You want Proof. You Can't handle the Proof! C's rebuilding fast.

[tenn_smoothie]

I do think that the tendency to envision a team like the Grizzlies as being an ideal team that the modern core of the C's can grow into is a good one -- i.e. A tough defensive team that has enough talent to beat any team in the league over seven games if the ball bounces the right way. I think most of us would be pretty happy with that.

"enough talent to beat any team over seven games if the ball bounces the right way"

As a Celtic fan, I am aiming much higher than that - how about:

Ainge builds the Celtics into a league powerhouse that is one of the favorites to win the title every year, however the ball bounces. That is what we had in the 60's, 70's, 80's and late 2000's and it is hardly too much to expect from the most successful franchise in the league.

At the risk of being rude: This is so brutally obvious I'm not sure it had to be posted at all.

Since you gleefully misappropriated one line of my post, though, I will respond.

Firstly, I will go out on somewhat of limb and assume that you didn't actually watch the Celtics in the 60's or the 70's -- not many people did, after all -- and as such the Larry Bird era and the KG era are your only experiences with actually watching or following winning Celtics teams. Possibly only the 2008 era.

As such, it follows that you were a Celtics fan for the drought, and likely watched more Celtics games coached by Rick Pitino and M.L. Carr than Bill Russell or Tommy Heinsohn.

Which means that you're well aware that it's much more likely our current core wind up at an Antoine Walker-Pierce level or a Memphis of today level, and holding Ainge to the historic standard of the franchise is, in the short term (which is what we're talking about) a recipe for monumental and sustained disappointment.

Personally, I don't want to hold a roster prominently featuring Evan Turner and David Lee to the standard of "Banner 18." That's not fair to anyone except my doctor, who will see more of me as I try to cope with apoplectic stress.

Huh ??

Apparently, my expectations are not so obvious as to be shared by either you or the poster whom I quoted. My expectations also do not include the roster as it presently stands with solid players, but as of yet, no championship caliber players. If you have not noticed, acquiring championship caliber players seems to be the goal that Ainge has in mind for the future.

I would not be satisfied with being a Memphis-type team, and I certainly would be in a state of sustained disappointment if that were the goal of the franchise.

As for my personal history, I began following the 1960's Celtics as a kid on those Sunday afternoon ABC broadcasts and then fell hopelessly in love during the 1969 playoffs. My all-time favorite Celtic is Dave Cowens. I do not see the standard set by the 70's & 80's Celtics as being too high for one of the greatest franchises in professional sports. Maybe fans who grew up during the cursed 90's have lower expectations. No Thank You.

[drogbagarnett]

If the Celtics outperform expectations, then depth will be a big reason why.

I think CBS is the reason why, guys play hard for him.

Depth can be a reason your team exceeds expectations, but it won't change the basic reality of your team -- you can't go from playoff doormat to contender because of depth.

Just like Atlanta couldn't last year! Right...?

[PhoSita]

I can't see how anyone would not be impressed with what this team looks like today vs. 18 months ago.

My basic point is that I think Ainge has done a very good job of amassing a large quantity of assets.  That is how I view this team -- a pile of assets -- and I think it is how Ainge views the team, too.

I feel like the implication of this thread, though, is to distinguish the Celts from teams like, say, the Sixers, or the Magic, who are by contrast not rebuilding "fast."  I disagree with the notion that there is a marked difference, aside from short-term wins that are, to me, mostly meaningless. 

Those teams are also compiling assets.  Philly's quantity of assets is nearly as high as the Celts, and the quality of their best assets is greater.  Orlando has fewer picks and less "depth," but they have an entire lineup worth of young players with lots of talent (they've also been rebuilding for longer).

In all cases, judging the rebuild will have to wait until the teams actually cash in those assets, place their bets on a particular group of players, and find out the results.


Rebuilding "fast" is what the Jazz have done.  They amassed a fiEdited.  Profanity and masked profanity are against forum rules and may result in discipline.l of high lottery picks without spending more than a year at the bottom, and they hit big time on a defensive anchor late in the 1st round.  They're still probably one major star away from being more than a nice young team, but they've got the makings of a team that can win a lot of games for a long time.

[drogbagarnett]

Lebron and the scrubs on Philly's roster are not making the finals. Sorry.

LarBrd's definition of "scrubs" is guys who would come off the bench in a minor role, or not at all, on most really good teams.

In other words, the great majority of the Celts' current roster.


I don't know if LeBron would make the Finals with a team like that, but he could probably make the Finals with that and little else.

So then what's the difference between making the finals and winning the finals...?
You should be able to go that little step further and say Lebron and some average players (upgrade from scrubs...) should be WINNING the NBA finals every year!!! (not just making the finals!!)...
What is actually preventing you to go that step further...?

[PhoSita]

So then what's the difference between making the finals and winning the finals...?

I think we've seen that the answer to this question is that LeBron needs at least one secondary star next to him, and a team that can shoot and defend at a high level.

Just like Atlanta couldn't last year! Right...?

Um . . . yes.  They got flattened in the playoffs once they ran into a contender.

Though I kinda disagree with the premise.  Atlanta won a lot of games because they had multiple star players, though none of them was what I'd call a "superstar."

[tankcity!]

No stars added. But to see how fast this roster is turning over for the positive is impressive. The cut to get down to 15 isn't easy this year.
 Here is a look at the end of the roster the 13-14 season.

 Joel Anthony, Victor Faverini, Vander Blue, Chris Babb, Chris Johnson "played 20 mpg", Marshan Brooks, Phil Pressey, Gerald Wallace.

 That's 8 bad NBA players to choose from at the start of the season. And the top of the roster didn't look that good either.

 Rondo, Bradley, Sully,Green, Kelly,Humphries, Bass

 Out of those players we still have the three best Young players in Bradley, Sully, and Kelly. Hard not to admit that Ainge has made the second half our roster 10 times better.
 And the core of    Thomas, Smart, Bradley, Sully, Amir, Lee, Zeller, Crowder is much improved as well.
 Playing the cards he's dealt Danny is doing a heck of a job.

The problem is these players aren't hard to obtain in a league where a lot of teams are tanking. I wouldn't call it impressive to be honest. This is the easiest part. The hardest part of rebuilding has yet to come. I mean the celtics will be good, but what if we're the Josh Smith Atlanta hawks for the next five years because we can't obtain a star. Nobody wants to be in the middle, which is where the celtics are.

[PhoSita]

what if we're the Josh Smith Atlanta hawks for the next five years

Honestly, we've got some work to do in order to even reach that level.  Those Hawks teams were never great, but they won a handful of first round playoff series and occasionally looked like they could do more (sorta like where the Wizards are at now).

[Evantime34]

So then what's the difference between making the finals and winning the finals...?

I think we've seen that the answer to this question is that LeBron needs at least one secondary star next to him, and a team that can shoot and defend at a high level.

Just like Atlanta couldn't last year! Right...?

Um . . . yes.  They got flattened in the playoffs once they ran into a contender.

Though I kinda disagree with the premise.  Atlanta won a lot of games because they had multiple star players, though none of them was what I'd call a "superstar."

Atlanta got flattened in the playoffs due to injuries.

[PhoSita]

So then what's the difference between making the finals and winning the finals...?

I think we've seen that the answer to this question is that LeBron needs at least one secondary star next to him, and a team that can shoot and defend at a high level.

Just like Atlanta couldn't last year! Right...?

Um . . . yes.  They got flattened in the playoffs once they ran into a contender.

Though I kinda disagree with the premise.  Atlanta won a lot of games because they had multiple star players, though none of them was what I'd call a "superstar."

Atlanta got flattened in the playoffs due to injuries.

That was part of it, for sure.  Though it's a little hard to make that argument when the team they were facing was dealing with arguably worse injuries.

I think the Hawks had some bad luck but they were on a downward trajectory since the mid-way point of the season.  They didn't look anything like a contender earlier in the playoffs.

Like I said, though, I don't think the Hawks are a great example of a team winning without stars since Teague, Millsap, and Horford are all a lot better than anybody on the Celts right now.  Korver's pretty good, too.

[greece66]

Like I said, though, I don't think the Hawks are a great example of a team winning without stars since Teague, Millsap, and Horford are all a lot better than anybody on the Celts right now.  Korver's pretty good, too.

Pho, I don't think the C's are a great example of a team without stars.

Atlanta did remarkably well for a team without any first rate star (Horford might be the only exception). Can you think of any other RS first seed from the recent years?

[crimson_stallion]

We went from:

2007/08: 66-16 (1st Seed, won NBA championship)
2008/09: 62-20 (2nd Seed, defeated in Conference Finals by ORL)
2009/10: 50-32 (4th Seed, defeated in NBA finals by LAL)
2010/11: 56-26 (3rd Seed, defeated in conference finals by MIA)
2011/12: 39-17 (4th Seed, defeated in conference finals by MIA)
2012/13: 41-40 (7th Seed, defeated in first round by NYK)
2013/14: 25-57 in 2013/14 (lottery)
2014/15: 40-42 in 2014/15 (7th Seed, defeated in first round by CLE)

Now call me crazy, but I have to think that that has to be one of the most impressive turnarounds of the past decade, no?

In the space of three seasons we went from playoff team, to a complete rebuild, to playoff team.

Comparing that to other teams who have taken the tank route:
* Philly hasn't made the playoffs since 2011/12 and don't look likely to make it this year
* The Sacramento Kings haven't made the playoffs since 2005/06
* The Timberwolves haven't made the playoffs since 2003/04 (when KG was still there)
* The Bobcats have made the playoffs twice in 10 seasons or tanking
* The Wizards spent 5 seasons in the lottery before making the playoffs again
* The Knicks have missed the playoffs two straight seasons, and look to repeat that this year
* The Lakers have missed the playoffs two straight seasons, and look to repeat that this year
* The Warriors spent 5 years in lottery before getting back to the playoffs
* The rockets missed the playoffs 3 straight years before making it again
* Cleveland spent 4 years in lottery and should still be there now

Now out of those teams, the only one that are legit contenders today are:

Cleveland
Are back in the playoffs only thanks to pure blind luck.  They got the #1 Pick (despite the 9th worst record, a 1.7% probability) and used that to draft Wiggins.  Without Wiggins there is no Kevin Love trade, so if Cleveland didn't get that #1 pick there is every chance that Lebron never would have signed there, and they'd still be in the lottery. 

Golden State
Got their two best players (Curry and Thompson) with the 7th and 11th picks, respectively.  Neither of them really looked like future superstars on draft day. Most of the other guys they have added have been guys who were good, but not great (Iggy, Bogut, Green, etc).  If Curry and Thompson (guys taken around the same range as Smart and Olynyk) never developed into the guys they are, Golden State could still be in the lottery.

Houston
Houston did spend some time out of the playoffs, but they never drafted any guys with real superstar potential - it's not like they got a Wiggins, and used him to bring back a star.  They got Dwight via free agency, they traded a bunch of scraps for James Harden.  Not that different to what we're trying to do.

So really there has only been one team who took a different approach to us, and got success by sticking to that approach - that's Golden State. 

Cleveland was a fluke, and Houston took the same approach we're taking.

P.s.

I don't list the Hawks here, since they never actually missed the playoffs once since 2006/07 and so TECHNICALLY they never went through any rebuild - they just retooled. 

[crimson_stallion]

So then what's the difference between making the finals and winning the finals...?

I think we've seen that the answer to this question is that LeBron needs at least one secondary star next to him, and a team that can shoot and defend at a high level.

Just like Atlanta couldn't last year! Right...?

Um . . . yes.  They got flattened in the playoffs once they ran into a contender.

Though I kinda disagree with the premise.  Atlanta won a lot of games because they had multiple star players, though none of them was what I'd call a "superstar."

I wouldn't call anybody on the Hawks team a star, personally. 

To me you have franchise players (Lebron, Durant), superstars (CP3, Kevin Love, Demarcus Cousins, Dwight, Anthony Davis) and stars (Klay Thompson, Kyrie Irving, John Wall). 

I don't feel that either Teague, Korver, Millsap or Horford fit into any of those categories.  I think they are more on the Level of a Serge Ibaka, Andre Iguodala, or Isaiah Thomas - guys who are kinda half way between a "star" and a "good starter".   Fringe Stars.

I also don't think we have any stars, but I think Isaiah Thomas, Jared Sullinger, David Lee and Marcus Smart could potentially have "fringe star" seasons on par with what Atlanta's top guys put up this year.  I even see Zeller and Olynyk with an outside chance. 

At the end of the day we have a lot of young guys on this roster, and you really don't know what developmental strides those guys will make going into next year.  Do any of our guys have star potential?  Other than maybe Thomas, I'd say probably not.  But fringe-star potential?  Sure.

[KG Living Legend]

No stars added. But to see how fast this roster is turning over for the positive is impressive. The cut to get down to 15 isn't easy this year.
 Here is a look at the end of the roster the 13-14 season.

 Joel Anthony, Victor Faverini, Vander Blue, Chris Babb, Chris Johnson "played 20 mpg", Marshan Brooks, Phil Pressey, Gerald Wallace.

 That's 8 bad NBA players to choose from at the start of the season. And the top of the roster didn't look that good either.

 Rondo, Bradley, Sully,Green, Kelly,Humphries, Bass

 Out of those players we still have the three best Young players in Bradley, Sully, and Kelly. Hard not to admit that Ainge has made the second half our roster 10 times better.
 And the core of    Thomas, Smart, Bradley, Sully, Amir, Lee, Zeller, Crowder is much improved as well.
 Playing the cards he's dealt Danny is doing a heck of a job.

Depth in the NBA is overrated.   All you need is LeBron James and some scrubs and you'll make the Finals.   Having slightly above average bench talent from 5-10 doesn't really matter. 

I do agree that we have some ok talent here, though.   Definitely need to make some big swings at the trade market at some point.  Brad Stevens has his work cut out for him this season.  I can see us winning anything from 32 to 45 wins.

 




 Lbrd, 32 to 45 wins? Come on that's weak brosky. That's like me saying oh we can win anywhere between  28 and 56 games. That's weak bro.

 Speak with conviction. You know this coach and this roster. Tell me with conviction how many games we will.
 I say we win 48. Bam! It feels good to say it!

[crimson_stallion]

No stars added. But to see how fast this roster is turning over for the positive is impressive. The cut to get down to 15 isn't easy this year.
 Here is a look at the end of the roster the 13-14 season.

 Joel Anthony, Victor Faverini, Vander Blue, Chris Babb, Chris Johnson "played 20 mpg", Marshan Brooks, Phil Pressey, Gerald Wallace.

 That's 8 bad NBA players to choose from at the start of the season. And the top of the roster didn't look that good either.

 Rondo, Bradley, Sully,Green, Kelly,Humphries, Bass

 Out of those players we still have the three best Young players in Bradley, Sully, and Kelly. Hard not to admit that Ainge has made the second half our roster 10 times better.
 And the core of    Thomas, Smart, Bradley, Sully, Amir, Lee, Zeller, Crowder is much improved as well.
 Playing the cards he's dealt Danny is doing a heck of a job.

Depth in the NBA is overrated.   All you need is LeBron James and some scrubs and you'll make the Finals.   Having slightly above average bench talent from 5-10 doesn't really matter. 

I do agree that we have some ok talent here, though.   Definitely need to make some big swings at the trade market at some point.  Brad Stevens has his work cut out for him this season.  I can see us winning anything from 32 to 45 wins.

If this is the case, then how come Lebron only made the finals one season (out of seven) during his first stint in Cleveland?

Why has has there only been one season (in his entire 12 year career) in which his team has made it to the finals without a second star on the roster?

Hmm... 

Also with the whole "depth doesn't matter" argument, I find that amusing coming from a Boston fan. 

I spent the much of the big-3 era feeling cheated, watching in disappointment as my top-heavy Celtics missed the finals 4 times in 6 years, despite having one of the most dominant (if not THE most dominant) starting lineups in the NBA over that stretch.

Why did they miss the finals those years?

a) Injuries to starters
b) Too much dependence on starters' production

Both of the above ultimately came down to our lack of depth.  We had terrible second units over most of the Big-3 era, leaving our starters with a very heavy burden.  When one of those guys got hurt, we ended up replacing them in the starting lineups with guys like Glen Davis, Mickael Pietrus, Keeyon Dooling and Brian Scalabrine haha

Seriously though, every single year in our Big-3 era the story was the same - our starters dominated, our bench came in and dumped us into a big hole, then our starters would come in and have to dig us back out. 

Watching Miami get beaten By San Antonio in 13/14 was another example of the importance of depth.  You could make a legit argument that Miami's third best player was better than anybody on the Spurs roster that season. 

Star power is important for a championship contender, I'm not denying that.  But I don't believe that throwing all your money on one or two stars (and surrounding them with scrubs) is the answer.  I believe a team with two star players surrounded by great depth (e.g. 14/15 Warriors, 13/14 Spurs) will beat a team who has three star players with minimal depth (e.g. 14/15 Cavs) almost every time.

Assuming each star is making max contract money (say, $20M), it's safe to say that cap-wise you could add 3-4 MLE guys for the price of one star player. 

Lebron + Kyrie + 3 or 4 strong support players will (IMHO) be much harder to beat than Lebron + Kyrie + Love + team full of scrubs.

[CelticsFanFromNYC]

No stars added. But to see how fast this roster is turning over for the positive is impressive. The cut to get down to 15 isn't easy this year.
 Here is a look at the end of the roster the 13-14 season.

 Joel Anthony, Victor Faverini, Vander Blue, Chris Babb, Chris Johnson "played 20 mpg", Marshan Brooks, Phil Pressey, Gerald Wallace.

 That's 8 bad NBA players to choose from at the start of the season. And the top of the roster didn't look that good either.

 Rondo, Bradley, Sully,Green, Kelly,Humphries, Bass

 Out of those players we still have the three best Young players in Bradley, Sully, and Kelly. Hard not to admit that Ainge has made the second half our roster 10 times better.
 And the core of    Thomas, Smart, Bradley, Sully, Amir, Lee, Zeller, Crowder is much improved as well.
 Playing the cards he's dealt Danny is doing a heck of a job.

Depth in the NBA is overrated.   All you need is LeBron James and some scrubs and you'll make the Finals.   Having slightly above average bench talent from 5-10 doesn't really matter. 

I do agree that we have some ok talent here, though.   Definitely need to make some big swings at the trade market at some point.  Brad Stevens has his work cut out for him this season.  I can see us winning anything from 32 to 45 wins.

If this is the case, then how come Lebron only made the finals one season (out of seven) during his first stint in Cleveland?

Why has has there only been one season (in his entire 12 year career) in which his team has made it to the finals without a second star on the roster?

Hmm...

Depth could've been the difference from Lebron getting a championship last season while Kyrie and Love was out. ON THE OTHER HAND, This non needed depth will come in handy when a must needed superstar is ready to part ways with his team. also those proclaimed "worthless" draft picks. I also believe when superstars have depth on their team (watch clippers this year) players having off games will be masked by role players stepping up. I don't see anyway hoe depth is useless. I still feel the Pistons was Billups  Super Sidkick Rip and 13 other role players rolling their way to a ship.