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 #90 on: August 11, 2015, 10:23:07 PM »

Offline Beat LA

  • NCE
  • Don Nelson
  • ********
  • Posts: 8338
  • Tommy Points: 896
  • Mr. Emoji
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.

Or, you know, we could actually draft a star :o. Shocking, I know (sarcasm) ;D.

Re: Was Danny's plan flawed?
« Reply #91 on: August 11, 2015, 11:37:16 PM »

Offline MBunge

  • Antoine Walker
  • ****
  • Posts: 4661
  • Tommy Points: 471
it seems like if he committed to a full tank 2 years ago we would have better assets

Do people understand what "full tank" means?  It doesn't just mean no Evan Turner.  It means no Turner, no David Lee, no Amir Johnson, no Crowder, no Jerebko, no IT, no Zeller, no Bradley ,either KO or Sully would also be gone and possibly no Marcus Smart.  In their place would be a bunch of d-leaguers and fringe rotation guys and two draft picks that probably STILL wouldn't have been top 3.

Mike

Re: Was Danny's plan flawed?
« Reply #92 on: August 11, 2015, 11:59:25 PM »

Offline D.o.s.

  • NCE
  • Cedric Maxwell
  • **************
  • Posts: 14061
  • Tommy Points: 1239
it seems like if he committed to a full tank 2 years ago we would have better assets

Do people understand what "full tank" means?  It doesn't just mean no Evan Turner.  It means no Turner, no David Lee, no Amir Johnson, no Crowder, no Jerebko, no IT, no Zeller, no Bradley ,either KO or Sully would also be gone and possibly no Marcus Smart.  In their place would be a bunch of d-leaguers and fringe rotation guys and two draft picks that probably STILL wouldn't have been top 3.

Mike

And then you sign James Harden and no one cares.

Cue you saying "that's moving the goal posts!" "tanking is a very specific negative thing that I alone know the definition of!" etc.
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 #93 on: August 12, 2015, 12:15:59 AM »

Offline PhoSita

  • NCE
  • Robert Parish
  • *********************
  • Posts: 21835
  • Tommy Points: 2182
it seems like if he committed to a full tank 2 years ago we would have better assets

Do people understand what "full tank" means?  It doesn't just mean no Evan Turner.  It means no Turner, no David Lee, no Amir Johnson, no Crowder, no Jerebko, no IT, no Zeller, no Bradley ,either KO or Sully would also be gone and possibly no Marcus Smart.  In their place would be a bunch of d-leaguers and fringe rotation guys and two draft picks that probably STILL wouldn't have been top 3.

Mike

I don't think they were nearly as far off from a total tank job as you make 'em out to be.  2013-2014 was pretty close to a total tank job in any case, and a couple tweaks in the downward direction earlier in the year could have steered this thing 10-15 wins lower this past season.

But, it's all hindsight now.
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 #94 on: August 12, 2015, 03:25:49 AM »

Offline greece66

  • Tiny Archibald
  • *******
  • Posts: 7395
  • Tommy Points: 1342
  • Head Paperboy at Greenville
it seems like if he committed to a full tank 2 years ago we would have better assets

Do people understand what "full tank" means?  It doesn't just mean no Evan Turner.  It means no Turner, no David Lee, no Amir Johnson, no Crowder, no Jerebko, no IT, no Zeller, no Bradley ,either KO or Sully would also be gone and possibly no Marcus Smart.  In their place would be a bunch of d-leaguers and fringe rotation guys and two draft picks that probably STILL wouldn't have been top 3.

Mike
TP brother

Re: Was Danny's plan flawed?
« Reply #95 on: August 12, 2015, 03:35:41 AM »

Offline Beat LA

  • NCE
  • Don Nelson
  • ********
  • Posts: 8338
  • Tommy Points: 896
  • Mr. Emoji
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.

Right, so it's less of an actual plan and more of a holding pattern, where, instead of building a team year by year, piece by piece, he's just waiting for someone else to screw up and make a great player available, at which point he says, "I'm all in," and proceeds to throw any and all of our crap into the middle of the poker table in a desperate attempt to fool the potential trading partner that they might actually get something of value in return for their franchise player, when in reality, they're ending up with an expiring contract or two, some average to above average players, and a bunch of draft picks.  Woo ::). That is no way to build a team, and the reality is that with each passing day it becomes more and more clear that Ainge really lucked into KG and Ray via a number of once-in-a-lifetime scenarios and a stupid owner in a summer that will never be duplicated, more than anything else. 

I also don't understand why people are waiting for the next Ray and KG trades, because, again, that was a one of a kind situation.  Plus, how can we trade for similar types of players if we have no Pierce with which to join them?  That's the reality, right now - we don't have any semblance of a core or even a player who might look as though they could be the next great Celtic, and that's what people should be focusing on when discussing the state of this rebuild, imo.  There have now been three drafts since the end of the 12-13 season, which could have yielded us at least part of a group for the future, but instead we really don't have much of anything or anyone to build around, and, frankly, I think it's time for the owners to take the keys from Danny, which, in all honesty, should have happened years ago, imo.

Re: Was Danny's plan flawed?
« Reply #96 on: August 12, 2015, 03:44:02 AM »

Offline walker834

  • NCE
  • Rajon Rondo
  • *****
  • Posts: 5240
  • Tommy Points: 238
How do we know that's his plan?  That's what fans and the media portray it as.  It seems to me like he is building piece by piece.  The media and fans have been wrong before.

Re: Was Danny's plan flawed?
« Reply #97 on: August 12, 2015, 05:20:42 AM »

Offline Casperian

  • Ray Allen
  • ***
  • Posts: 3501
  • Tommy Points: 545
Right, so it's less of an actual plan and more of a holding pattern, where, instead of building a team year by year, piece by piece, he's just waiting for someone else to screw up and make a great player available, at which point he says, "I'm all in," and proceeds to throw any and all of our crap into the middle of the poker table in a desperate attempt to fool the potential trading partner that they might actually get something of value in return for their franchise player, when in reality, they're ending up with an expiring contract or two, some average to above average players, and a bunch of draft picks.  Woo ::). That is no way to build a team, and the reality is that with each passing day it becomes more and more clear that Ainge really lucked into KG and Ray via a number of once-in-a-lifetime scenarios and a stupid owner in a summer that will never be duplicated, more than anything else. 

Phew, I'm glad you're not using any hyperbole to misrepresent our situation just so you can justify your emotions.

That would be awkward.

it seems like if he committed to a full tank 2 years ago we would have better assets

Do people understand what "full tank" means?  It doesn't just mean no Evan Turner.  It means no Turner, no David Lee, no Amir Johnson, no Crowder, no Jerebko, no IT, no Zeller, no Bradley ,either KO or Sully would also be gone and possibly no Marcus Smart.  In their place would be a bunch of d-leaguers and fringe rotation guys and two draft picks that probably STILL wouldn't have been top 3.

Mike

And then you sign James Harden and no one cares.

No, you don't, because James Harden doesn't care for your crappy d-league team.
In the summer of 2017, I predicted this team would not win a championship for the next 10 years.

3 down, 7 to go.

Re: Was Danny's plan flawed?
« Reply #98 on: August 12, 2015, 09:11:45 AM »

Offline littleteapot

  • Jayson Tatum
  • Posts: 852
  • Tommy Points: 93
it seems like if he committed to a full tank 2 years ago we would have better assets

Do people understand what "full tank" means?  It doesn't just mean no Evan Turner.  It means no Turner, no David Lee, no Amir Johnson, no Crowder, no Jerebko, no IT, no Zeller, no Bradley ,either KO or Sully would also be gone and possibly no Marcus Smart.  In their place would be a bunch of d-leaguers and fringe rotation guys and two draft picks that probably STILL wouldn't have been top 3.

Mike
The Bucks had the worst record in the NBA the Parker/Wiggins/Embiid year. Did it prevent them from getting decent young players like that?

Honestly the guys you mentioned just aren't valued very highly around the league. I think they are underrated and I'm glad that we have them given that we don't have someone like Jabari Parker, but those players are easy to buy, tough to sell for a profit and almost impossible to build a contender out of without having a superstar talent.
How do you feel about websites where people with similar interests share their opinions?
I'm forum!

Re: Was Danny's plan flawed?
« Reply #99 on: August 12, 2015, 09:38:44 AM »

Offline D.o.s.

  • NCE
  • Cedric Maxwell
  • **************
  • Posts: 14061
  • Tommy Points: 1239
Right, so it's less of an actual plan and more of a holding pattern, where, instead of building a team year by year, piece by piece, he's just waiting for someone else to screw up and make a great player available, at which point he says, "I'm all in," and proceeds to throw any and all of our crap into the middle of the poker table in a desperate attempt to fool the potential trading partner that they might actually get something of value in return for their franchise player, when in reality, they're ending up with an expiring contract or two, some average to above average players, and a bunch of draft picks.  Woo ::). That is no way to build a team, and the reality is that with each passing day it becomes more and more clear that Ainge really lucked into KG and Ray via a number of once-in-a-lifetime scenarios and a stupid owner in a summer that will never be duplicated, more than anything else. 

Phew, I'm glad you're not using any hyperbole to misrepresent our situation just so you can justify your emotions.

That would be awkward.

it seems like if he committed to a full tank 2 years ago we would have better assets

Do people understand what "full tank" means?  It doesn't just mean no Evan Turner.  It means no Turner, no David Lee, no Amir Johnson, no Crowder, no Jerebko, no IT, no Zeller, no Bradley ,either KO or Sully would also be gone and possibly no Marcus Smart.  In their place would be a bunch of d-leaguers and fringe rotation guys and two draft picks that probably STILL wouldn't have been top 3.

Mike

And then you sign James Harden and no one cares.

No, you don't, because James Harden doesn't care for your crappy d-league team.

Sorry, you trade for James Harden and then build a 50 win team out of the scraps you've assembled to tank through the season.

Is that better?
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 #100 on: August 12, 2015, 09:44:58 AM »

Offline MBunge

  • Antoine Walker
  • ****
  • Posts: 4661
  • Tommy Points: 471
it seems like if he committed to a full tank 2 years ago we would have better assets

Do people understand what "full tank" means?  It doesn't just mean no Evan Turner.  It means no Turner, no David Lee, no Amir Johnson, no Crowder, no Jerebko, no IT, no Zeller, no Bradley ,either KO or Sully would also be gone and possibly no Marcus Smart.  In their place would be a bunch of d-leaguers and fringe rotation guys and two draft picks that probably STILL wouldn't have been top 3.

Mike

And then you sign James Harden and no one cares.

Cue you saying "that's moving the goal posts!" "tanking is a very specific negative thing that I alone know the definition of!" etc.

No, making a stupid comment is not in any way moving the goal posts or changing the definition of tanking.  Those two things actually happen but suggesting a team should bet its entire future on...

A.  A player like Harden being available, and...

B.  The team that has him is willing to take your crappy assets instead of much better offers from other teams...

does not fall under either category.  It's just plain dumb.

So, how many hundreds of dollars do you spend on the lottery every month?

Mike

Re: Was Danny's plan flawed?
« Reply #101 on: August 12, 2015, 09:47:00 AM »

Offline MBunge

  • Antoine Walker
  • ****
  • Posts: 4661
  • Tommy Points: 471
Right, so it's less of an actual plan and more of a holding pattern, where, instead of building a team year by year, piece by piece, he's just waiting for someone else to screw up and make a great player available, at which point he says, "I'm all in," and proceeds to throw any and all of our crap into the middle of the poker table in a desperate attempt to fool the potential trading partner that they might actually get something of value in return for their franchise player, when in reality, they're ending up with an expiring contract or two, some average to above average players, and a bunch of draft picks.  Woo ::). That is no way to build a team, and the reality is that with each passing day it becomes more and more clear that Ainge really lucked into KG and Ray via a number of once-in-a-lifetime scenarios and a stupid owner in a summer that will never be duplicated, more than anything else. 

Phew, I'm glad you're not using any hyperbole to misrepresent our situation just so you can justify your emotions.

That would be awkward.

it seems like if he committed to a full tank 2 years ago we would have better assets

Do people understand what "full tank" means?  It doesn't just mean no Evan Turner.  It means no Turner, no David Lee, no Amir Johnson, no Crowder, no Jerebko, no IT, no Zeller, no Bradley ,either KO or Sully would also be gone and possibly no Marcus Smart.  In their place would be a bunch of d-leaguers and fringe rotation guys and two draft picks that probably STILL wouldn't have been top 3.

Mike

And then you sign James Harden and no one cares.

No, you don't, because James Harden doesn't care for your crappy d-league team.

Sorry, you trade for James Harden and then build a 50 win team out of the scraps you've assembled to tank through the season.

Is that better?

No, it really isn't.

Mike

Re: Was Danny's plan flawed?
« Reply #102 on: August 12, 2015, 09:51:54 AM »

Offline D.o.s.

  • NCE
  • Cedric Maxwell
  • **************
  • Posts: 14061
  • Tommy Points: 1239
So, let me get this straight, you're building up a strawman of 'the full tank' and then ignoring the most recent example of a team that pulled that off because, hey, they happened to swing exactly the kind of turnaround that we're all hoping for?

Seems like a healthy way to approach the discussion.

And, for the record, Zeller, Turner, Crowder and Jerebko are fringe rotation guys. You're deluded if you think otherwise.
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 #103 on: August 12, 2015, 11:16:58 AM »

Offline kraidstar

  • Paul Silas
  • ******
  • Posts: 6077
  • Tommy Points: 2569
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).

when i look at the mavs i see a borderline-washed-up former star in dirk who can shoot but is terrible at most everything else, especially defense; their interior defense will be brutal.

i also see 3 slightly-above-average starters in matthews, parsons, and d-will, the best of whom is coming off achilles surgery.

who are the stars on that club? that top-4 is mediocre at best.

the rest of the team came off the scrap heap, their bench is horrifically bad. this is the dallas mavericks team after their top-4 players
zaza
felton
devin harris
jj barea
sam dalembert (age 34)
charlie villanueva
jeremy evans
gal mekel
bernard james
dwight powell
jarrid famous
brandon ashley
john jenkins
salah mejri
maurice ndour

who is going to be the sixth man from that bunch? they are all cast-offs and third-stringers.

hard to see them making the playoffs with so little depth, no high-end talent, and so many good teams in the west.
« Last Edit: August 12, 2015, 11:27:50 AM by kraidstar »

Re: Was Danny's plan flawed?
« Reply #104 on: August 12, 2015, 11:38:29 AM »

Offline PhoSita

  • NCE
  • Robert Parish
  • *********************
  • Posts: 21835
  • Tommy Points: 2182

And, for the record, Zeller, Turner, Crowder and Jerebko are fringe rotation guys. You're deluded if you think otherwise.

That's maybe a bit harsh.  I think Zeller, Crowder, and Jerebko, at least, would compete for 15-20 minutes a night on most teams in the league.  Zeller is probably the most objectively valuable of them due to scarcity of talent at his position.  It's true that they were all fringe rotation players before they came to the Celtics.

But yeah, none of them is exactly an indispensable piece.  They are all pretty replaceable.
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