Was Danny's plan flawed?

[mgent]

The answer is yes, if we tanked immediately instead, then we might have a young superstar by now that we can build around and then compete for championships.

The answer is no, if we tanked we'd suck even worse, we'd have less prospects, and we'd have less draft picks in the future, and hence we'd be worse off in every way.

Nobody is ever going to agree, so lets just pretend both answers are correct.  We all pick the one we like, bury it inside out minds, and then move on from this whole tank / no-tank question once and for all.

What do you say?

Case in point: Philly NOT. They tanked right away and are still tanking. Not exactly competing for championships any time soon. Embiid injured for 2 years, Noel, meh. Okafor, we'll see. I don't see a championship being built there. Point is, tanking is no guarantee of anything, even if you do it year after year.

no there is no guarantee of anything. but right now if Philly up and decided they wanted to put Noel, Embiid and Okafor up on the block for established talent there'd be 10 teams on the phone with them immediately and I would not be surprised if OKC was one of 'em.

if Philly builds the next San Antonio with this strategy a lot of people are gonna feel pretty stupid. building a team with high draft picks instead of late 1st & 2nd rnd. picks will seem like a revelation amongst C's fans.

The difference between Philadelphia and San Antonio is the Spurs got lucky in 1 draft: 1997 when they drafted Duncan 1st overall.  All of their other draft picks were late first or second round picks.

The other big difference is that San Antonio had a veteran star in David Robinson to pair alongside the young Duncan. The 76ers don't have any type of veteran presence in their organization.

The 76ers rebuild will be much tougher and will need to be more along the lines of OKC Thunder.  The 3 big men (Embiid, Noel and Okafor) will need to turn into productive stars and lead by example.

Until they can't afford all 3 and have to let 1 go like James Harden.  Then never win a title like OKC.

[D.o.s.]

OKC didn't have to let Harden go, though. They are a bunch of cheapskates who decided it was in their fiscal interest to let Harden go. I doubt philadelphia's ownership is in a similar situation in terms of basketball ethics.

[Greyman]

If you think DA should have had the C's as title contenders next season, then the plan 'was' flawed. I prefer 'is' and 'developing well' as I still believe that DA and CBS will deliver a contending team for the season after next (not to totally right off the team as contenders next season if something special happens in the mean time).

It is obvious the plan has had to be reassessed a number of times. Rondo and Green would have been a part of the future of the Celtics had things worked out differently. When a better deal could have been made for Rondo the plan still involved (or seemed to) chasing Love and building around Rondo, by the time he was let go his star was already diminishing.

After Green went nobody was predicting a playoff run (or before really). It would have been criminal to stop the development of CBS and his young squad in order to tank. I'm not going to debate 'tanking' V what happened, except to say a lot of the tanking fans don't seem to appreciate what our 'supporting cast' proved they are capable of. It is too easy to say the playoff series V the Cavs proved we should have tanked - it just showed where we were really placed and highlighted the positions we needed to strengthen to become a contender.

I think the team is better for the additions DA has made and have a feeling that the team will do enough to make a big trade mid season attractive to one of DA's targets. I might be proved totally wrong and accused of being overly optimistic but I have never felt like Danny had lost the plot, just that some projects took a hit and we have to be patient.

[Celtics4ever]

Pretty clear that some in this thread, live in Candyland, where you can load up and be in the title game in a year.   That is not real life.   Ainge was lucky with the 2008 team.  This going to take time, I think other GMs are afraid to deal with him, because he tends to burn them.

[Evantime34]

I personally love Danny's plan. Having him go the way of the Sixers, where they aren't competitive for 3-5 years would sap enjoyment out of watching basketball for me. I watch the C's for enjoyment and if they were boarder line unwatchable during that long a stretch it wouldn't bring me enjoyment.

Although the Sixers probably have more assets, I don't believe that they are maximizing their assets by being in the situation they are in. If they don't start winning soon there will be players demanding out. No free agent will want to come there until they start winning, nor will a traded player agree to stay there.

Some people think the Sixers way of rebuilding is simply better than Boston's. With both in he midst of a rebuild no one can definitively say which way is better. If it can't be proven what the superior way is then I am glad my team went with the option that allows the C's to be watchable while they rebuild.

[PhoSita]

Some people think the Sixers way of rebuilding is simply better than Boston's.

I think this is the dichotomy that gets set up frequently -- Sixers or Boston.  All-out race to the bottom or build from the middle.

It overlooks that there are other teams rebuilding with some "dignity" while still remaining committed to building a young group that can be competitive long term.  Examples I'd point to are the Jazz and the Magic.  Call it building from the middle of the lottery.

[PhoSita]

Pretty clear that some in this thread, live in Candyland, where you can load up and be in the title game in a year.   That is not real life.   Ainge was lucky with the 2008 team.  This going to take time, I think other GMs are afraid to deal with him, because he tends to burn them.

Ainge also tends to value his own players very highly and won't move them unless he gets a really great return.  That sounds like a good thing in a vacuum, but it seems like sometimes it gets in the way of getting things done.

[TheTruthFot18]

Smart
Hunter/Young
Winslow/Brown
Mikey
Lab

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

What exactly are the 76ers rolling out in 2016-2017

free agent?
Top 5 rookie
top 12 rookie
Nerlens Noel
Jahill Okafor

Bench:
Saric
Embiid if he ever plays?

Not that I agree with what the sixers are doing but they have a chance for this thing to really work our.

A 3rd year Noel, 2nd year Okafor, Saric filling a Mirotic role, possibly healthy Embiid, Simmons/Brown (BOTH?), another top 15 rookie, while having under $30 in cap space? Not saying they'll win a title but they're gearing up to be the Thunder circa 2008-2009.

Those Thunder teams were 15th in the West in 08 and 13th in 09 and in the 09-10 season they drafted Harden and have been contenders since.

[TheTruthFot18]

The answer is yes, if we tanked immediately instead, then we might have a young superstar by now that we can build around and then compete for championships.

The answer is no, if we tanked we'd suck even worse, we'd have less prospects, and we'd have less draft picks in the future, and hence we'd be worse off in every way.

Nobody is ever going to agree, so lets just pretend both answers are correct.  We all pick the one we like, bury it inside out minds, and then move on from this whole tank / no-tank question once and for all.

What do you say?

Case in point: Philly NOT. They tanked right away and are still tanking. Not exactly competing for championships any time soon. Embiid injured for 2 years, Noel, meh. Okafor, we'll see. I don't see a championship being built there. Point is, tanking is no guarantee of anything, even if you do it year after year.

Again, not that I condone tanking, but I think Golden State (heavily for Barnes), OKC (aimed for Oden, lucked into Durant), and Cleveland (Lebron, Kyrie, turning two #1 picks into Love) say otherwise. Just because the last two didn't win it yet, doesn't mean the process is what failed them.

[Evantime34]

The answer is yes, if we tanked immediately instead, then we might have a young superstar by now that we can build around and then compete for championships.

The answer is no, if we tanked we'd suck even worse, we'd have less prospects, and we'd have less draft picks in the future, and hence we'd be worse off in every way.

Nobody is ever going to agree, so lets just pretend both answers are correct.  We all pick the one we like, bury it inside out minds, and then move on from this whole tank / no-tank question once and for all.

What do you say?

Case in point: Philly NOT. They tanked right away and are still tanking. Not exactly competing for championships any time soon. Embiid injured for 2 years, Noel, meh. Okafor, we'll see. I don't see a championship being built there. Point is, tanking is no guarantee of anything, even if you do it year after year.

Again, not that I condone tanking, but I think Golden State (heavily for Barnes), OKC (aimed for Oden, lucked into Durant), and Cleveland (Lebron, Kyrie, turning two #1 picks into Love) say otherwise. Just because the last two didn't win it yet, doesn't mean the process is what failed them.

Those are pretty poor examples, Cleveland might have tanked the LeBron year but they got the pick to draft Kyrie in a trade for taking on salary not as a result of tanking. The Wiggins pick was pure luck as they moved up from the late lottery to the number one pick, not the result of tanking.

Golden State didn't tank until the end of the year, (so they could pick outside the top 6 otherwise they would have had to give up their pick).

Seattle didn't tank to get Durant. They had their best player get injured Ray Allen, which made them bad enough to be in the running.

[BDeCosta26]

yes to a lot of the what the last 2 posters said.

as far as the 1st rnd. draft picks being nothing? well...right now? yeah they're nothing. not one team has found value in our picks. if they end up being late 1st rnd. picks they'll likely be even less interested.

everyone likes to think draft picks equal assets, but till they're traded they're draft picks.

I get what your trying to say, but the draft picks are assets. As they get closer to the point of conveyance, they become more (or less) valuable depending on where the team that's giving them is in the standings.

I think trying to rush to judgment in either direction on the rebuild is a bad idea. It's only been two years and we have a whole lot to be hopeful/happy about. At the end of this season.

At the end of year 3, when those picks are locked into position, I have a feeling they're will be a different mentality around this board. It seems VERY unlikely that the Nets pick is anything less than a top 10-12 pick, and the Dallas pick is lining up right where we need it to be. What will you all be saying when we win the Atlantic, advance to the 2nd round, and have two lottery picks at our disposal. Bet ya Ainge is a genius then.

I think you all underestimate Ainge's long term view of this. It's not really acknowledged that he managed to improve our team this summer (pretty well, IMO) AND retained the flexibility to pivot on his heels and go back to a total youth movement around Smart, our crop from this year and our three picks next year. If the doomsday scenario happens, we have no long term commitment to being in he middle. We can become a lottery team pretty dang fast.

[TheTruthFot18]

The answer is yes, if we tanked immediately instead, then we might have a young superstar by now that we can build around and then compete for championships.

The answer is no, if we tanked we'd suck even worse, we'd have less prospects, and we'd have less draft picks in the future, and hence we'd be worse off in every way.

Nobody is ever going to agree, so lets just pretend both answers are correct.  We all pick the one we like, bury it inside out minds, and then move on from this whole tank / no-tank question once and for all.

What do you say?

Case in point: Philly NOT. They tanked right away and are still tanking. Not exactly competing for championships any time soon. Embiid injured for 2 years, Noel, meh. Okafor, we'll see. I don't see a championship being built there. Point is, tanking is no guarantee of anything, even if you do it year after year.

Again, not that I condone tanking, but I think Golden State (heavily for Barnes), OKC (aimed for Oden, lucked into Durant), and Cleveland (Lebron, Kyrie, turning two #1 picks into Love) say otherwise. Just because the last two didn't win it yet, doesn't mean the process is what failed them.

Those are pretty poor examples, Cleveland might have tanked the LeBron year but they got the pick to draft Kyrie in a trade for taking on salary not as a result of tanking. The Wiggins pick was pure luck as they moved up from the late lottery to the number one pick, not the result of tanking.

Golden State didn't tank until the end of the year, (so they could pick outside the top 6 otherwise they would have had to give up their pick).

Seattle didn't tank to get Durant. They had their best player get injured Ray Allen, which made them bad enough to be in the running.

1. Finishing 32-50 isn't exactly competing so they they were in the lotto and won by the small chance that it was.  3rd worse record two years in a row followed by yes another luck pick at 33-49. Again contenders 

2. http://www.businessinsider.com/golden-state-warriors-nba-tanking-2013-5
They gave it a shot early on and then went tank mode instead of competing to the end. They owed that pick to Utah if it fell outside #8 so yes they had a real incentive to tank if the opportunity arose.

3. By the time Ray went down for the season they were 26-40. If he stayed they would still be in the lotto. If you don't agree with 2007 then consider the next two years instead. Even remove Harden and look at drafting Westbrook and Ibaka.

[Csfan1984]

Smart
Hunter/Young
Winslow/Brown
Mikey
Lab

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

What exactly are the 76ers rolling out in 2016-2017

free agent?
Top 5 rookie
top 12 rookie
Nerlens Noel
Jahill Okafor

Bench:
Saric
Embiid if he ever plays?

Not that I agree with what the sixers are doing but they have a chance for this thing to really work our.

A 3rd year Noel, 2nd year Okafor, Saric filling a Mirotic role, possibly healthy Embiid, Simmons/Brown (BOTH?), another top 15 rookie, while having under $30 in cap space? Not saying they'll win a title but they're gearing up to be the Thunder circa 2008-2009.

Those Thunder teams were 15th in the West in 08 and 13th in 09 and in the 09-10 season they drafted Harden and have been contenders since.

That is practically the same thing the C's would have. Only difference is C's just being more balanced roster while Sixers are big man heavy.

[DarkAzcura]

People still believe that Ainge has/had a plan?

Ainge clearly has a plan. If you can't understand it, I'm sorry. We are lucky to have a GM that understands your plan A and B doesn't always work. As long as he continues to not panic and  doesn't kill our cap space or undersell our draft picks, the Celtics are in good shape to be involved in any player movement over the next two years. That's the plan. Pretty simple. We can't force teams to trade with us, but we can be in a position to make sure we will always be there when the right team finally decides to make a trade.

[SHAQATTACK]

Yes

Lost Fab Melo and Zoran Dragic