, Milwaukee getting Parker back and having MCW in camp are 3 solid reasons the C's are unlikely to achieve the same record much less make the playoffs.  Brooklyn could very well get worse (seriously hope so since we have their pick) but that's just speculation right now.  Toronto may blow it up somewhat but to the point where they become worse than the C's roster?  not very likely.

running this team back next year with only the minor changes of some of our FAs leaving and a few mediocre FAs being signed and mediocre rookies being drafted will not give this team a winning record. 

[greece66]

@ PhoSita
Thanks for the thoughtful reply.
I disagree  on several points:

i/ No one is saying it would not be nice to get a top player this summer. I just think it is unlikely.

ii/ This team is likely to play better next year. Remember we started playing really well only once IT got here. We played much of the year with a RR who was bored to death.  Moreover, our young players can only improve, especially Smart and Young. And finally, team chemistry will be better, which is very important for a team that plays offence the way CBS wants. Add to that a couple of good role players and we can be really good.

Granted there was an element of surprise that contributed to our victories, but this has also much to do with CBS's unpredictable rotations. I think we' ll continue to surprise the opponent's coaches.

iii/Finally, what is the measure of success? You seem to think we have to get a higher seed. I say this is only part of the picture: talent and team chemistry improvement is the most important thing for a young team IMO- success is good only if it follows from that.

[Celtics4ever]

I just think it is unlikely.

Yeah, we all want it, but it is likely, no.   I will be hoping and counting on Ainge, he usually does something that you always do not discern as valuable but usually is at some point down the road like Zeller.  Thankful, we have him as a GM.

Player development might help us, Sully could lose weight, although that is hardly a sure thing.   Zeller needs to get stronger.    I think Marcus Smart working out  with this guy will help him a lot, and I doubt few will outwork him. 

Smart is going to be in Boston most of the summer and will spend a considerable amount of time working with Celtics assistant coach Darren Erman, a former Golden State assistant who has been credited with helping Klay Thompson develop into one of the league’s best two-way players after coming into the league as a shoot-first, defensively-challenged swingman.

I think there is an outside chance we deal Bradley since his deal is a bargin.  Young needs to stay in Boston too.

[DarkAzcura]

^ Put another way, you have to ask yourself how much you think reaching 40 wins was a case of a lot going right for the Celtics versus not that much going wrong.

If every team enters the season with a certain range of wins that is within its reach, how close did this Celtics team come to bumping up against the upper bound of that range?

Yes, roster upheaval can be a drag on win totals.  But it can also be an advantage.  How often did the Celtics enter a game with the advantage of facing an opponent who had no familiarity with the team the Celtics were about to put on the floor?

The 55 win pace they went on for ~41% of the season was likely overachieving, but how far do we really think they are going to drop when they settle down and teams become familiar? For them not to make the playoffs in the East, we are essentially saying they will go from a 55 win pace to a ~33-35 win pace. Lack of familiarity was likely an issue for opposing teams against the Celtics for a few months there, but their pace won't drop that low. They'll probably fall into the 40-44 win range if the roster stays the same (assuming no major breakouts from Smart, Young, Sully, or Oly).

That is true, PhoSita, we over achieved but I doubt it is sustainable giving the tanking and injuries on other teams in the EAST.  DA needs to make moves to keep us up with the Jones's even then it will be hard.

This is very much the reality of the situation.

Indy getting George back, Miami getting Bosh back, Milwaukee getting Parker back and having MCW in camp are 3 solid reasons the C's are unlikely to achieve the same record much less make the playoffs.  Brooklyn could very well get worse (seriously hope so since we have their pick) but that's just speculation right now.  Toronto may blow it up somewhat but to the point where they become worse than the C's roster?  not very likely.

running this team back next year with only the minor changes of some of our FAs leaving and a few mediocre FAs being signed and mediocre rookies being drafted will not give this team a winning record.

And what about Sullinger coming back? Wade being a year older? IT having a full camp just like MCW? Again, it's interesting that so many can find reasons why other teams will improve but have trouble applying the exact same logic to the Celtics. I wouldn't look at other teams too much when trying to predict win-loss totals and what not. Fact is the Celtics played at a pretty ridiculous win-loss rate for close to half the season. For us to not match 40 wins total next year, we would have to fall off pretty hard. Like really, really hard. With no major changes, going from from a 55 win pace to a 33-35 win pace is difficult to see. More likely to fall into the 40-44 range, and that's making the playoffs in the East.

Indy will be much better next season. Miami is up in the air. Sure, Bosh comes back, but Wade has slowly been declining for years now.  The Bucks played terribly after trading away Knight. Who really knows if Parker and a camp for MCW will make up for that difference. There are just as many questions for these teams as there are for the Celtics.

[Moranis]

^ Put another way, you have to ask yourself how much you think reaching 40 wins was a case of a lot going right for the Celtics versus not that much going wrong.

If every team enters the season with a certain range of wins that is within its reach, how close did this Celtics team come to bumping up against the upper bound of that range?

Yes, roster upheaval can be a drag on win totals.  But it can also be an advantage.  How often did the Celtics enter a game with the advantage of facing an opponent who had no familiarity with the team the Celtics were about to put on the floor?

The 55 win pace they went on for ~41% of the season was likely overachieving, but how far do we really think they are going to drop when they settle down and teams become familiar? For them not to make the playoffs in the East, we are essentially saying they will go from a 55 win pace to a ~33-35 win pace. Lack of familiarity was likely an issue for opposing teams against the Celtics for a few months there, but their pace won't drop that low. They'll probably fall into the 40-44 win range if the roster stays the same (assuming no major breakouts from Smart, Young, Sully, or Oly).

That is true, PhoSita, we over achieved but I doubt it is sustainable giving the tanking and injuries on other teams in the EAST.  DA needs to make moves to keep us up with the Jones's even then it will be hard.

This is very much the reality of the situation.

Indy getting George back, Miami getting Bosh back, Milwaukee getting Parker back and having MCW in camp are 3 solid reasons the C's are unlikely to achieve the same record much less make the playoffs.  Brooklyn could very well get worse (seriously hope so since we have their pick) but that's just speculation right now.  Toronto may blow it up somewhat but to the point where they become worse than the C's roster?  not very likely.

running this team back next year with only the minor changes of some of our FAs leaving and a few mediocre FAs being signed and mediocre rookies being drafted will not give this team a winning record.

And what about Sullinger coming back? Wade being a year older? IT having a full camp just like MCW? Again, it's interesting that so many can find reasons why other teams will improve but have trouble applying the exact same logic to the Celtics. I wouldn't look at other teams too much when trying to predict win-loss totals and what not. Fact is the Celtics played at a pretty ridiculous win-loss rate for close to half the season. For us to not match 40 wins total next year, we would have to fall off pretty hard. Like really, really hard. With no major changes, going from from a 55 win pace to a 33-35 win pace is difficult to see. More likely to fall into the 40-44 range, and that's making the playoffs in the East.

Indy will be much better next season. Miami is up in the air. Sure, Bosh comes back, but Wade has slowly been declining for years now.  The Bucks played terribly after trading away Knight. Who really knows if Parker and a camp for MCW will make up for that difference. There are just as many questions for these teams as there are for the Celtics.

I don't think it will be that hard for Boston to have a worse record next year.  In fact I expect it.  Boston played in one of the worst divisions in any sport in history.  The Atlantic Division was absolutely terrible.  It won't be nearly that bad next year, as Philly and NY should be both be a lot better with Brooklyn and Toronto being about the same.  The latter half of the year, Boston played a pretty easy schedule and played a lot of teams had already shut it down (either resting for the playoff run or tanking for a higher pick).  And a team like the Bucks, that gets a top 3 talent back, will improve more than Boston, for the simple fact that they are adding a top 3 talent while their young guys will continue to improve.  Boston isn't adding a talent like Parker.  That guy doesn't exist.  Now sure all this can change if Boston ends up with Greg Monroe (or LA or KL) and/or other mid level talent, but as is, Boston should expect to be a 30-35 win team next year without significant upgrades, which won't make the playoffs next year.

[mahcus smaht]

^ Put another way, you have to ask yourself how much you think reaching 40 wins was a case of a lot going right for the Celtics versus not that much going wrong.

If every team enters the season with a certain range of wins that is within its reach, how close did this Celtics team come to bumping up against the upper bound of that range?

Yes, roster upheaval can be a drag on win totals.  But it can also be an advantage.  How often did the Celtics enter a game with the advantage of facing an opponent who had no familiarity with the team the Celtics were about to put on the floor?

The 55 win pace they went on for ~41% of the season was likely overachieving, but how far do we really think they are going to drop when they settle down and teams become familiar? For them not to make the playoffs in the East, we are essentially saying they will go from a 55 win pace to a ~33-35 win pace. Lack of familiarity was likely an issue for opposing teams against the Celtics for a few months there, but their pace won't drop that low. They'll probably fall into the 40-44 win range if the roster stays the same (assuming no major breakouts from Smart, Young, Sully, or Oly).

That is true, PhoSita, we over achieved but I doubt it is sustainable giving the tanking and injuries on other teams in the EAST.  DA needs to make moves to keep us up with the Jones's even then it will be hard.

This is very much the reality of the situation.

Indy getting George back, Miami getting Bosh back, Milwaukee getting Parker back and having MCW in camp are 3 solid reasons the C's are unlikely to achieve the same record much less make the playoffs.  Brooklyn could very well get worse (seriously hope so since we have their pick) but that's just speculation right now.  Toronto may blow it up somewhat but to the point where they become worse than the C's roster?  not very likely.

running this team back next year with only the minor changes of some of our FAs leaving and a few mediocre FAs being signed and mediocre rookies being drafted will not give this team a winning record.

And what about Sullinger coming back? Wade being a year older? IT having a full camp just like MCW? Again, it's interesting that so many can find reasons why other teams will improve but have trouble applying the exact same logic to the Celtics. I wouldn't look at other teams too much when trying to predict win-loss totals and what not. Fact is the Celtics played at a pretty ridiculous win-loss rate for close to half the season. For us to not match 40 wins total next year, we would have to fall off pretty hard. Like really, really hard. With no major changes, going from from a 55 win pace to a 33-35 win pace is difficult to see. More likely to fall into the 40-44 range, and that's making the playoffs in the East.

Indy will be much better next season. Miami is up in the air. Sure, Bosh comes back, but Wade has slowly been declining for years now.  The Bucks played terribly after trading away Knight. Who really knows if Parker and a camp for MCW will make up for that difference. There are just as many questions for these teams as there are for the Celtics.

I don't think it will be that hard for Boston to have a worse record next year.  In fact I expect it.  Boston played in one of the worst divisions in any sport in history.  The Atlantic Division was absolutely terrible.  It won't be nearly that bad next year, as Philly and NY should be both be a lot better with Brooklyn and Toronto being about the same.  The latter half of the year, Boston played a pretty easy schedule and played a lot of teams had already shut it down (either resting for the playoff run or tanking for a higher pick).  And a team like the Bucks, that gets a top 3 talent back, will improve more than Boston, for the simple fact that they are adding a top 3 talent while their young guys will continue to improve.  Boston isn't adding a talent like Parker.  That guy doesn't exist.  Now sure all this can change if Boston ends up with Greg Monroe (or LA or KL) and/or other mid level talent, but as is, Boston should expect to be a 30-35 win team next year without significant upgrades, which won't make the playoffs next year.

I think thats a real possibility.

However, we do have 27 mil in cap, Smart is 21, we should see James Young make an impact, IT will be there for the whole season, Sully will probably be better than last year. KO could feasibly make a 3rd year leap. Zeller's certainly not getting worse, we have 4 picks in the top 45 of the draft etc etc. I think 40 wins is about right for our team this year. We suffered in the beginning of the season with Rondo and Green and all the turmoil, then we had a lot of luck down the stretch. The bad start which was really a whole different team, and the hot finish kind of equalize themselves and I think that the team that finished the season on 53 win pace over 35 games is really closer to a 40 win team. I think the East and Atlantic will improve and so will the Celtics. It will be interesting to see who improves more.

For me:
Passes us: Miami, Indiana
We pass: no one
End result: 35-40 wins

Now this is unlikely because this would entail Ainge effectively just running it back again and I expect him to either sign a couple big FA's or make a future minded move(perhaps a "tank" euphemism) and trade Sully, AB etc to get a really nice pick (Justice Winslow?) thus setting us back into the ~30 win area.

[Evantime34]

^ Put another way, you have to ask yourself how much you think reaching 40 wins was a case of a lot going right for the Celtics versus not that much going wrong.

If every team enters the season with a certain range of wins that is within its reach, how close did this Celtics team come to bumping up against the upper bound of that range?

Yes, roster upheaval can be a drag on win totals.  But it can also be an advantage.  How often did the Celtics enter a game with the advantage of facing an opponent who had no familiarity with the team the Celtics were about to put on the floor?

The 55 win pace they went on for ~41% of the season was likely overachieving, but how far do we really think they are going to drop when they settle down and teams become familiar? For them not to make the playoffs in the East, we are essentially saying they will go from a 55 win pace to a ~33-35 win pace. Lack of familiarity was likely an issue for opposing teams against the Celtics for a few months there, but their pace won't drop that low. They'll probably fall into the 40-44 win range if the roster stays the same (assuming no major breakouts from Smart, Young, Sully, or Oly).

That is true, PhoSita, we over achieved but I doubt it is sustainable giving the tanking and injuries on other teams in the EAST.  DA needs to make moves to keep us up with the Jones's even then it will be hard.

This is very much the reality of the situation.

Indy getting George back, Miami getting Bosh back, Milwaukee getting Parker back and having MCW in camp are 3 solid reasons the C's are unlikely to achieve the same record much less make the playoffs.  Brooklyn could very well get worse (seriously hope so since we have their pick) but that's just speculation right now.  Toronto may blow it up somewhat but to the point where they become worse than the C's roster?  not very likely.

running this team back next year with only the minor changes of some of our FAs leaving and a few mediocre FAs being signed and mediocre rookies being drafted will not give this team a winning record.

And what about Sullinger coming back? Wade being a year older? IT having a full camp just like MCW? Again, it's interesting that so many can find reasons why other teams will improve but have trouble applying the exact same logic to the Celtics. I wouldn't look at other teams too much when trying to predict win-loss totals and what not. Fact is the Celtics played at a pretty ridiculous win-loss rate for close to half the season. For us to not match 40 wins total next year, we would have to fall off pretty hard. Like really, really hard. With no major changes, going from from a 55 win pace to a 33-35 win pace is difficult to see. More likely to fall into the 40-44 range, and that's making the playoffs in the East.

Indy will be much better next season. Miami is up in the air. Sure, Bosh comes back, but Wade has slowly been declining for years now.  The Bucks played terribly after trading away Knight. Who really knows if Parker and a camp for MCW will make up for that difference. There are just as many questions for these teams as there are for the Celtics.

I don't think it will be that hard for Boston to have a worse record next year.  In fact I expect it.  Boston played in one of the worst divisions in any sport in history.  The Atlantic Division was absolutely terrible.  It won't be nearly that bad next year, as Philly and NY should be both be a lot better with Brooklyn and Toronto being about the same.  The latter half of the year, Boston played a pretty easy schedule and played a lot of teams had already shut it down (either resting for the playoff run or tanking for a higher pick).  And a team like the Bucks, that gets a top 3 talent back, will improve more than Boston, for the simple fact that they are adding a top 3 talent while their young guys will continue to improve.  Boston isn't adding a talent like Parker.  That guy doesn't exist.  Now sure all this can change if Boston ends up with Greg Monroe (or LA or KL) and/or other mid level talent, but as is, Boston should expect to be a 30-35 win team next year without significant upgrades, which won't make the playoffs next year.

Disagree on the Atlantic. Toronto will probably be worse, since they could have a fire sale or lose Lou Williams or Johnson. Brooklyn could easily be worse a lot if Brook Lopez and Thad Young leave, their best case scenario is the same.

The Knicks should be better, but that's not saying much with how putrid they were this year. Still, relying on a star coming back from injury, a draft pick, cap space and a bunch of scrubs doesn't make it likely they are better than us. Even if Philly is better, wouldn't you be surprised if they didn't finish in last?

I just refuse to believe that we are going to take a step back next year from the perspective of so early in the offseason. IMO it's a fair argument to have if things go poorly in the offseason, but at this point I am not ready to expect the worst.

[slamtheking]

^ Put another way, you have to ask yourself how much you think reaching 40 wins was a case of a lot going right for the Celtics versus not that much going wrong.

If every team enters the season with a certain range of wins that is within its reach, how close did this Celtics team come to bumping up against the upper bound of that range?

Yes, roster upheaval can be a drag on win totals.  But it can also be an advantage.  How often did the Celtics enter a game with the advantage of facing an opponent who had no familiarity with the team the Celtics were about to put on the floor?

The 55 win pace they went on for ~41% of the season was likely overachieving, but how far do we really think they are going to drop when they settle down and teams become familiar? For them not to make the playoffs in the East, we are essentially saying they will go from a 55 win pace to a ~33-35 win pace. Lack of familiarity was likely an issue for opposing teams against the Celtics for a few months there, but their pace won't drop that low. They'll probably fall into the 40-44 win range if the roster stays the same (assuming no major breakouts from Smart, Young, Sully, or Oly).

That is true, PhoSita, we over achieved but I doubt it is sustainable giving the tanking and injuries on other teams in the EAST.  DA needs to make moves to keep us up with the Jones's even then it will be hard.

This is very much the reality of the situation.

Indy getting George back, Miami getting Bosh back, Milwaukee getting Parker back and having MCW in camp are 3 solid reasons the C's are unlikely to achieve the same record much less make the playoffs.  Brooklyn could very well get worse (seriously hope so since we have their pick) but that's just speculation right now.  Toronto may blow it up somewhat but to the point where they become worse than the C's roster?  not very likely.

running this team back next year with only the minor changes of some of our FAs leaving and a few mediocre FAs being signed and mediocre rookies being drafted will not give this team a winning record.

And what about Sullinger coming back? Wade being a year older? IT having a full camp just like MCW? Again, it's interesting that so many can find reasons why other teams will improve but have trouble applying the exact same logic to the Celtics. I wouldn't look at other teams too much when trying to predict win-loss totals and what not. Fact is the Celtics played at a pretty ridiculous win-loss rate for close to half the season. For us to not match 40 wins total next year, we would have to fall off pretty hard. Like really, really hard. With no major changes, going from from a 55 win pace to a 33-35 win pace is difficult to see. More likely to fall into the 40-44 range, and that's making the playoffs in the East.

Indy will be much better next season. Miami is up in the air. Sure, Bosh comes back, but Wade has slowly been declining for years now.  The Bucks played terribly after trading away Knight. Who really knows if Parker and a camp for MCW will make up for that difference. There are just as many questions for these teams as there are for the Celtics.

I don't think it will be that hard for Boston to have a worse record next year.  In fact I expect it.  Boston played in one of the worst divisions in any sport in history.  The Atlantic Division was absolutely terrible.  It won't be nearly that bad next year, as Philly and NY should be both be a lot better with Brooklyn and Toronto being about the same.  The latter half of the year, Boston played a pretty easy schedule and played a lot of teams had already shut it down (either resting for the playoff run or tanking for a higher pick).  And a team like the Bucks, that gets a top 3 talent back, will improve more than Boston, for the simple fact that they are adding a top 3 talent while their young guys will continue to improve.  Boston isn't adding a talent like Parker.  That guy doesn't exist.  Now sure all this can change if Boston ends up with Greg Monroe (or LA or KL) and/or other mid level talent, but as is, Boston should expect to be a 30-35 win team next year without significant upgrades, which won't make the playoffs next year.

agreed.

the concept of comparing this team's win rate and applying to next year's team is unrealistic for the reasons you've added to as well as several other reasons neither of us covered.  I will admit that I think the one team we should undoubtedly be better than is Philly.  they'll be a train wreck again next year (and longer).

While I do expect our young players to improve, I don't think their level of improvement will exceed the improvement of other young players in the East nor will they match the level of improvement provided to other teams by injured players returning to their teams.

[Rosco917]

Oh, no, I was answering Roscoe with a GIF, inspired by you.

The GIF was quite good. The McCartney one is new I believe.

I guess Red was just extremely lucky.

[Rosco917]

No seriously, there are a few ways to put together a winning team. If your going to wish for a star, try and get one that really fits, and actually wants to win. In 08 we had Paul, and then got KG and Ray at exactly the right time in there career. That team had some great glue guy's that really wanted to play hard and win. Perk, Tony Allen, Posey, just to name a few.

I mean the Knicks have a star, The Kings have a star, we did better than they did. That's all I'm saying is, not every star even cares about winning. Some of these "stars" care about...well, just being a star and making money.