Was Danny's plan flawed?

[Alleyoopster]

People still believe that Ainge has/had a plan?

You may have made posted this in jest, but I think that's possible.  He could just be acting/reacting to the scene....much like ad-libbing in an acting situation.   

[notbillsimmons]

I have a plan.

[BDeCosta26]

imo Ainges biggest mistake was not dumping Rondo, Green and Bass when he traded KG & Pierce.

we eventually ended up trading Rondo and Green for nothing, and Bass walked and we got nothing to show for it.

everybody was saying "we shouldn't just take any old deal". and with Rondo and Green we did. and now in retrospect maybe we should have taken one of them low-ball offers for bass.

...and before some genius chimes in and says "hmmm? Crowder is nothing?" don't embarrass yourself.

Crowder and a likely lottery pick are nothing? Btw, Rondo was recovering from a torn ACL when we traded Pierce and KG IIRC. We couldn't exactly trade him then.

[Neurotic Guy]

   

We all appreciate your medical expertise Doctor Allyoopster.

No need to thank me 

Getting back to my point... Danny seems to be trying to do two things at once. 1.  Win as much as possible with the players he has.  2. Yet, willing to let go of good players if he can acquire a better trade value for the long run. 

In this regard Danny might be considered a genius.  Because he's been able to assemble a squad that can win, i.e., make the playoffs.  At the same time lose valued players and not tank. 

But, is this strategy one he can continue with?  For example, if in Jan 2016 the team is doing okay..not great.  Might he trade Lee or Johnson to a contender half way through the year to get another 1st round draft pick? 

Danny's in a a tough situation.  My feeling he needs to let everyone in the system know what his goal(s) is/are. And, to make sure they stay on that path.   

I would venture a guess that Danny is pretty clear about his goals with those within the system who need to know.   Since I don't consider fans in the "need to know" category, I am OK if he keeps his goals close to the vest and perhaps adjusts them as circumstances unfold.

[jambr380]

imo Ainges biggest mistake was not dumping Rondo, Green and Bass when he traded KG & Pierce.

we eventually ended up trading Rondo and Green for nothing, and Bass walked and we got nothing to show for it.

everybody was saying "we shouldn't just take any old deal". and with Rondo and Green we did. and now in retrospect maybe we should have taken one of them low-ball offers for bass.

...and before some genius chimes in and says "hmmm? Crowder is nothing?" don't embarrass yourself.

So you are saying future first round picks are nothing? Ok then.

I imagine he is referring to the Sac deal with McLemore, Thomas, and the #8 pick coming to Boston for Rondo, who ironically didn't want to go to Sac. If that deal was really proposed, then it is a bummer, but we did get Thomas anyway, Crowder maybe better than McLemore, and Stauskas has been a disaster so far.

[Celtics4ever]

Only a fool would grade his plan because we do not have all the draft picks, I think it is way too early to decide, it really depends on next year draft and the conditional pick.  I am glad Ainge kept flexibility moving on, we will need it.

[GreenWarrior]

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.

[crimson_stallion]

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?

[Surferdad]

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.   

[walker834]

I think DA has always said he would make trades that would better us in the present without sacrificing the future which is what he's done.  Prince, Nelson and guys like that wre not players that helped us in teh future or the present really.  We were better after those trades in the present and future.

[GreenWarrior]

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.

umm maybe my math is wrong, but i'm pretty sure if we traded Rondo and Green 1st chance we got(essentially tanking) we'd likely have gotten more draft picks and more prospects. 

[Beat LA]

imo Ainges biggest mistake was not dumping Rondo, Green and Bass when he traded KG & Pierce.

we eventually ended up trading Rondo and Green for nothing, and Bass walked and we got nothing to show for it.

everybody was saying "we shouldn't just take any old deal". and with Rondo and Green we did. and now in retrospect maybe we should have taken one of them low-ball offers for bass.

...and before some genius chimes in and says "hmmm? Crowder is nothing?" don't embarrass yourself.

So you are saying future first round picks are nothing? Ok then.

I imagine he is referring to the Sac deal with McLemore, Thomas, and the #8 pick coming to Boston for Rondo, who ironically didn't want to go to Sac. If that deal was really proposed, then it is a bummer, but we did get Thomas anyway, Crowder maybe better than McLemore, and Stauskas has been a disaster so far.

Lol that he was taken at 8 . Wow.

[GreenWarrior]

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.   

[ahonui06]

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.

[Celtics4ever]

The difference between Philadelphia and San Antonio is the Spurs got lucky in 1 draft: 1997 when they drafted Duncan 1st overall.

  The Sixers have got lucky in multiple drafts, really?