The Curse of the Summer of '07

[jasmini]

Most successful teams in the NBA have been presented with fortuitous circumstances. It's what keeps fans hopeful regardless of the current state of their team. I don't think it's fair to say that the last Celtics rebuild was a decade long endeavor. The 2002 team that made it to the conference finals had nothing in common with the 2007 team, with the obvious exception of Pierce. That mediocre team was dismantled and rebuilt in 5 years.

I agree it's unrealistic to expect Ainge to produce a championship team without Pierce as a cornerstone. Players like Garnett and Allen are rarely traded, but we have seen firsthand the benefits of waiting for such a trade. Even if no all-stars are available via trade this season, the Celtics can have a large amount of cap space next summer. There is no guarantee of course, but in the meantime the team will be at least decent with the potential to overachieve, while the Mavs and Nets picks remain as scratch tickets.

If you want to talk about luck, nobody has been as lucky in the draft as the Warriors, Cavs and Thunder in recent memory. Reproducing the circumstances under which they drafted by tanking would take an equal or greater amount of fortune as trading for all-stars with current assets.

[celticsclay]

I don't want to make this thread about the Nets, but I disagree with the idea that they will be awful.

Lopez is not nearly as bad on defense as some people suggest, and he's an everyday 20 point scorer.  Thad Young is a good fit with Lopez.

The Nets have stripped down their roster this summer, apparently in order to get below the luxury tax, which makes sense.

They've got a decent stable of role players to put around Iso-Joe, Thad, and Brook, though.  Jack, Bogdanovic, Karasev, RHJ, Corey Jefferson, Bargnani.

That team will be far from good, but with their core three guys they'll be able to kill a lot of bad teams with repetitive, grinding half-court sets.  They've also got a pretty good coach.

Will the Nets win more than they lose next year?  I really doubt it.  Will they lose enough to get the Celts a top 10 pick?  I doubt that, too.

If you don't want to make it about the Nets, you can't make exceedingly optimistic comments and not expect a response. These are the guys you are calling decent.

Jarret Jack turns 32 years old before the season starts and shoots 44% from the field and 28% from 3 point land. He is not a good distributor and averaged 2.5 turnovers against 4.7 assists last year. He is at best an average defender. (Note this is with him as a starter, he is may be ok as an offensive guy off the bench for spot minutes, but as a starter he is probably worst starting pg in league)

Sergey Karasev - He is listed as shooting guard, but his shooting decreased from 40% to 34% last year while his 3 pt shooting decreased from 29% to 21%. Oh and if that wasn't ghastly enough he is coming of a torn MCL in mid-march. If nothing else, please admit including him as a decent player is ridiculous

Corey Jefferson - He is really good. He was waived 20 hours ago. Is he a good rotation player?

Air Barg - He can occasionally score, but he the last 4 seasons his games played are 29, 42, 35 and 31. There is a reason he was one of the last free agents signed and it was for the minimum. He is a fringe NBA player.

Overall, I think you have to do a serious reassessment of your take on the Nets if of two of the 5 decent players you name one has already been cut and the other is a "never-was" coming off a torn mcl.

Edit: I'll ad in RHJ since I missed you mentioned him. He is the 23rd pick in a draft that is considered a strong defensive player and an athlete, but is 20 years old and needs serious development to be an NBA contributer. He averaged 8.5 points in the summer league.

[LilRip]

We did have an impressive haul of assets then.

The big thing that encourages me is that Ainge was able to get KG and Ray without giving up some of our best assets.

We came into that offseason with:
Pierce
#5
Rondo
T Allen
Perk
Telfair
Big Al
Green
Delonte
and a few other bit pieces.

Obviously Big Al went on to have an all star career, but other than that Danny Ainge did an impressive job keeping the key pieces here. I mean he was able to get 2 stars without giving up Rajon Rondo, Perkins, or Tony Allen. and not to mention paul pierce.

Paul was never on the table in those deals. And to be fair, TA was showing only beginning to show promise for a few weeks before busting his knee, knocking him out for the rest of the season. Perk's highlight of his career, at the time, was missing 2 crucial free throws vs. Indiana in the playoffs in his rookie year. And Rondo, while he showed flashes of passing brilliance, was still a rookie who couldn't shoot. McHale wanted Rondo, but settled for Bassy instead.

Remember, after we assembled the big 3, everyone else was saying how we had zero depth and that would be our downfall. Roughly translated: nobody believed in Rondo/Perk/TA. Actually, during that championship run, it could be said that Posey was the 4th most important player we had, followed by either Perk or Rondo (depending on who you ask).

So it seems, no one really knew at the time that TA was going to be "1st all-team defense" and Rondo would go on to be a trip-dub machine. I would say guys like Delonte, G-Money, Ratliff's expiring, and even Gomes were more attractive chips than Perk/TA.

[PhoSita]

Overall, I think you have to do a serious reassessment of your take on the Nets if of two of the 5 decent players you name one has already been cut and the other is a "never-was" coming off a torn mcl.

I don't disagree with you about the listed players being not very good.

I guess I just don't think it's very hard to find the middle in the Eastern Conference.  Just look at what our team did last year, without any players as good as Brook Lopez.

As long as that Nets team still has a veteran core that knows how to eke out wins in a bad conference, I won't be betting any money on those picks.

[LilRip]

Most successful teams in the NBA have been presented with fortuitous circumstances. It's what keeps fans hopeful regardless of the current state of their team. I don't think it's fair to say that the last Celtics rebuild was a decade long endeavor. The 2002 team that made it to the conference finals had nothing in common with the 2007 team, with the obvious exception of Pierce. That mediocre team was dismantled and rebuilt in 5 years.

I agree it's unrealistic to expect Ainge to produce a championship team without Pierce as a cornerstone. Players like Garnett and Allen are rarely traded, but we have seen firsthand the benefits of waiting for such a trade. Even if no all-stars are available via trade this season, the Celtics can have a large amount of cap space next summer. There is no guarantee of course, but in the meantime the team will be at least decent with the potential to overachieve, while the Mavs and Nets picks remain as scratch tickets.

If you want to talk about luck, nobody has been as lucky in the draft as the Warriors, Cavs and Thunder in recent memory. Reproducing the circumstances under which they drafted by tanking would take an equal or greater amount of fortune as trading for all-stars with current assets.

Really? Has trading for 2 all-stars in one offseason happened before '07? Note, I'm not talking about trades for young guys who eventually became allstars, or signing all-star free agents like how the Rockets and Heat/Cavs have found success. I'm talking established superstars being traded to one team.

[Boris Badenov]

I don't want to make this thread about the Nets, but I disagree with the idea that they will be awful.

Lopez is not nearly as bad on defense as some people suggest, and he's an everyday 20 point scorer.  Thad Young is a good fit with Lopez.

The Nets have stripped down their roster this summer, apparently in order to get below the luxury tax, which makes sense.

They've got a decent stable of role players to put around Iso-Joe, Thad, and Brook, though.  Jack, Bogdanovic, Karasev, RHJ, Corey Jefferson, Bargnani.

That team will be far from good, but with their core three guys they'll be able to kill a lot of bad teams with repetitive, grinding half-court sets.  They've also got a pretty good coach.

Will the Nets win more than they lose next year?  I really doubt it.  Will they lose enough to get the Celts a top 10 pick?  I doubt that, too.

I agree that this shouldn't become a Nets thread (you should instead respond to my previous comment haha)

All your points are true, although I think you are overrating their young players.

The only thing you didn't mention is Brook Lopez's injury history. He hasn't played a full season since 2010-2011 and two of the last 4 years he has played less than 18 games. If he gets hurt, I think we get a top 10 pick out of them.

The funny thing about all these Nets "disagreements" is that they contain less actual disagreement than most CB topics.

Most of the discussions go something like this:

"The Nets will be good if Lopez is healthy."

"Yeah, but they will be bad if he gets hurt."

"Right. But they'll be good if he doesn't get hurt."

Etc.

[Dee Brown]

I don't want to make this thread about the Nets, but I disagree with the idea that they will be awful.

Lopez is not nearly as bad on defense as some people suggest, and he's an everyday 20 point scorer.  Thad Young is a good fit with Lopez.

The Nets have stripped down their roster this summer, apparently in order to get below the luxury tax, which makes sense.

They've got a decent stable of role players to put around Iso-Joe, Thad, and Brook, though.  Jack, Bogdanovic, Karasev, RHJ, Corey Jefferson, Bargnani.

That team will be far from good, but with their core three guys they'll be able to kill a lot of bad teams with repetitive, grinding half-court sets.  They've also got a pretty good coach.

Will the Nets win more than they lose next year?  I really doubt it.  Will they lose enough to get the Celts a top 10 pick?  I doubt that, too.

Even if Lopez is healthy, I'm curious which 10+ teams you think the Nets will win more games than?  I could see Denver, NY, Philly doing worse - although that's not even a guarantee.  MAYBE the Lakers, Minnesota, or Portland.

[PhoSita]

Great post, tp!

I am in general an optimist and I like to argue so that often leaves on the side of defending Danny's moves. However, it is more likely than not that Danny won't be able to find a star through a trade and there will never be fireworks.

With the idea that a championship is the only goal for a team becoming a mantra that a lot of fans live by there is a lot of pressure for the C's to set off fire works. I for one, don't expect anything more than incremental improvement ever year of this rebuild and will be happy if we get that even if it doesn't lead to a title.

 Even if Ainge hasn't built a contender he has put together a team full of guys I am going to enjoy watching. But it is harder to enjoy that when you have seen that "Anything is possibllllllllllllllllllle" when it comes to a quick turn around.

I can see where you're coming from, I think.

I don't blame people for wanting the Celts to put a team on the floor that can be enjoyable to watch, and the "championship or bust" mindset does tend to necessitate something other than that if it is taken to its logical end.

Still, personally, what I like to see from the team is a clear plan / strategy and the discipline to carry it out, coupled with a focus on building one of the very best teams in the league.  I prefer that phrasing to "winning a championship," because going all the way is very dependent on luck.

I'd rather wait it out through a few bad years if I felt the team was putting together the key ingredients of a team that could win 50-60 games for a decade.  Seeing the team win 35-45 games and lose in the first round isn't much better for me than if they lost 60 games and finished in the lottery.

[celticsclay]

Overall, I think you have to do a serious reassessment of your take on the Nets if of two of the 5 decent players you name one has already been cut and the other is a "never-was" coming off a torn mcl.

I don't disagree with you about the listed players being not very good.

I guess I just don't think it's very hard to find the middle in the Eastern Conference.  Just look at what our team did last year, without any players as good as Brook Lopez.

As long as that Nets team still has a veteran core that knows how to eke out wins in a bad conference, I won't be betting any money on those picks.

I mean you can't list a guy that just got cut as a decent player and not admit your comment and list was a bit silly. If I said the Celtics have decent young players on their roster like Chris Babb and Phil Pressey I would expect to be called out on it.

Are they worse than what you originally thought after some reflection?
Were you just lazy about picking out players?
Are you just feeling pessimistic?

Whats the deal?

[PhoSita]

Most of the discussions go something like this:

"The Nets will be good if Lopez is healthy."

"Yeah, but they will be bad if he gets hurt."

"Right. But they'll be good if he doesn't get hurt."

Etc.

Hahah.  Yes, that really is more or less what it boils down to.


I'll concede that losing Deron does make them more likely to bottom out, especially if Lopez is hurt for a lengthy stretch.  Deron isn't very good anymore, but between him and Joe the Nets had a lot of winning experience, which I think matters when it comes to grinding out games against bad, young teams.

Still, the biggest thing for me aside from the Brook Lopez thing is that the Nets just have no incentive to be bad.  There are too many teams with an incentive to be bad for me to pin my hopes on a team that doesn't.

[PhoSita]

Overall, I think you have to do a serious reassessment of your take on the Nets if of two of the 5 decent players you name one has already been cut and the other is a "never-was" coming off a torn mcl.

I don't disagree with you about the listed players being not very good.

I guess I just don't think it's very hard to find the middle in the Eastern Conference.  Just look at what our team did last year, without any players as good as Brook Lopez.

As long as that Nets team still has a veteran core that knows how to eke out wins in a bad conference, I won't be betting any money on those picks.

I mean you can't list a guy that just got cut as a decent player and not admit your comment and list was a bit silly. If I said the Celtics have decent young players on their roster like Chris Babb and Phil Pressey I would expect to be called out on it.

Are they worse than what you originally thought after some reflection?
Were you just lazy about picking out players?
Are you just feeling pessimistic?

Whats the deal?

Eh, I admit that I'm not sure why this is such a big deal for you.

In all of the time I take out of my day to follow the Celtics, I don't find the additional time to closely follow the Nets' off-season.

My bad.

I disagree with the characterization that the players I mentioned are on par with Babb and Pressey, who are borderline NBA players.


What it comes down to is that I don't think the Nets are just a bunch of scrubs and overrated veterans.  Apparently you do.

[PhoSita]

Even if Lopez is healthy, I'm curious which 10+ teams you think the Nets will win more games than?  I could see Denver, NY, Philly doing worse - although that's not even a guarantee.  MAYBE the Lakers, Minnesota, or Portland.

Jarret Jack, Bojan Bogdanovic, Joe Johnson, Thaddeus Young, Brook Lopez


I want you to go and figure out which teams currently project to have a worse starting lineup.

My guess is that there will be more than 10.

[celticsclay]

Overall, I think you have to do a serious reassessment of your take on the Nets if of two of the 5 decent players you name one has already been cut and the other is a "never-was" coming off a torn mcl.

I don't disagree with you about the listed players being not very good.

I guess I just don't think it's very hard to find the middle in the Eastern Conference.  Just look at what our team did last year, without any players as good as Brook Lopez.

As long as that Nets team still has a veteran core that knows how to eke out wins in a bad conference, I won't be betting any money on those picks.

I mean you can't list a guy that just got cut as a decent player and not admit your comment and list was a bit silly. If I said the Celtics have decent young players on their roster like Chris Babb and Phil Pressey I would expect to be called out on it.

Are they worse than what you originally thought after some reflection?
Were you just lazy about picking out players?
Are you just feeling pessimistic?

Whats the deal?

Eh, I admit that I'm not sure why this is such a big deal for you.

In all of the time I take out of my day to follow the Celtics, I don't find the additional time to closely follow the Nets' off-season.

My bad.

I disagree with the characterization that the players I mentioned are on par with Babb and Pressey, who are borderline NBA players.


What it comes down to is that I don't think the Nets are just a bunch of scrubs and overrated veterans.  Apparently you do.

PhoSita, I am not trying to be a pain in the rear on this thread but I get frustrated sometimes when it seems like people are pessimistic just for the sake of being pessimistic. When you listed 5 players for them as decent. One who is cut, one who is terrible and coming off a serious injury to begin with and a raw rookie selected 23rd, it really seemed like you were just making stuff up to fit a narrative that they wouldn't be bad. That, as Peter Griffin would say, grinds my gears. If that isn't the case, then I can see how that would be annoying for you. However, if you don't closely follow the Nets offseason you probably shouldn't be super confident in saying they wont be terrible.

As I mentioned earlier, they lost 4 rotation players including 1 starter this offseason for a team that already lacked depth. The only player they brought in that is expected to be a contributor (re: guaranteed minutes) is Barg. He was described by the Nets reporter as a stretch 4 that lost the stretch. Not saying there is a very significant chance this pick is bottom 5 seems to strike me as unwarranted pessimism. In that vein, I don't understand what teams you think will finish worse than the nets in the East at this point besides Philly. If that is the case we get the 5th pick in the draft or better. That is a major asset and probably the best asset we have had in 5 years.

[jasmini]

Most successful teams in the NBA have been presented with fortuitous circumstances. It's what keeps fans hopeful regardless of the current state of their team. I don't think it's fair to say that the last Celtics rebuild was a decade long endeavor. The 2002 team that made it to the conference finals had nothing in common with the 2007 team, with the obvious exception of Pierce. That mediocre team was dismantled and rebuilt in 5 years.

I agree it's unrealistic to expect Ainge to produce a championship team without Pierce as a cornerstone. Players like Garnett and Allen are rarely traded, but we have seen firsthand the benefits of waiting for such a trade. Even if no all-stars are available via trade this season, the Celtics can have a large amount of cap space next summer. There is no guarantee of course, but in the meantime the team will be at least decent with the potential to overachieve, while the Mavs and Nets picks remain as scratch tickets.

If you want to talk about luck, nobody has been as lucky in the draft as the Warriors, Cavs and Thunder in recent memory. Reproducing the circumstances under which they drafted by tanking would take an equal or greater amount of fortune as trading for all-stars with current assets.

Really? Has trading for 2 all-stars in one offseason happened before '07? Note, I'm not talking about trades for young guys who eventually became allstars, or signing all-star free agents like how the Rockets and Heat/Cavs have found success. I'm talking established superstars being traded to one team.

We are talking about two different time scales here. Trading for two all-stars should put the Celtics back in contention immediately, whereas tanking and drafting as well as the teams mentioned is another 4-5 year process. Curry (#7 in '09), Thompson, (#11 in '11), Barnes (#7 in '12) and Green (#35 in '12) didn't produce a contender until last year and they were lucky to hit on all those picks. Same goes for the Cavs with Irving, Thompson, Bennet and Wiggins who would not be in the finals if not for a returning LeBron. So I do think the dependence on luck is decreased by looking for a trade rather than trying emulate those teams that lost for years on end before becoming good. The team was supposed to be gutted last year and Smart was supposed the be the first pick of a long losing rebuild. However, the Eastern conference is so poor that the tanking route is not viable and the team ended up as the 7th seed, a fate it faces again this year.

I agree it's unlikely to immediately trade for two all-stars and I'm not sure of precedents before KG and Ray, but that isn't the only option as I mentioned. Next year the Celtics stand to have a huge amount of cap space. So if the options to add talent are through trades, free agency and tanking for draft spots, I say the Celtics are much better positioned to succeed without luck in trades and free agency.

[PhoSita]

Not saying there is a very significant chance this pick is bottom 5 seems to strike me as unwarranted pessimism. In that vein, I don't understand what teams you think will finish worse than the nets in the East at this point besides Philly. If that is the case we get the 5th pick in the draft or better. That is a major asset and probably the best asset we have had in 5 years.

There's a certain incongruity in your insistence upon this point that I overlooked Cory Jefferson no longer being on the team when your underlying point is that he sucks anyway. 

Anyway, I'll refer you to what I've written above in order to further explain my position.  Yes, they lack depth, and no, they're probably not going to be very good.  Things could go off the rails if Brook suffers another ankle injury.

Still, the big thing for me is that they still have a veteran core that's actually pretty decent (at least as good as our best 3 or 4 players), and at the end of the day it's not that hard to be mediocre in this horrible conference.


I'm disappointed that this thread has become about the Nets, but I guess it makes sense seeing as they are the shining beacon of hope that many people use to justify their trust in the middle of the road approach the Celts are taking.  If those Nets pick turn into top 5-10 picks, it won't matter where the Celts end up in the draft.


Last week, if I recall correctly, I posted a tiered ranking of the teams in the NBA as things stand right now, and the Nets occupied the second to last tier with about a dozen other teams including the Celtics.

Like the Celtics, I think the Nets could end up with a record anywhere between 15th and 25th.  I guess I'm just not going to get my hopes up on a team in the East with no incentive to truly stink to end up on the lower end of that spectrum. 

If you want to call that willful pessimism, go right ahead.