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

[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...

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.

Agreed.

Regarding the Pistons, they did as well as they did because they overwhelmed teams by being able to attack from everywhere.  Billups, Hamilton, Prince and Wallace were all guys who could contribute on both ends of the floor.  Neither of those guys were huge stars, but they were all two-way players who were capable of having dominant games.  Add in Ben Wallace (one of the better defensive specialists in the NBA history, probably) and throw in a solid bench, and you have a team that's really tough to beat.

I don't believe that winning in the NBA is necessarily about "star power' so to speak.  I think it's about dominating / excelling in every area of the game as a collective unit.  For example:

a) You need a dominant "go-to" offensive player - somebody who can create his own shot pretty much at will, who is completely immune to fear/pressure, and who you can turn to for buckets when the team (as a whole) is struggling. For our 2008 team that guy was Paul Pierce.  For last season's Warriors it was Steph Curry.  For our current team, that guy is Isaiah Thomas.

b) You need a defensive anchor - a guy who will is versatile enough to cover multiple positions, and who will take it upon himself on any given night to step up and defend the opposing team's best player.  Preferably you want this guy to NOT also be your star scorer, because you want your star scorer using up all his energy on defense, and having his offensive game suffer for it.  Best case, you will have 2 or more of these guys, so that you can cover the opponent's best player regardless of whether their best player is a guard, a wing or a big.  In 2008 that it was Kevin Garnett.  For last season's Warriors it was a combination of Iguoadala / Green / Bogut.  This year for us it'll be Marcus Smart / Jae Crowder / Amir Johnson. 

c) You need a guy who can dominate the paint - a guy who is will do the dirty work inside, grab up rebounds, fight for loose balls, get put-backs off offensive rebounds, and get easy points around the basket.  In 2008 that guy was KG.  For the Warriors last season it was a Green/Lee/Bogut.  For us this year it'll be Lee / Sully / Johnson.

d) You need a deadly outside threat - a guy who the opposing defense absolutely cannot afford to leave open on the perimeter, and who can single handily stretch the floor.  In 2008 that was Ray Allen.  For Golden State last season it was Steph Curry.  For us this year it'll be Isaiah Thomas - we need an upgrade in that role, but Thomas will do.   

b) You need depth - a guy (or series of guys) who will come off the bench and help you hold/build leads.  In 2008 it was James Posey and Eddie House.  For Golden State it was Lee, Iggy, Speights, Barbosa.  For us this year, it's Thomas plus whoever doesn't start  (out of Olynyk/Lee/Sully/Zeller/Turner/Crowder).

Now, for us to become an actual contender we would need to upgrade in some of those areas.  For example we could use an upgrade at the 'floor stretcher' role, and the 'paint guy' role.  But at the end of the day, we have all the ingredients to be competitive playoff team, and that wasn't so much the case last year before the addition of Lee (who fills the inside man role) and Johnson (who fills the 'anchor' role against bigs).

We should be a strong team this year - if not a dominant one.

[viulo]

Some quick notes:

Depth - Very important in the regular season, not that much in the play-offs, when a player goes from 30 to 40 minutes/game

Depth (II) - That said, this years Cs roster plus LeBron would have won the finals last year

Stars - I still think you need a star (or two, or three) to win; it's just the concept of star that's complicated... Curry wouldn't have been considered a star one and a half year ago; for those who say the borderline stars the Hawks had last year are better than what we have now, try thinking back on what was being said of them before last season started. Stars produce wins as much as wins produce stars. If we win +50 this year, be sure to have people claiming our starters should be in the all-star game

Rebuilding and the Jazz - I understand people looking at the 76ers or the Wolves and thinking they have more potential, but I like the way we're going - and I think the Jazz, mentioned earlier in the thread, could be a great model. I'm willing to bet they'll make the play-offs this year. And they've been at this rebuilding thing for longer than we have.

Contention - Obviously, the aim has to be banner 18 - but there's so much randomness in winning a title (look at 2010 and 2011, that we should have won...) that you have to consider other ways of evaluating results. I don't think regular season records are a way to do it (with our depth that would be advantageous), but let's look at the Thunder - they rebuilt through the draft; they have superstars; they have some depth; they have won zero titles; should we consider their rebuild a success or not (hint - if you don't, you can't claim the sixers are on the right path...)

[PhoSita]

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?

I'm gonna be honest, I don't understand your post.

[Jon]

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?

I'm gonna be honest, I don't understand your post.

I'd also ask the questions of whether the Hawks would be much more than a borderline playoff team in the West.

I say no.

And if that's the case, the question of whether you can build a contender without stars or not becomes moot.

[tarheelsxxiii]

More than a rim protector, girlfriends/wives/baby mama's to limit the time we spend on here, and acne cream... we need a real go-to scorer. Huge fan of IT, appreciate his 16+, esp in limited minutes.

But we're dying for just one 21+ ppg scorer. GS had 2 last year (along with CLE and SAC!) - Curry and Klay were the 6th and 9th highest scorers in the league, and both were spacing the floor like P. Swayze in Dirty Dancing.

[LilRip]

wow, all this talk about how the C's are going to be dominant...

I'm a C's fan but maybe I'm just more pessimistic than a whole bunch of you. I personally think this team is far away from contending. I don't think we're bottom-of-the-league tank bad however I don't think we're on the verge of making that leap either. I see us as more of a fringe playoff team who will be fighting down the stretch of the season for one of the final playoff seeds.

We have some really great pieces in IT4, Marcus Smart, and even Avery Bradley. However, we still need that 'piece', that player who can be the face of the franchise. Right now, the closest thing we have to that is IT4 and I can't imagine a team led by IT4 to have much success other than barely making the playoffs.

My hope is that Marcus Smart eventually grows into that role. However, to be completely honest, I do think we still need to swing for a big trade or a FA, or maybe DA needs to get lucky and find another Big Al in the mid-1st round.

[LarBrd33]

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.

Cavs won 33 games with Kyrie Irving.   With LeBron they made the finals.  Was my comment an exaggeration?  I mean... maybe.   They swept the Hawks and in half of those games, LeBron shared the court with Delladova, Shumpert, Mozgov, and Tristan Thompson.  He also managed to win 2 games in the Finals with that supporting cast.  Not necessarily scrubs, but that team without LeBron probably wins 24 games.  Let's not forget that the Cavs went from winning 61 games to 19 the year he left...

Philly is coming off a season winning 18 games.  Despite this, they had a top 12 defense.  In-fact, over the second half the season they had the best defense in the league in minutes Nerlens Noel was on the court.   You might be able to expect a slight improvement with the return Wroten, the addition of Okafor, the addition of Stauskas and Landry and the improvement of Noel.   Would adding LeBron James to that bunch get them into the Finals?  No... probably not.  But I'd take that team over the Celtics in a 7 game series. 

Depth is overrated.   All about superstars.   This team will do everything imaginable to land a superstar.   The team understands the necessity. 

[Celtics4ever]

More than a rim protector, girlfriends/wives/baby mama's to limit the time we spend on here, and acne cream... we need a real go-to scorer. Huge fan of IT, appreciate his 16+, esp in limited minutes.

But we're dying for just one 21+ ppg scorer. GS had 2 last year (along with CLE and SAC!) - Curry and Klay were the 6th and 9th highest scorers in the league, and both were spacing the floor like P. Swayze in Dirty Dancing.

We do need a scorer ot two, for certain, but it would be best if they were two way players, who play on both ends of the court.   A flawed guy that only scores is fool's gold.

[SHAQATTACK]

Add Noel to this team and their future is very bright.

[D.o.s.]

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.

Point being, there's no reason to go all Veruca Salt because our team sucks right now and doesn't have an obvious point of growth to be a title contender in the near future with the same players.

Again, read what I said -- it was in reference to "the current Celtics core." Not the franchise in totality, but the players on the roster we have right now. I think their best case scenario is to approximate Memphis's success, and drooling all over yourself about how "you want Rings" in response is entirely insipid. We all want the Celtics to win Banner 18 as soon as possible.

[BDeCosta26]

I think it's incorrect to say that because we have no obvious "stars" right now, that this team can't be anything more than an also-ran 8th seed for the next couple years or that our lack of "star power" right now means our future outlook is bad, that Ainge has somehow screwed up our rebuild or that a team like the Lakers has a better outlook than we do. I think that's ridiculous and ignores how well we have built a competitive, improving young team with a great developing culture while also accumulating the assets and flexibility to pursue all avenues (Draft, Trade, FA) to return to contender status.

I also think it's incorrect to say that this team as currently constituted is going to grow to contender status with a Sully, Smart, AB, IT core, or that without any major changes this team is even gonna get past LeBron in the next couple years. The "accumulating assets" phase of the rebuild isn't over, because we don't have a contending roster yet. Ainge won't be done collecting assets until we do. It's exactly why we traded Wallace for Lee and wasted cap space to give PJ3 a look and grab a 2nd rounder. If they underachieve this year, it wouldn't surprise me to see Ainge take part of this team down, keep our 1sts and go total youth movement. That flexibility to do that is part of the reason I'm excited about our future. I still think this team could surprise people and could even win 50 games, but we're not developing into a contender with just these guys. The FO knows that better than anyone.

You can like our current group and be really excited about our future while also being concerned about our lack of obvious "star talent" and wonder where that talent is coming from. The two aren't necessarily separate. I just realize that the FO is keenly aware of where they are, and know what it takes to get where they wanna go.

[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?

I'm gonna be honest, I don't understand your post.

I'm gonna be honest, if my reply seems awkward, it's because your original point was awkward.

Saying that Atlanta had stars because its starting 5 were better than Boston's is missing the point. Apples and oranges (seventh seed/1st seed)
Atlanta had very little in terms of star calibre players for a contender.
Boston has very little in terms of star calibre players in general.

[greece66]

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.

Cavs won 33 games with Kyrie Irving.   With LeBron they made the finals.  Was my comment an exaggeration?  I mean... maybe.   They swept the Hawks and in half of those games, LeBron shared the court with Delladova, Shumpert, Mozgov, and Tristan Thompson.  He also managed to win 2 games in the Finals with that supporting cast.  Not necessarily scrubs, but that team without LeBron probably wins 24 games.  Let's not forget that the Cavs went from winning 61 games to 19 the year he left...

Philly is coming off a season winning 18 games.  Despite this, they had a top 12 defense.  In-fact, over the second half the season they had the best defense in the league in minutes Nerlens Noel was on the court.   You might be able to expect a slight improvement with the return Wroten, the addition of Okafor, the addition of Stauskas and Landry and the improvement of Noel.   Would adding LeBron James to that bunch get them into the Finals?  No... probably not.  But I'd take that team over the Celtics in a 7 game series. 

Depth is overrated.   All about superstars.   This team will do everything imaginable to land a superstar.   The team understands the necessity.

Point taken but we should not confuse stars and superstars. How many players are superstars in the way LBJ is? (ie turning a lottery team to a contender just by joining them)
KD, Harden, (a younger) Duncan, maybe Curry. I could add Leonard, Westbrook and Chris Paul just for the sake of the argument. It is very unlikely we land any of these: their teams won't trade them, and when they hit FA every single NBA team will go after them.

We have a much better chance with good players whose game has certain flaws or about whom the jury is still out (for example -I know he is not coming- KLove, DMC, Drummond) - I am not so sure it would be wise to do //anything imaginable// to land such a player.

[D.o.s.]

I think it's incorrect to say that because we have no obvious "stars" right now, that this team can't be anything more than an also-ran 8th seed for the next couple years or that our lack of "star power" right now means our future outlook is bad, that Ainge has somehow screwed up our rebuild or that a team like the Lakers has a better outlook than we do. I think that's ridiculous and ignores how well we have built a competitive, improving young team with a great developing culture while also accumulating the assets and flexibility to pursue all avenues (Draft, Trade, FA) to return to contender status.

I also think it's incorrect to say that this team as currently constituted is going to grow to contender status with a Sully, Smart, AB, IT core, or that without any major changes this team is even gonna get past LeBron in the next couple years. The "accumulating assets" phase of the rebuild isn't over, because we don't have a contending roster yet. Ainge won't be done collecting assets until we do. It's exactly why we traded Wallace for Lee and wasted cap space to give PJ3 a look and grab a 2nd rounder. If they underachieve this year, it wouldn't surprise me to see Ainge take part of this team down, keep our 1sts and go total youth movement. That flexibility to do that is part of the reason I'm excited about our future. I still think this team could surprise people and could even win 50 games, but we're not developing into a contender with just these guys. The FO knows that better than anyone.

You can like our current group and be really excited about our future while also being concerned about our lack of obvious "star talent" and wonder where that talent is coming from. The two aren't necessarily separate. I just realize that the FO is keenly aware of where they are, and know what it takes to get where they wanna go.

This is a good post, and not just because I agree with it. TP.

[bucknersrevenge]

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.

Cavs won 33 games with Kyrie Irving.   With LeBron they made the finals.  Was my comment an exaggeration?  I mean... maybe.   They swept the Hawks and in half of those games, LeBron shared the court with Delladova, Shumpert, Mozgov, and Tristan Thompson.  He also managed to win 2 games in the Finals with that supporting cast.  Not necessarily scrubs, but that team without LeBron probably wins 24 games.  Let's not forget that the Cavs went from winning 61 games to 19 the year he left...

Philly is coming off a season winning 18 games.  Despite this, they had a top 12 defense.  In-fact, over the second half the season they had the best defense in the league in minutes Nerlens Noel was on the court.   You might be able to expect a slight improvement with the return Wroten, the addition of Okafor, the addition of Stauskas and Landry and the improvement of Noel.   Would adding LeBron James to that bunch get them into the Finals?  No... probably not.  But I'd take that team over the Celtics in a 7 game series. 

Depth is overrated.   All about superstars.    This team will do everything imaginable to land a superstar.   The team understands the necessity.

Not sure I agree with this. The MVP of the most recent Finals started that series by coming off the bench. The guy we just traded for played a huge role in that team winning, also coming off the bench. The height of Shaun Livington coming off the bench in the backcourt made for huge problems for the Cavs.

Speaking of the Cavs, having Matthew Dellavedova and Tristan Thompson step up for 2 All-Star players that went down to injury certainly helped them get to the Finals. Both of those teams were not collections of All-Star talent.