Author Topic: Was Danny's plan flawed?  (Read 27910 times)

0 Members and 0 Guests are viewing this topic.

Was Danny's plan flawed?
« on: August 10, 2015, 01:39:44 PM »

Offline Alleyoopster

  • Bill Walton
  • *
  • Posts: 1315
  • Tommy Points: 151
Over the past two years many in this group felt we would have been better off if the team tanked rather than win a few extra games.  *I’m not talking about people like myself who were on the fence on this idea and regret not doing so in hindsight.   I’m talking about those who favored the “tank no matter what” plan.  My hats off to you.  In retrospect over the past two years we could have drafted players in the top 3 range if we played our cards right.   

Many of us were saying and believed Danny and Brad were not on board with the tanking idea and that their aim was to win as many games as possible.  In reality winning as many games as possible was not their goal for we traded away or didn’t resign players that would have given us a few extra wins, such as Lee, Green, Thornton, Nelson, Powell, Prince, etc.  (The point of this post isn’t to argue the merits of each decision.  Just saying that by keeping one or a few of these players would likely have led to a few extra wins.)

Thus, using this argument one might say Danny was in favor of losing a few games in the hopes of winning more games in the distant future and/or acquiring more assets.  However, Danny and crew could have lost more games and not have been questioned by it.

Specifically, I’m talking about letting players return from injuries before they were totally healed.  Three players come to mind.  One is Marcus Smart.  He had a badly sprained ankle, yet returned before he was fully healed.  I believe he was out less than three weeks.  In reality he should have been out for 2 months or more.  Why the rush to get him back in uniform when he obviously wasn’t fully healed is puzzling?

My feeling is that the medical staff and Danny’s long term goals were way out of sync.  If the Celtics were in the Championship hunt then his return makes more sense.  I also take issue with the medical staff for letting a talented young player return to action when it could have jeopardized his future. 

The second player is Isaiah Thomas.  He returned from his crushing fall way too early.  He was limping and in obvious pain.  Why the medical crew and Danny let him return I’ll never know.  And lastly, Jared coming back.  Why? 

My feeling is that Danny took the team in two directions.  One he helped lose by releasing better players.  Yet, win by letting players return from injuries when they could have stayed out longer.  In other words he didn’t have a cohesive strategy. 

One could argue that trading away players led to more victories, but I don’t believe Danny expected the players that came here to perform as well as they did. Isaiah being the exception.   

Re: Was Danny's plan flawed?
« Reply #1 on: August 10, 2015, 01:42:05 PM »

Offline PhoSita

  • NCE
  • Robert Parish
  • *********************
  • Posts: 21835
  • Tommy Points: 2182
How we end up feeling about Danny's plan will probably come down to what happens with the picks we're owed by the Nets and Mavericks. 

Whether or not the team can draft a star high in the lottery or else trade a quality pick along with other assets for a disgruntled star will depend on one or more of the aforementioned draft picks falling in the top 10 or higher.

That's my opinion, anyway.  We have to wait and see.  Everything else is in limbo (i.e. "asset acquisition mode") until then.
You’ll have to excuse my lengthiness—the reason I dread writing letters is because I am so apt to get to slinging wisdom & forget to let up. Thus much precious time is lost.
- Mark Twain

Re: Was Danny's plan flawed?
« Reply #2 on: August 10, 2015, 01:53:22 PM »

Online BitterJim

  • NGT
  • Satch Sanders
  • *********
  • Posts: 9182
  • Tommy Points: 1238
The fact that this thread uses "Was" rather than "Is" despite being only 2 years into the rebuild is pretty telling
I'm bitter.

Re: Was Danny's plan flawed?
« Reply #3 on: August 10, 2015, 02:02:44 PM »

Offline Alleyoopster

  • Bill Walton
  • *
  • Posts: 1315
  • Tommy Points: 151
The fact that this thread uses "Was" rather than "Is" despite being only 2 years into the rebuild is pretty telling

Initially, I thought of using "Was/Is" vs "Was".  In retrospect maybe I should have stuck to my original thought, Was/Is.

Re: Was Danny's plan flawed?
« Reply #4 on: August 10, 2015, 02:07:10 PM »

Offline heyvik

  • Bailey Howell
  • **
  • Posts: 2163
  • Tommy Points: 77
you mention 3 players coming back from injury....you only mention 2 - IT and Marcus Smart. Who is the other?

Re: Was Danny's plan flawed?
« Reply #5 on: August 10, 2015, 02:08:28 PM »

Offline littleteapot

  • Jayson Tatum
  • Posts: 852
  • Tommy Points: 93
I think "was" makes sense because it was talking about the partial roster blow-up as opposed to a complete blow-up and/or holding good players out of games to get a top 3 draft pick. At this point we wouldn't resort to those measures unless the plan absolutely did not work, so the plan to increase our draft capital is basically over.
How do you feel about websites where people with similar interests share their opinions?
I'm forum!

Re: Was Danny's plan flawed?
« Reply #6 on: August 10, 2015, 02:10:52 PM »

Offline D.o.s.

  • NCE
  • Cedric Maxwell
  • **************
  • Posts: 14061
  • Tommy Points: 1239
The fact that this thread uses "Was" rather than "Is" despite being only 2 years into the rebuild is pretty telling

My sentiments as well.

The fact that this thread uses "Was" rather than "Is" despite being only 2 years into the rebuild is pretty telling

Initially, I thought of using "Was/Is" vs "Was".  In retrospect maybe I should have stuck to my original thought, Was/Is.

You could have also gone for the Was (Not Was):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zYKupOsaJmk
At least a goldfish with a Lincoln Log on its back goin' across your floor to your sock drawer has a miraculous connotation to it.

Re: Was Danny's plan flawed?
« Reply #7 on: August 10, 2015, 02:13:07 PM »

Offline Csfan1984

  • Don Nelson
  • ********
  • Posts: 8882
  • Tommy Points: 290
My biggest issue is DA is playing the middle ground hoping to wheel and deal himself to good fortune. Those players came back when they could because DA doesn't want them to lose value, simple as that. They should have just built through draft in a three year span. Smart and Young year one. Winslow, Hunter and Mikey year two. Then try for Lab, Simmons and Brown sweepstakes. If you were very lucky get two out of three via Brooklyn.
Smart
Hunter/Young
Winslow/Brown
Mikey
Lab
Then start trading for vets to fill out a 4+ year run.
FA and dealing has been a Fail so far.

Re: Was Danny's plan flawed?
« Reply #8 on: August 10, 2015, 02:39:42 PM »

Offline jambr380

  • K.C. Jones
  • *************
  • Posts: 13755
  • Tommy Points: 2061
  • Sometimes there's no sane reason for optimism
You have a point about last year, but at least we made the playoffs - which made the year more exciting.

The year before getting any of those picked 3-5 would not have made me happy. Getting Smart seemed like the best option even though we didn't tank as hard as Philly or suck as much Mil/Orl.

Any time a team doesn't win or make significant improvement, hindsight can always be used. Luckily for us, we actually did significantly improve, but we still need a star or two.

Re: Was Danny's plan flawed?
« Reply #9 on: August 10, 2015, 02:40:54 PM »

Offline Alleyoopster

  • Bill Walton
  • *
  • Posts: 1315
  • Tommy Points: 151
you mention 3 players coming back from injury....you only mention 2 - IT and Marcus Smart. Who is the other?

Jared Sullinger
"The second player is Isaiah Thomas.  He returned from his crushing fall way too early.  He was limping and in obvious pain.  Why the medical crew and Danny let him return I’ll never know.  And lastly, Jared coming back.  Why?"

Re: Was Danny's plan flawed?
« Reply #10 on: August 10, 2015, 02:54:28 PM »

Offline BballTim

  • Dave Cowens
  • ***********************
  • Posts: 23724
  • Tommy Points: 1123


  Is coming back from a sprained ankle in 3 weeks really assumed to be a career-threatening decision? I'd guess that's longer than average to be out of the lineup for such an injury. Two months seems a bit extreme.

Re: Was Danny's plan flawed?
« Reply #11 on: August 10, 2015, 03:05:15 PM »

Offline Alleyoopster

  • Bill Walton
  • *
  • Posts: 1315
  • Tommy Points: 151


  Is coming back from a sprained ankle in 3 weeks really assumed to be a career-threatening decision? I'd guess that's longer than average to be out of the lineup for such an injury. Two months seems a bit extreme.

When he came back he was still noticeably bothered by the injury.  He even said that he wasn't 100% for the rest of the season.  This was a bad sprain.  He had to be carried off the court if I remember correctly. 
This is a bit of a pet peeve with me.  A player gets clearance to play and the coach can clearly see that he's still injured.  And, instead of using common sense and either sit him down or playing him sparingly, they sometimes play him at full throttle.

Re: Was Danny's plan flawed?
« Reply #12 on: August 10, 2015, 03:15:27 PM »

Offline Hemingway

  • Bill Walton
  • *
  • Posts: 1181
  • Tommy Points: 123
Over the past two years many in this group felt we would have been better off if the team tanked rather than win a few extra games.  *I’m not talking about people like myself who were on the fence on this idea and regret not doing so in hindsight.   I’m talking about those who favored the “tank no matter what” plan.  My hats off to you.  In retrospect over the past two years we could have drafted players in the top 3 range if we played our cards right.   

Many of us were saying and believed Danny and Brad were not on board with the tanking idea and that their aim was to win as many games as possible.  In reality winning as many games as possible was not their goal for we traded away or didn’t resign players that would have given us a few extra wins, such as Lee, Green, Thornton, Nelson, Powell, Prince, etc.  (The point of this post isn’t to argue the merits of each decision.  Just saying that by keeping one or a few of these players would likely have led to a few extra wins.)

Thus, using this argument one might say Danny was in favor of losing a few games in the hopes of winning more games in the distant future and/or acquiring more assets.  However, Danny and crew could have lost more games and not have been questioned by it.

Specifically, I’m talking about letting players return from injuries before they were totally healed.  Three players come to mind.  One is Marcus Smart.  He had a badly sprained ankle, yet returned before he was fully healed.  I believe he was out less than three weeks.  In reality he should have been out for 2 months or more.  Why the rush to get him back in uniform when he obviously wasn’t fully healed is puzzling?

My feeling is that the medical staff and Danny’s long term goals were way out of sync.  If the Celtics were in the Championship hunt then his return makes more sense.  I also take issue with the medical staff for letting a talented young player return to action when it could have jeopardized his future. 

The second player is Isaiah Thomas.  He returned from his crushing fall way too early.  He was limping and in obvious pain.  Why the medical crew and Danny let him return I’ll never know.  And lastly, Jared coming back.  Why? 

My feeling is that Danny took the team in two directions.  One he helped lose by releasing better players.  Yet, win by letting players return from injuries when they could have stayed out longer.  In other words he didn’t have a cohesive strategy. 

One could argue that trading away players led to more victories, but I don’t believe Danny expected the players that came here to perform as well as they did. Isaiah being the exception.   

We all appreciate your medical expertise Doctor Allyoopster.

Re: Was Danny's plan flawed?
« Reply #13 on: August 10, 2015, 03:22:20 PM »

Offline TheTruthFot18

  • NCE
  • Bailey Howell
  • **
  • Posts: 2125
  • Tommy Points: 263
  • Truth Juice
Smart
Hunter/Young
Winslow/Brown
Mikey
Lab

Still not as promising as what the Sixers will likely roll out in 2016-17.
The Nets will finish with the worst record and the Celtics will end up with the 4th pick.

- Me (sometime in January)

--------------------------------------------------------

Guess I was wrong (May 23rd)

Re: Was Danny's plan flawed?
« Reply #14 on: August 10, 2015, 03:33:27 PM »

Offline DarkAzcura

  • Jaylen Brown
  • Posts: 644
  • Tommy Points: 100
Smart
Hunter/Young
Winslow/Brown
Mikey
Lab

Still not as promising as what the Sixers will likely roll out in 2016-17.

Yet I bet the Celtics somehow find a way to have a better record regardless.

:shrug: