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

0 Members and 0 Guests are viewing this topic.

Re: Was Danny's plan flawed?
« Reply #75 on: August 11, 2015, 02:24:45 PM »

Offline D.o.s.

  • NCE
  • Cedric Maxwell
  • **************
  • Posts: 14061
  • Tommy Points: 1239
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.

Here's a fun thread from the days of the Pierce injury from a forum I would visit from time to time:
http://sonsofsamhorn.net/topic/16428-pierce-to-shut-down-season/

Pretty interesting to see that the arguments are basically the same, even if 'tanking' wasn't on everybody's lips back then.
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 #76 on: August 11, 2015, 02:29:57 PM »

Offline littleteapot

  • Jayson Tatum
  • Posts: 852
  • Tommy Points: 93
Danny's plan is to remain flexible.

Plan is currently working.
This feeds the people saying he has no plan. How is staying flexible a plan?

I think it's pretty clear that draft capital was important to Danny and that he tried to get it through a combination of tanking and trades, but wasn't willing to give up all the talent on his team in order to tank. I don't think this has anything to do with flexibility because he forfeited the chance of taking a top 3 draft prospect and didn't succeed in trading up in the draft or trading for a superstar. He is NOW making moves to preserve his flexibility in post.
How do you feel about websites where people with similar interests share their opinions?
I'm forum!

Re: Was Danny's plan flawed?
« Reply #77 on: August 11, 2015, 02:48:29 PM »

Online Donoghus

  • Global Moderator
  • Walter Brown
  • ********************************
  • Posts: 32687
  • Tommy Points: 1732
  • What a Pub Should Be
Danny's plan is to remain flexible.

Plan is currently working.
This feeds the people saying he has no plan. How is staying flexible a plan?

I think it's pretty clear that draft capital was important to Danny and that he tried to get it through a combination of tanking and trades, but wasn't willing to give up all the talent on his team in order to tank. I don't think this has anything to do with flexibility because he forfeited the chance of taking a top 3 draft prospect and didn't succeed in trading up in the draft or trading for a superstar. He is NOW making moves to preserve his flexibility in post.

You don't destroy your cap space by overpaying for second & third tier talent.  The plan lies in keeping future cap space. 

For the current year, it doesn't look like much.  For future years, it certainly looks part of plan.


2010 CB Historical Draft - Best Overall Team

Re: Was Danny's plan flawed?
« Reply #78 on: August 11, 2015, 02:59:36 PM »

Offline littleteapot

  • Jayson Tatum
  • Posts: 852
  • Tommy Points: 93
You don't destroy your cap space by overpaying for second & third tier talent.  The plan lies in keeping future cap space. 

For the current year, it doesn't look like much.  For future years, it certainly looks part of plan.
I agree, especially the bit about being PART of a plan. I'm glad we didn't give a contract like the Demarre Carroll one to someone like Demarre Carroll. That doesn't make it a plan. Someone who believes that everything is going according to plan needs to explain to my small brain what the endgame of the plan is.
How do you feel about websites where people with similar interests share their opinions?
I'm forum!

Re: Was Danny's plan flawed?
« Reply #79 on: August 11, 2015, 03:02:03 PM »

Online Donoghus

  • Global Moderator
  • Walter Brown
  • ********************************
  • Posts: 32687
  • Tommy Points: 1732
  • What a Pub Should Be
You don't destroy your cap space by overpaying for second & third tier talent.  The plan lies in keeping future cap space. 

For the current year, it doesn't look like much.  For future years, it certainly looks part of plan.
I agree, especially the bit about being PART of a plan. I'm glad we didn't give a contract like the Demarre Carroll one to someone like Demarre Carroll. That doesn't make it a plan. Someone who believes that everything is going according to plan needs to explain to my small brain what the endgame of the plan is.

Well, its certainly not foolproof & it could blow up in Danny's face, but it seems to be banking on a top 5 draft pick or two and/or attracting a big name via FA or trade.

Possibility exists to hit on one or all three.  It also exists that all three fail.  I think, right now, the philosophy is to keep things open.


2010 CB Historical Draft - Best Overall Team

Re: Was Danny's plan flawed?
« Reply #80 on: August 11, 2015, 03:08:35 PM »

Offline mmmmm

  • NCE
  • Rajon Rondo
  • *****
  • Posts: 5308
  • Tommy Points: 862
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.

Or, per Red, it gets in the way of the deal you should not be making.

("...sometimes the best deal is the one you didn't make.")
NBA Officiating - Corrupt?  Incompetent?  Which is worse?  Does it matter?  It sucks.

Re: Was Danny's plan flawed?
« Reply #81 on: August 11, 2015, 03:09:42 PM »

Online Donoghus

  • Global Moderator
  • Walter Brown
  • ********************************
  • Posts: 32687
  • Tommy Points: 1732
  • What a Pub Should Be
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.

Or, per Red, it gets in the way of the deal you should not be making.

("...sometimes the best deal is the one you didn't make.")

Which I think could very well be the case 2-3 years from now when we look back at this summer, IMO.


2010 CB Historical Draft - Best Overall Team

Re: Was Danny's plan flawed?
« Reply #82 on: August 11, 2015, 03:15:01 PM »

Offline littleteapot

  • Jayson Tatum
  • Posts: 852
  • Tommy Points: 93
Well, its certainly not foolproof & it could blow up in Danny's face, but it seems to be banking on a top 5 draft pick or two and/or attracting a big name via FA or trade.

Possibility exists to hit on one or all three.  It also exists that all three fail.  I think, right now, the philosophy is to keep things open.
Well I agree on the attracting a big name, and not committing long-term money didn't hurt our chances of that, but we didn't help them either. If we think we can sign a free agent, we're in good shape, but IMO we really needed to do something to upgrade our trade assets (such as what Philly did with their trade with Sacramento) if we're planning on winning a bidding war for the next KG/Kevin Love situation.

As far as the draft goes - I think we have to get really lucky to get a top 5 pick. Our own pick is pretty doubtful to be top 10 and we are completely banking on one of 2 teams bottoming out which we have no control over.

Honestly this is why I think it's absolutely fair to second-guess the initial direction Danny took with the rebuild - it seems like if he committed to a full tank 2 years ago we would have better assets and thus far Danny has been banking on being able to get a dollar for his bag of change and has taken longer than he planned on to cash in.
How do you feel about websites where people with similar interests share their opinions?
I'm forum!

Re: Was Danny's plan flawed?
« Reply #83 on: August 11, 2015, 03:24:52 PM »

Online Donoghus

  • Global Moderator
  • Walter Brown
  • ********************************
  • Posts: 32687
  • Tommy Points: 1732
  • What a Pub Should Be
Well, its certainly not foolproof & it could blow up in Danny's face, but it seems to be banking on a top 5 draft pick or two and/or attracting a big name via FA or trade.

Possibility exists to hit on one or all three.  It also exists that all three fail.  I think, right now, the philosophy is to keep things open.
Well I agree on the attracting a big name, and not committing long-term money didn't hurt our chances of that, but we didn't help them either. If we think we can sign a free agent, we're in good shape, but IMO we really needed to do something to upgrade our trade assets (such as what Philly did with their trade with Sacramento) if we're planning on winning a bidding war for the next KG/Kevin Love situation.

As far as the draft goes - I think we have to get really lucky to get a top 5 pick. Our own pick is pretty doubtful to be top 10 and we are completely banking on one of 2 teams bottoming out which we have no control over.

Honestly this is why I think it's absolutely fair to second-guess the initial direction Danny took with the rebuild - it seems like if he committed to a full tank 2 years ago we would have better assets and thus far Danny has been banking on being able to get a dollar for his bag of change and has taken longer than he planned on to cash in.

It's fair to second guess because its not foolproof because of uncertainty.

But I also see it foolish to bury the guy because, in some people's eyes, he didn't do enough this particular off-season.  This thing has had multi-year rebuild written all over it since the Nets trade.  Summer '07 wasn't gonna happen again.


2010 CB Historical Draft - Best Overall Team

Re: Was Danny's plan flawed?
« Reply #84 on: August 11, 2015, 03:30:44 PM »

Offline littleteapot

  • Jayson Tatum
  • Posts: 852
  • Tommy Points: 93
It's fair to second guess because its not foolproof because of uncertainty.

But I also see it foolish to bury the guy because, in some people's eyes, he didn't do enough this particular off-season.  This thing has had multi-year rebuild written all over it since the Nets trade.  Summer '07 wasn't gonna happen again.
I think an offseason where we don't really do anything besides keep our money commitments short makes it extremely tough to play this value-trading game Danny seems to be trying to play. If you're the 76ers, you're going to have a few years where just by losing games you give yourself more chances to get a superstar. If you're the C's with the path we've chosen, each of your young players has 1 less year on their contract and if you don't do something every offseason to add to your talent base or your assets, I have to wonder what you're building towards.
How do you feel about websites where people with similar interests share their opinions?
I'm forum!

Re: Was Danny's plan flawed?
« Reply #85 on: August 11, 2015, 04:05:35 PM »

Offline BDeCosta26

  • Bill Walton
  • *
  • Posts: 1314
  • Tommy Points: 232
Danny's plan is to remain flexible.

Plan is currently working.
This feeds the people saying he has no plan. How is staying flexible a plan?

I think it's pretty clear that draft capital was important to Danny and that he tried to get it through a combination of tanking and trades, but wasn't willing to give up all the talent on his team in order to tank. I don't think this has anything to do with flexibility because he forfeited the chance of taking a top 3 draft prospect and didn't succeed in trading up in the draft or trading for a superstar. He is NOW making moves to preserve his flexibility in post.

Getting the picks from Brooklyn wasn't meant just for draft capital. Part of The reason for them was because up until the moment you use them they can be used in trades. I think Ainge certainly thought he would be bad enough for at least two lottery picks in '14 and '15. His team outperformed expectations. The extra picks are becoming good draft insurance though, if one or both of the picks this year hit the top 10 of the lottery we kinda tanked without tanking, no?

He's pretty much said this whole entire time that remaining flexible was a primary concern. If your rebuilding, you wanna cash in your players for long term assets, maintain flexible cap space and play yourself into a lottery pick or two. I think between Thomas and Johnson he's improved the team to the point of a 40-50 win team but because of their easily moveable deals we remain flexible enough to pivot in any direction we need to. It's just going into year 3, were in pretty good shape.

Sometimes building through the draft doesn't work out. Sometimes going the FA route doesn't work out, sometimes waiting for a big trade doesn't work out. The smartest way to go about it, IMO, is to have the flexibility to go through whichever one presents itself. We have a young, talented team that was good enough to make a major leap after losing their two best (and some of the oldest) players. If we want to, we can go right to total youth movement in no time. But we also have picks coming from Dallas and Brooklyn that look lottery bound, so we have draft assets. We maintained the flexibility to go into next summer with a big chunk of cap room and multiple enticing trade assets. Just imagine if we end up with picks #5, #10 and #18 plus two picks at the top of the 2nd and a whole bunch of cap room, non-guaranteed contracts and trade-able players. You've got all three bases covered in very advantageous ways.

Heck, even if those picks end up at #9, #13 and #16, that's still a good deal. Lots of excellent players have been picked in the mid-late lottery. If nothing works out on the FA and trade front in that scenario, that's when I'd lean toward Ainge getting rid of Johnson, Jerebko, Lee, Turner, Sully et all and try to move up again (more possible with that package) then build around your last 3 or 4 years worth of draft picks. We have the flexibility to do that because even though we got a few guys who make us better, but not great, were not tied down in any long term commitments to underachieving role players.

Re: Was Danny's plan flawed?
« Reply #86 on: August 11, 2015, 04:11:04 PM »

Offline 86MaxwellSmart

  • NCE
  • Ray Allen
  • ***
  • Posts: 3996
  • Tommy Points: 395
I have a plan.

Tell us, NOT BILL....tell us...I might start believing that you ARE Bill Simmons-!
Larry Bird was Greater than you think.

Re: Was Danny's plan flawed?
« Reply #87 on: August 11, 2015, 06:24:31 PM »

Offline mctyson

  • Rajon Rondo
  • *****
  • Posts: 5087
  • Tommy Points: 372
I do think there's a tendency on this board to occasionally forget that the other 29 franchises have GM's who would like to win a championship as badly as Ainge would.

Unfortunately most of them have GMs who are too incompetent to do this.  We are not one of them.

Re: Was Danny's plan flawed?
« Reply #88 on: August 11, 2015, 06:27:52 PM »

Offline mctyson

  • Rajon Rondo
  • *****
  • Posts: 5087
  • Tommy Points: 372
Danny's plan is to remain flexible.

Plan is currently working.
This feeds the people saying he has no plan. How is staying flexible a plan?

I think it's pretty clear that draft capital was important to Danny and that he tried to get it through a combination of tanking and trades, but wasn't willing to give up all the talent on his team in order to tank. I don't think this has anything to do with flexibility because he forfeited the chance of taking a top 3 draft prospect and didn't succeed in trading up in the draft or trading for a superstar. He is NOW making moves to preserve his flexibility in post.

How is staying flexible not a plan?  He realizes this team is unlikely to be anything more than 5-6 seed in the Eastern Conference (I am pegging them at the 4-seed, because I am biased, and I want them there.)  He is making sure that when an opportunity comes to get a PROVEN NBA talent, he can move.  I think that is a perfect plan.

Re: Was Danny's plan flawed?
« Reply #89 on: August 11, 2015, 10:06:52 PM »

Offline littleteapot

  • Jayson Tatum
  • Posts: 852
  • Tommy Points: 93
How is staying flexible not a plan?  He realizes this team is unlikely to be anything more than 5-6 seed in the Eastern Conference (I am pegging them at the 4-seed, because I am biased, and I want them there.)  He is making sure that when an opportunity comes to get a PROVEN NBA talent, he can move.  I think that is a perfect plan.
OK end goal - get a proven NBA talent.

Two ways to achieve this goal:

1. Sign a star.
Ingredients:
-Cap room to take on contract (check)
-Star free agent wants to play in Boston (out of our control and very unlikely based on history of C's free agency)

2. Trade for a star.
Ingredients:
-Cap room to take on contract (check)
-Circumstances cause team to want to deal star player (not under our control - we have to wait)
-Assets competing teams can't beat (we don't have this now and this offseason we did nothing to make this situaiton better)

Personally I don't think this plan is the best thing we can be doing, and I certainly would rather be on the plan where you maximize your odds of getting a franchise player in the draft. By the way, I think Danny agrees with me which is why he tried to trade 6 draft picks for Justice Winslow, rather than sit on them and wait for a proven NBA talent.
How do you feel about websites where people with similar interests share their opinions?
I'm forum!