Steve Bulpett: Next year's team could be worse than this years

[nickagneta]

I think it's quite possible the Celtics win less games but still sneak into the playoffs because the other teams in the East are awful.

[PhoSita]

Overall my point is I agree other teams can be overlooked. However, this goes both ways. We don't think about the teams that are going to improve, but we also don't think about the teams that will do worse. We are just focused on our team, which is probably exhausting enough!

That's true.

As you say, the Nets have seemed ripe for a major fall for a while now.  D-Will, JJ, and Lopez have always been enough to keep them right in the mediocrity zone, but maybe this year will be when something finally gives.

The Hornets might see Big Al walk, in which case they'll probably sink even further down the standings.  The Bulls could be in for a big fall.  The Raptors might get blown up.

Very possible that the conference is every bit as bad as it was last year, with each surprise improvement matched by a precipitous decline by teams that were respectable or semi-respectable this year.


I guess part of my thinking is that the hardest thing to find in the NBA is consistent, sustained excellence. 

The Celtics played very well in the last couple months of this past season, but how will they sustain that energy over time as they face opponents who have faced this version of the Celtics multiple times, and without the benefit of being the ones who are always giving more effort and hustle every night?

I know it's a tired refrain, but typically the only thing that makes sustained excellence a likely proposition is having superstars on your team.  Just ask the Hawks.

[snively]

It's a very reasonable prospect. 

If we miss out on signing premiere free agents, chances are Danny's going to want to get worse.

And it won't be that hard to do.  Remember Danny took a 45 win team of his own construction in 2005 and reduced it to a 33 win squad simply by letting free agents go and replacing them with unproven young guys - we ditched Payton and Walker (and then traded Blount and Ricky) and replaced them with Delonte, Gomes, Perk and Orien Greene.

Letting Jerebko and Crowder go and giving James Young and an incoming rook their minutes would be a pretty big blow.  Follow it up with a Turner salary dump and an Isaiah Thomas for draft pick trade and you've got a contender for sub 30 wins.

And even if we don't sabotage ourselves, it's not like the East is sitting on its laurels.  The Magic just hired Scott Skiles - a guy who does a great job of propelling young teams into the playoffs.  The Knicks are only a season removed from half-decency and they'll have a lot more to play with this year.  The Pacers and Heat are near-locks to be better.  And even Detroit and Charlotte are capable of overtaking us.

I could see the C's letting some vets go but I don't think Crowder will be one of them. The stories of Thomas being consulted on free agents makes it seem unlikely they deal him. I think they could deal Turner and have his production made up by increased production from Smart, Crowder and Young.

Payton and Walker were both starters. Getting rid of Bass and Gigi certainly won't be as big a blow as getting rid of those two.

The Knicks are a half season from half decency AND a jettisoning of pretty much their entire roster. They have like 3 NBA players on their team now. Their best players are going to be an unproven draft pick and a player coming off a major injury.

The Heat's best player is unsigned, and their second best player is coming off heart surgery, not sure they are a near lock to be better (do you think Dragic is a lock to stay if they don't bring back Wade?). Not scared of Detroit or Charlotte.

I could see us getting worse next year, but for that to happen I think it will take an injury.

Thomas is being consulted about free agents because they hope he will help draw them in. 

And let's not forget who our GM is.  Rondo got traded less than a half-season after being the lead recruiter on Kevin Love. Marcus Smart went from Love trade chip to core piece.  Pierce and KG got traded the year after we splurged on a supporting cast intended for them.  Doc Rivers got traded after we almost let him talk us into trading up to draft his kid.

I don't think this is true at all unless I missed a story. Rondo shook hands with Love at a baseball game and the photo went viral, but everything I read about it indicates they only met for about a minute. I also don't recall any stories where Ainge said he would consult with Rondo on who to sign. If anything it was just frequent trade rumors about them that Danny only occasionally diffused. Very different than the recent story with Thomas that came out unprompted.

Rondo was vocal about trying to get Love and Melo.  There were also several quotes from Danny when "will we trade Rondo" was the buzz (wait, when wasn't it?) about how he discussed potential acquisitions with Rondo.

[More Banners]

Not knowing how things will shake out in the offseason, but if they keep the perimeter defense, they can really only slide so far. Retaining Crowder would help with that. Trading Bradley would not.

They could stand a lot of improvement offensively and on the boards. A full year of IT4 helps there, and Turner helps too. A scoring big who rebounds is needed. A healthy Sully, and a sub-star guy like Al Jefferson would be transformative.

For some reason (Smart) I don't expect AB on he squad next season, though.

[Celtics18]

I'm start to find this thread to be quite amusing.  The optimists are saying it's possible that our Celtics could be better.  The pessimists are saying the team could be worse.  And each side thinks that we are the ones being the realists and the other side is being completely unrealistic. 

Since nobody is really committing either way, nobody is going to end up being wrong. 

[Ilikesports17]

Honestly if we are worse it means a big step forward.

Before you start accusing me of being a tanker, thats not what I mean.

If we are worse next year, it will probably be because we made major steps in talent consolidation. If we run it back with the core of IT, Smart, AB, Sully, KO, Zeller, Crowder, 2 1st rounders, then we will probably tread water.

The only way you will see a real dropoff is if we deal/lose more than 1 of those players.

That could be via packaging Sully and a 1st or moving IT or whatever it is.

I trust Danny Ainge, not to make a panic move. He will only sell off our solid players if he is confident he is getting a superior prospect.

[PhoSita]

I'm start to find this thread to be quite amusing.  The optimists are saying it's possible that our Celtics could be better.  The pessimists are saying the team could be worse.  And each side thinks that we are the ones being the realists and the other side is being completely unrealistic. 

Since nobody is really committing either way, nobody is going to end up being wrong.

Well, yeah, that's kind of why I don't understand how impassioned some of the responses have been.

It's so unreasonable to suggest the team, that arguably overachieved this year, might not be as good next year?  I haven't seen anybody in this thread rule out the team winning more games next year. 

Just pointing out that the premise "Next year's team could be worse than this year's" isn't simply something Bulpett dreamed up for the sake of riling up fans (though of course, based on this thread, he succeeded in doing that).

There are a number of scenarios you can dream up that involve the team winning more games next year, too.  If the team stays more or less the same, I tend to think fewer wins is more likely than more wins, but I suppose I do tend to lean more toward "pessimism" than the opposite.  Doesn't mean I think that optimism is crazy.

[Ilikesports17]

I'm start to find this thread to be quite amusing.  The optimists are saying it's possible that our Celtics could be better.  The pessimists are saying the team could be worse.  And each side thinks that we are the ones being the realists and the other side is being completely unrealistic. 

Since nobody is really committing either way, nobody is going to end up being wrong.

Thats because no one knows what happens this offseason. I mean if we trade AB, Sully, and IT for some mega package of picks, then yes we will be substantially worse. If we run it back the same way, we will probably be pretty similar (regression to mean from hot finish should put us around 500 and I expect rising East to be canceled out by player progression), and if we reel in a big FA like Love or move a bunch of picks for vets then we will be much better.

lets look at some hypotheticals.
IT for a pick 10-14 range
Sully + 10-14 + 16 for #6(Justice Winslow)
AB + whatever for 10 (Stanley Johnson)
Team
Smart
Winslow Young
Crowder Johnson
KO
Zeller
this team is awful but bursts with potential. Smart, Johnson, Winslow, Young are all big ceiling guys + our own pick in 2016 becomes top 10 and Brooklyn probably is too. Meaning we would leave the 2016 draft with 5 top 10 picks, james, young, KO, Zeller, and a ton of cap
option 2.
Run it back
draft Portis (not exciting), Mickey (not all too exciting), 2 draft and stash
Smart IT4
AB Young
ET Crowder
Sully Portis Mickey
Zeller KO
not great, but probably still OK as big leaps can be expected from Young and Smart
option 3.
Sign big FA like Love, gasol, aldridge, monroe(most achievable)
trade 16 for Faried/  Gibson
move wallace with 28
Smart IT4
Bradley Young
Crowder ET
Gibson Sully KO
monroe Zeller
this team is very attainable
we have 23 mil in cap and wed get to 36 by getting rid of Wallace and picks, then 1 max for Monroe, and 10 mil for the defensive PF to play next to him and we still have 10 mil to get a guy like Danny Green or whoever, to play SF

[celticsclay]

Overall my point is I agree other teams can be overlooked. However, this goes both ways. We don't think about the teams that are going to improve, but we also don't think about the teams that will do worse. We are just focused on our team, which is probably exhausting enough!

That's true.

As you say, the Nets have seemed ripe for a major fall for a while now.  D-Will, JJ, and Lopez have always been enough to keep them right in the mediocrity zone, but maybe this year will be when something finally gives.

The Hornets might see Big Al walk, in which case they'll probably sink even further down the standings.  The Bulls could be in for a big fall.  The Raptors might get blown up.

Very possible that the conference is every bit as bad as it was last year, with each surprise improvement matched by a precipitous decline by teams that were respectable or semi-respectable this year.


I guess part of my thinking is that the hardest thing to find in the NBA is consistent, sustained excellence. 

The Celtics played very well in the last couple months of this past season, but how will they sustain that energy over time as they face opponents who have faced this version of the Celtics multiple times, and without the benefit of being the ones who are always giving more effort and hustle every night?

I know it's a tired refrain, but typically the only thing that makes sustained excellence a likely proposition is having superstars on your team.  Just ask the Hawks.

Great response, TP. I think the answer to that question may ultimately come down to what someone thinks of Brad Stevens. I personally think that he is a really good at x's and o's and really good at getting his players to play harder than other coaches. I think this works particularly well with mid-level vets and young players trying to make it in the league. It remains to be seen if he could have the same impact on an established NBA star. However, I do think it is reasonable to think that at least for another year the young players will respond to him the same way next year if we have the same roster.

[Celtics18]

I'm start to find this thread to be quite amusing.  The optimists are saying it's possible that our Celtics could be better.  The pessimists are saying the team could be worse.  And each side thinks that we are the ones being the realists and the other side is being completely unrealistic. 

Since nobody is really committing either way, nobody is going to end up being wrong.

Well, yeah, that's kind of why I don't understand how impassioned some of the responses have been.

It's so unreasonable to suggest the team, that arguably overachieved this year, might not be as good next year?  I haven't seen anybody in this thread rule out the team winning more games next year. 

Just pointing out that the premise "Next year's team could be worse than this year's" isn't simply something Bulpett dreamed up for the sake of riling up fans (though of course, based on this thread, he succeeded in doing that).

There are a number of scenarios you can dream up that involve the team winning more games next year, too.  If the team stays more or less the same, I tend to think fewer wins is more likely than more wins, but I suppose I do tend to lean more toward "pessimism" than the opposite.  Doesn't mean I think that optimism is crazy.

The Warriors could be worse next year, so could the Hawks, the Cavs, the Rockets, the Grizzlies, the Wizards, etc . . .

It's a silly point to harp on.  Of course the Celtics could be worse.

I happen to think they'll be better.  We'll see. 

[PhoSita]

The Warriors could be worse next year, so could the Hawks, the Cavs, the Rockets, the Grizzlies, the Wizards, etc . . .

It's a silly point to harp on.  Of course the Celtics could be worse.

You know what I'm going to say right?  We've played the Ying and Yang on here long enough for that.

Those other teams have something the Celtics don't ... say it with me ... superstars! 


We will, of course, find out in due time.  Honestly, I'd be fairly surprised if the roster isn't pretty different a few months from now, either because a few established talents have been added, or because Danny has decided to take a young roster in an even younger direction.  So all of this is probably just academic. 

But hey, what else do we have to do around here, argue over who is gonna win the Finals, or bandy back and forth over the best might-one-day-be-a-borderline-starter prospect to take with #16?

[celticsclay]

The Warriors could be worse next year, so could the Hawks, the Cavs, the Rockets, the Grizzlies, the Wizards, etc . . .

It's a silly point to harp on.  Of course the Celtics could be worse.

You know what I'm going to say right?  We've played the Ying and Yang on here long enough for that.

Those other teams have something the Celtics don't ... say it with me ... superstars! 


We will, of course, find out in due time.  Honestly, I'd be fairly surprised if the roster isn't pretty different a few months from now, either because a few established talents have been added, or because Danny has decided to take a young roster in an even younger direction.  So all of this is probably just academic. 

But hey, what else do we have to do around here, argue over who is gonna win the Finals, or bandy back and forth over the best might-one-day-be-a-borderline-starter prospect to take with #16?

In the spirit of your last comment, who are the superstars on the grizzlies or hawks. I thought the whole identity of the hawks was that they didn't have a superstar. I can see one might say Wall is a superstar with the Wizards, but I generally thought of him in the all star category rather than a superstar (durant, harden, curry, lebron, davis, westbrook)

[cltc5]

Yes, let's strive for mediocrity again next year .  Ridiculous how some people would rather see this team back into the playoffs every year then actually gets some stars to keep us as a team to deal with for years to come.

[ImShakHeIsShaq]

The Warriors could be worse next year, so could the Hawks, the Cavs, the Rockets, the Grizzlies, the Wizards, etc . . .

It's a silly point to harp on.  Of course the Celtics could be worse.

You know what I'm going to say right?  We've played the Ying and Yang on here long enough for that.

Those other teams have something the Celtics don't ... say it with me ... superstars! 


We will, of course, find out in due time.  Honestly, I'd be fairly surprised if the roster isn't pretty different a few months from now, either because a few established talents have been added, or because Danny has decided to take a young roster in an even younger direction.  So all of this is probably just academic. 

But hey, what else do we have to do around here, argue over who is gonna win the Finals, or bandy back and forth over the best might-one-day-be-a-borderline-starter prospect to take with #16?

Say this with me... OKC. That's just one example of injuries making a team w/ superstars worse than the season prior, there are other examples w/o injuries.

Superstars don't guarantee that teams won't be worse from one season to the next. Yep, any team can be good one season and stink or regress the next.

[Celtics18]

The Warriors could be worse next year, so could the Hawks, the Cavs, the Rockets, the Grizzlies, the Wizards, etc . . .

It's a silly point to harp on.  Of course the Celtics could be worse.

You know what I'm going to say right?  We've played the Ying and Yang on here long enough for that.

Those other teams have something the Celtics don't ... say it with me ... superstars! 


We will, of course, find out in due time.  Honestly, I'd be fairly surprised if the roster isn't pretty different a few months from now, either because a few established talents have been added, or because Danny has decided to take a young roster in an even younger direction.  So all of this is probably just academic. 

But hey, what else do we have to do around here, argue over who is gonna win the Finals, or bandy back and forth over the best might-one-day-be-a-borderline-starter prospect to take with #16?

In the spirit of your last comment, who are the superstars on the grizzlies or hawks. I thought the whole identity of the hawks was that they didn't have a superstar. I can see one might say Wall is a superstar with the Wizards, but I generally thought of him in the all star category rather than a superstar (durant, harden, curry, lebron, davis, westbrook)

TP. I was going to point this out as well.  It's what I admire so much about the Hawks and the Grizzlies.  I like teams that are able to compete at a high level despite not having elite level superstars.