Was Danny's plan flawed?

[Celtics4ever]

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.

True, I was referring to the lack of patience and knee jerk reactions that we should instantly contend.

[PhoSita]

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.

True, I was referring to the lack of patience and knee jerk reactions that we should instantly contend.

Yeah, I agree, it's silly to expect a quick turnaround.

Rebuilds take time. 

For me, that's part of what irritates me about people that suggest it as an absolute good that the Celts made the playoffs in year 2 of the rebuild and now there must be an expectation of continuing to compete for the playoffs from this point forward.  "We're done being bad."

Newsflash: the Celts won 40 games in a horrible conference and got swept.  They were bad.  They will still probably be bad this year, just not downright horrible like the teams at the very bottom of the East.

There's still a long road to travel before the Celts have something they can work with long term.

[BDeCosta26]

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.

Just because they only on 32 games doesn't mean they weren't competing. If my memory serves, the year they got Wiggins and traded for love they used a bevy of assets mid-season for Luol Deng and Spencer Hawes. Gilbert was pushing for the playoffs. Being so bad that you a get a high pick without trying (See: Sacramento) is totally different than tanking.

[Celtics18]

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.

True, I was referring to the lack of patience and knee jerk reactions that we should instantly contend.

Yeah, I agree, it's silly to expect a quick turnaround.

Rebuilds take time. 

For me, that's part of what irritates me about people that suggest it as an absolute good that the Celts made the playoffs in year 2 of the rebuild and now there must be an expectation of continuing to compete for the playoffs from this point forward.  "We're done being bad."

Newsflash: the Celts won 40 games in a horrible conference and got swept.  They were bad.  They will still probably be bad this year, just not downright horrible like the teams at the very bottom of the East.

There's still a long road to travel before the Celts have something they can work with long term.

What I don't get about your irritation is that all we are asking for in the immediate future is for the team to be "not downright terrible."

So, yes, some of us are ready to be "done being bad."  Personally, I'm looking forward to mediocrity--at least in the short term. 



 

[D.o.s.]

A couple of observations:

-The Cavaliers certainly tanked for James.  Likewise San Antonio for Duncan. The Celtics tanked for Duncan, and Durant, coming up short both times; OKC didn't really start to tank until after they drafted Kevin Durant; The 2012 Rockets also tanked*, and are now in a position to win 50 games minimum and make the second round year in and year out with a pair of superstars they signed in free agency.

*Something I was reminded of upon rediscovering this article, which does a wonderful job of explaining why the "Boston or Philly" duality is a bad way to look at it:

Tanking is not the practice of losing as many games as possible in order to get a franchise savior in the NBA Draft. Tanking is the practice of rebuilding a roster by fully disassembling it, maximizing cap space, and collecting assets. And yes, sometimes "collecting assets" includes collecting what Houston GM Daryl Morey calls "the number one asset in the NBA" — a top-five pick on a rookie contract.

Losing games is not the goal of tanking.

Losing games is a byproduct of tanking.

In practice, tanking is simply the process of starting from scratch. You exchange veteran players for either young players or draft picks — which makes you immediately awful, but gives you incredible flexibility going forward. Smart, well-run teams that start from scratch will succeed. And poorly-run teams that start from scratch will fail.

The big lie about tanking is that it only works if you get a superstar in the NBA Draft.

That summer the Rockets traded away all the pieces that made them a 34-32 team the year before. That included shipping off six players;


    Traded Chase Budinger to Minnesota for the 18th-overall pick
    Traded Samuel Dalembert and the 14th pick to Milwaukee for the 12th pick and three bench players
    Cut Luis Scola under the amnesty provision
    Let Goran Dragic leave in free agency for nothing
    Let Courtney Lee leave in free agency for nothing
    Traded Kyle Lowry to Toronto for a future 1st-round pick


They replaced those six guys with two young free agent role players — Jeremy Lin and Omer Asik, who were signed with "poison pill" contracts — and a bunch of rookies.

The Rockets dismantled a .500 team in order to acquire a collection of draft picks and young assets that, it just so happens, was predicted to finish last in the NBA.

That is textbook tanking.

The Rockets made themselves bad in the short term in order to get good in the long term.

No one remembers it like this, though, because the Rockets team that was supposed to lose 61 games never made it onto the court. Just a few days before the 2012-13 season, Morey turned all those assets he got from destroying his 2011-12 roster into a superstar — James Harden.

http://www.businessinsider.com/houston-rockets-tanking-2014-3

[kraidstar]

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.

you gotta be kidding me. a late first got us IT.

draft picks are currency.

you're basically saying "we have this big wad of cash but so far not one person has sold me the exact car i want!"

it doesn't mean cash is worthless, it just means the right deal hasn't come along yet. and i'll bet you lots of teams have inquired about our picks - hopefully danny doesn't give any of them for mediocre players, and saves up for the big fish.

 BTW, i'll be SHOCKED if any of the dallas/brooklyn picks are late-round. those teams are in big trouble. don't know why some posters are in denial about that - just being negative?

[D.o.s.]

you're basically saying "we have this big wad of cash but so far not one person has sold me the exact car i want!"

it doesn't mean cash is worthless, it just means the right deal hasn't come along yet.

This is a great analogy, actually.
 
TP.

[PhoSita]

What I don't get about your irritation is that all we are asking for in the immediate future is for the team to be "not downright terrible."

So, yes, some of us are ready to be "done being bad."  Personally, I'm looking forward to mediocrity--at least in the short term.

I can understand where you're coming from on that.  I guess, for me, there's just not that much difference between being mediocre and being bad.  The mediocre team plays well enough that you don't face palm quite so often as you try to watch them.  In the big scheme of things, they're still not relevant to the rest of the league and exist as a doormat for contenders.

My position, which I've said many times around here, is that what matters most to me is having a core group in place that I feel represents some kind of framework for future success.  In that sense, how "good" the team is in the short term is less important. 

I'd rather watch a "bad" team that had a collection of really promising young guys who could plausibly coalesce into a competitive core than a mediocre collection of "assets" that will probably be shuffled around 5-10 times before we get to watch a team that's actually honest-to-goodness competitive.


In brief, I look at the current Celtics and I see maybe one player who I think stands a good chance of being here in four or five years.  That was fine when the team was looking to compete for a title each year.  Now that they're floundering in the middle, it bothers me a lot more than the team losing more games than they win.

[ahonui06]

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.

you gotta be kidding me. a late first got us IT.

draft picks are currency.

you're basically saying "we have this big wad of cash but so far not one person has sold me the exact car i want!"

it doesn't mean cash is worthless, it just means the right deal hasn't come along yet. and i'll bet you lots of teams have inquired about our picks - hopefully danny doesn't give any of them for mediocre players, and saves up for the big fish.

BTW, i'll be SHOCKED if any of the dallas/brooklyn picks are late-round. those teams are in big trouble. don't know why some posters are in denial about that - just being negative?

I believe the Brooklyn pick will be high, but I think Dallas will be in the 15-22 range. Even though DIRK is 37 years old, Dallas was able to sign players that want to prove themselves (Deron, Wes Matthews & Parsons) and bolstered their frontcourt depth to get them through the season (Zaza & Dalembert and other undrafted FAs).

[Celtics18]

My position, which I've said many times around here, is that what matters most to me is having a core group in place that I feel represents some kind of framework for future success.  In that sense, how "good" the team is in the short term is less important. 

Clearly this is the main sticking point.  I think the more optimistic among us can see some kind of framework for future success on our Celtics.

Personally, I believe that being good (or, at least, better than terrible) in the short term can help to solidify that framework for the future.

Additionally, I think that watching a team that is capable of winning as many games as they lose (or maybe even a few more) will be more enjoyable as a fan while we are waiting for the next contender to be pieced together. 

[Evantime34]

A couple of observations:

-The Cavaliers certainly tanked for James.  Likewise San Antonio for Duncan. The Celtics tanked for Duncan, and Durant, coming up short both times; OKC didn't really start to tank until after they drafted Kevin Durant; The 2012 Rockets also tanked*, and are now in a position to win 50 games minimum and make the second round year in and year out with a pair of superstars they signed in free agency.

Agreed on tanking for LeBron. San Antonio was another team that "tanked" by seeing its best player get injured and then finishing with an awful record. Sure the C's were bad the year they ended up with the 5th pick, but I don't consider it tanking when they simply can't win many games because their best player got injured.

[PhoSita]

Additionally, I think that watching a team that is capable of winning as many games as they lose (or maybe even a few more) will be more enjoyable as a fan while we are waiting for the next contender to be pieced together.

Right, and I respect that.  We have different priorities and values as fans, which is OK.  That's what makes a place like this interesting rather than a total echo chamber / consensus factory.

[D.o.s.]

A couple of observations:

-The Cavaliers certainly tanked for James.  Likewise San Antonio for Duncan. The Celtics tanked for Duncan, and Durant, coming up short both times; OKC didn't really start to tank until after they drafted Kevin Durant; The 2012 Rockets also tanked*, and are now in a position to win 50 games minimum and make the second round year in and year out with a pair of superstars they signed in free agency.

Agreed on tanking for LeBron. San Antonio was another team that "tanked" by seeing its best player get injured and then finishing with an awful record. Sure the C's were bad the year they ended up with the 5th pick, but I don't consider it tanking when they simply can't win many games because their best player got injured.

San Antonio purposefully kept three of their best players sidelined to 'heal' much longer than they might have if they were trying to win games. This is true of the Celtics, with Pierce, and it was true with Melo and the Knicks last year.

Whether or not you think that is tanking, you can surely say that there was no rush to bring them back to be more competitive teams. And at that point I'd say it's splitting hairs.

[Evantime34]

A couple of observations:

-The Cavaliers certainly tanked for James.  Likewise San Antonio for Duncan. The Celtics tanked for Duncan, and Durant, coming up short both times; OKC didn't really start to tank until after they drafted Kevin Durant; The 2012 Rockets also tanked*, and are now in a position to win 50 games minimum and make the second round year in and year out with a pair of superstars they signed in free agency.

Agreed on tanking for LeBron. San Antonio was another team that "tanked" by seeing its best player get injured and then finishing with an awful record. Sure the C's were bad the year they ended up with the 5th pick, but I don't consider it tanking when they simply can't win many games because their best player got injured.

San Antonio purposefully kept three of their best players sidelined to 'heal' much longer than they might have if they were trying to win games. This is true of the Celtics, with Pierce, and it was true with Melo and the Knicks last year.

Whether or not you think that is tanking, you can surely say that there was no rush to bring them back to be more competitive teams. And at that point I'd say it's splitting hairs.

The Pierce and Melo injuries were injuries that required surgery. So I see it as less of they sidelined them  to "heal" and more of these guys were injured and couldn't play. In fact, as far as Melo is concerned I think he played more games than the organization would have thought ideal because he wanted to play in the All star game in NYC. He was clearly too injured to produce well before they sat him down.

On San Antonio, yes they sat guys but only after the Admiral went down. To me letting up after your team suffered an injury to a vital player is a different animal than tanking as an overall strategy to improve. One is rolling with a bad situation, the other is creating the bad situation.

[incoherent]

Danny's plan is to remain flexible.

Plan is currently working.