Celtics too talented not to win 50 games in the East.

[Greenback]

How did the Hawks win 60 games last year?

The Celtics could win 50.  If they don't, the Celtics will still be a lot of fun to watch.

Its not much fun to pout all year because we don't have a "superstar".

[KG Living Legend]

Tp greenb, well said.

[GreenWarrior]

How did the Hawks win 60 games last year?

The Celtics could win 50.  If they don't, the Celtics will still be a lot of fun to watch.

Its not much fun to pout all year because we don't have a "superstar".

I'm not pouting, I watch every game weather they suck or not.

I just don't agree with building this team with late 1st and 2nd rounders.

[Celtics18]

The use of the word "crowing" subtly changes the connotation of what Pho's saying in regards to those of us with a more positive outlook on the coming season than his own.

You should be aware of that, being a master at reading comprehension and all.

I'll chime in here just to make clear the author's intent -- yes, I think I chose "crowing" because it brings to mind birds obnoxiously cawing in a tree without much thought put into what they're doing.

Not saying it was so calculated, I just used the word that came to mind, but that's probably where my subconscious was at.

Allow me to rephrase to be less inflammatory:

I don't think that Celtics fans would be nearly as optimistic about a Sixers or Nets team featuring the previously mentioned core group of players as they are about their own team.

While I completely understand why that is, my intention is to try and get people to acknowledge it.

I absolutely beg to differ.  While I am admittedly biased towards the Celtics,  at the same time, I feel confident that I would be predicting a similar outcome if this same team, coming off the same season, with the same coach was wearing a different jersey.

[LGC88]

How did the Hawks win 60 games last year?

The Celtics could win 50.  If they don't, the Celtics will still be a lot of fun to watch.

Its not much fun to pout all year because we don't have a "superstar".

TP from me as well.

[PhoSita]

I'll watch the team and probably mostly enjoy them all year, whether they end up winning 30, 40, or 50 games.

Doesn't mean I agree with the strategy Ainge seems to be taking.  If a Harden or KG opportunity comes along and he can seal the deal, then I'll be proven wrong. 

I'm just concerned 30-45 win seasons with an ever-changing cast of scrappy / hard-working / underdog / buy-low-asset / borderline-starter type players is what we have to look forward to for the next 4-5 years.

I can't wait for the real games to start, though. 

[Big333223]

I'll watch the team and probably mostly enjoy them all year, whether they end up winning 30, 40, or 50 games.

Doesn't mean I agree with the strategy Ainge seems to be taking.  If a Harden or KG opportunity comes along and he can seal the deal, then I'll be proven wrong. 

I'm just concerned 30-45 win seasons with an ever-changing cast of scrappy / hard-working / underdog / buy-low-asset / borderline-starter type players is what we have to look forward to for the next 4-5 years.

I can't wait for the real games to start, though.

I get the impression that Ainge didn't really want to do it this way, though, and that he was as surprised as anyone when the Celtics went on the run they did in the second half of last season. He was gunning for another high lottery pick.

[LGC88]

I'll watch the team and probably mostly enjoy them all year, whether they end up winning 30, 40, or 50 games.

Doesn't mean I agree with the strategy Ainge seems to be taking.  If a Harden or KG opportunity comes along and he can seal the deal, then I'll be proven wrong. 

I'm just concerned 30-45 win seasons with an ever-changing cast of scrappy / hard-working / underdog / buy-low-asset / borderline-starter type players is what we have to look forward to for the next 4-5 years.

I can't wait for the real games to start, though.

I get the impression that Ainge didn't really want to do it this way, though, and that he was as surprised as anyone when the Celtics went on the run they did in the second half of last season. He was gunning for another high lottery pick.

It's not an impression, it's almost a fact. I diplomatically admitted it during an interview.
Brad said the team started to click together late January and he could felt the they will start to play well together. That's why Ainge took IT at the deadline. It was too late to tank properly anyway.

[spikelovetheCelts]

I'll watch the team and probably mostly enjoy them all year, whether they end up winning 30, 40, or 50 games.

Doesn't mean I agree with the strategy Ainge seems to be taking.  If a Harden or KG opportunity comes along and he can seal the deal, then I'll be proven wrong. 

I'm just concerned 30-45 win seasons with an ever-changing cast of scrappy / hard-working / underdog / buy-low-asset / borderline-starter type players is what we have to look forward to for the next 4-5 years.

I can't wait for the real games to start, though.

I get the impression that Ainge didn't really want to do it this way, though, and that he was as surprised as anyone when the Celtics went on the run they did in the second half of last season. He was gunning for another high lottery pick.

It's not an impression, it's almost a fact. I diplomatically admitted it during an interview.
Brad said the team started to click together late January and he could felt the they will start to play well together. That's why Ainge took IT at the deadline. It was too late to tank properly anyway.

We will not win 50 unless we get a player at deadline. i see 48. 22 losses from the west.

[sawick48]

i honestly can't believe the amount of people behind this thought here.  i could use some of whatever you guys are having man.

so 50 wins puts us at the 4 seed this past season, tied with the 3 seeded Bulls. our team is as good as last year's Bulls team? really?  i don't think people realize how much better teams around us talent-wise became this offseason.

Cleveland, Atlanta, Chicago, Washington, Miami, Indiana, Golden State, Houston, Clips, Memphis, Spurs, Thunder, and probably New Orleans all CLEARLY are teams with more talent than us.  you can kick and scream with me about Indiana and the Pelicans if you want but I could just as easily say Detroit, Brooklyn, and Dallas have more talent than we do even though I'm not.  So that alone is 13 teams better than us, 6 of which are in the East.  Since the season after the lockout year, there have been an average of 8.67 teams a year in the whole league finishing with 50 wins, with an average of 2.33 per year residing in the East.  the math alone suggests that if we're on pace for 50 wins, that there would need to be a record number of teams winning less than 20 games in order to even out the total wins and losses.

again, hope i'm wrong but i just think the rose colored viewing is getting a tad out of hand

[KG Living Legend]

You named 6 team's in the East. It's entirely conceivable that we have better seasons than Indiana or Miami.
 We're the type of team that's built to last, mess with us well stick our foot in your arse.

[ahonui06]

50 wins would be tough due to the young team as well as anticipated roster turnover.

Win totals somewhere in the 40's is the most realistic option for this season I believe.

[GreenWarrior]

i honestly can't believe the amount of people behind this thought here.  i could use some of whatever you guys are having man.

so 50 wins puts us at the 4 seed this past season, tied with the 3 seeded Bulls. our team is as good as last year's Bulls team? really?  i don't think people realize how much better teams around us talent-wise became this offseason.

Cleveland, Atlanta, Chicago, Washington, Miami, Indiana, Golden State, Houston, Clips, Memphis, Spurs, Thunder, and probably New Orleans all CLEARLY are teams with more talent than us.  you can kick and scream with me about Indiana and the Pelicans if you want but I could just as easily say Detroit, Brooklyn, and Dallas have more talent than we do even though I'm not.  So that alone is 13 teams better than us, 6 of which are in the East.  Since the season after the lockout year, there have been an average of 8.67 teams a year in the whole league finishing with 50 wins, with an average of 2.33 per year residing in the East.  the math alone suggests that if we're on pace for 50 wins, that there would need to be a record number of teams winning less than 20 games in order to even out the total wins and losses.

again, hope i'm wrong but i just think the rose colored viewing is getting a tad out of hand

guarantee at least 2 or 3 of those eastern teams end up not being as good as advertised. happens every yr. in the east...I've been hearing for the last 2-3 yrs. "watch for Detroit"...

this celtics team won 40 games last yr. with a different squad every other week. in the east they could easily get a 2 seed, they could just as easily be an 8 seed too. the whole conference be a bunch of teams with 30+ wins battling it out at the end of the season. it's all about the best of the worst in the east.

[GreenWarrior]

50 wins would be tough due to the young team as well as anticipated roster turnover.

Win totals somewhere in the 40's is the most realistic option for this season I believe.

that's such a myth. this team claims they're a young team. but they play their vets more and in crunch time.

[slamtheking]

i honestly can't believe the amount of people behind this thought here.  i could use some of whatever you guys are having man.

so 50 wins puts us at the 4 seed this past season, tied with the 3 seeded Bulls. our team is as good as last year's Bulls team? really?  i don't think people realize how much better teams around us talent-wise became this offseason.

Cleveland, Atlanta, Chicago, Washington, Miami, Indiana, Golden State, Houston, Clips, Memphis, Spurs, Thunder, and probably New Orleans all CLEARLY are teams with more talent than us.  you can kick and scream with me about Indiana and the Pelicans if you want but I could just as easily say Detroit, Brooklyn, and Dallas have more talent than we do even though I'm not.  So that alone is 13 teams better than us, 6 of which are in the East.  Since the season after the lockout year, there have been an average of 8.67 teams a year in the whole league finishing with 50 wins, with an average of 2.33 per year residing in the East.  the math alone suggests that if we're on pace for 50 wins, that there would need to be a record number of teams winning less than 20 games in order to even out the total wins and losses.

again, hope i'm wrong but i just think the rose colored viewing is getting a tad out of hand

The western conference doesn't matter unless you're projecting where the C's record falls in terms of lottery standings.

in the East,
- I'd think twice before awarding Indy a spot above us.  Prior to getting Amir and Lee and Indy shipping out Hibbert for nothing, I would have said yes but right now, I think it'll be close even with George returning.
- Unless the injury bug hits them, Miami should finish with a much better record than us.
- Milwaukee was better than us last year and has Parker coming back from injury plus they added Monroe, they're definitely better as well.
- You omitted Toronto as well.  I don't see them taking a step backwards.  I can't really see a reason that they'd fall behind the C's this year.
--> that's 7 teams in the East that figure to be better than the C's and that's without stretching reality.

C's will, at best, be fighting Indy and Detroit for that 8th seed.  I don't see Brooklyn in the fight for the playoffs regardless of how Lopez holds up this year.  NY gets Melo back and added a couple of decent players so they'll be better but I don't see them in the playoff race--then again, with Melo, they do have a stud scorer that can carry the offensive load down the stretch of games which is something we still lack.