Whose rebuild is better? BOS vs LAL

[Dennis_D]

Let me do some data dumping here. If "young" is 24 and under, the Celtics' young players are (in age order):
Young (20) - likely to spend year in D league
Smart (21) - starter
Rozier (21) - likely to spend year in D league
Mickey (21) - likely to spend year in D league
Hunter (21) - end of rotation player
Sullinger (23) - out of rotation
Olynyk (24) - backup PF/C
Bradley (24) - starter

Lakers (assuming Holmes and J. Brown are cut):
Russell (19) - probable starter
Randle (20) - starter
Nance (22) - likely to spend year in D league
Clarkson (23) - starter
A. Brown (23) - likely to spend year in D league
Black (23) - backup PF/C
Kelly (24) - out of rotation

The C's have more young players on the roster than the Lakers (8 vs 7), but the Lakers' young players are probably going to see more total playing time than the C's.

Looking at the recent draft history:
2010
#19 Celtics - Bradly (current starter)
#43 Lakers - Ebanks (three years deep bench player)
#52 Celtics - Harangody (played half season deep bench for C's)
#58 Lakers - Caracter (one season deep bench player)

2011
#27 Celtics - Johnson (one season deep bench player)
#41 Lakers - Morris (two seasons deep bench player)
#46 Lakers - Goudelock (two seasons deep bench player)
#55 Celtics - Moore (one season deep bench player)

2012
#21 Celtics - Sullinger (currently out of rotation)
#22 Celtics - Melo (played 36 minutes)
#51 Celtics - Joseph (played 24 minutes for the C's)
#60 Lakers - Sacre (currently out of rotation)

2013
#13 Celtics - Olynyk (currently backup PF/C)
#48 Lakers - Kelly (currently out of rotation)

2014
#6 Celtics - Smart (currently starter)
#7 Lakers - Randle (currently starter)
#20 Celtics - Young (currently likely to spend year in D league)
#46 Lakers - Clarkson (currently starter)

The Lakers typically have drafted much lower than the C's but have done about as well.

[Eddie20]

Lakers (assuming Holmes and J. Brown are cut):
Russell (19) - probable starter d-league
Randle (20) - starter rotation guy, maybe
Nance (22) - likely to spend year in D league waived
Clarkson (23) - starter rotation guy, maybe
A. Brown (23) - likely to spend year in D league waived
Black (23) - backup PF/C waived
Kelly (24) - out of rotation waived

In bold is where they'll be on the C's much deeper roster.

[Rondo9]

Russell is more likely in the d-league?

[Eddie20]

Russell is more likely in the d-league?

Absolutely. Have you seen him play this preseason? Where would his minutes come from? At whose expense? Smart, Thomas, Bradley, etc? You can make the argument that Rozier looks better and he's likely D league bound.

People forget that Russell was not an elite prospect coming out of high school. He had a great college season, but the team was mediocre and the entire offense was geared around him to shine.

[jpotter33]

Let me do some data dumping here. If "young" is 24 and under, the Celtics' young players are (in age order):
Young (20) - likely to spend year in D league
Smart (21) - starter
Rozier (21) - likely to spend year in D league
Mickey (21) - likely to spend year in D league
Hunter (21) - end of rotation player
Sullinger (23) - out of rotation
Olynyk (24) - backup PF/C
Bradley (24) - starter

Lakers (assuming Holmes and J. Brown are cut):
Russell (19) - probable starter
Randle (20) - starter
Nance (22) - likely to spend year in D league
Clarkson (23) - starter
A. Brown (23) - likely to spend year in D league
Black (23) - backup PF/C
Kelly (24) - out of rotation

The C's have more young players on the roster than the Lakers (8 vs 7), but the Lakers' young players are probably going to see more total playing time than the C's.

Looking at the recent draft history:
2010
#19 Celtics - Bradly (current starter)
#43 Lakers - Ebanks (three years deep bench player)
#52 Celtics - Harangody (played half season deep bench for C's)
#58 Lakers - Caracter (one season deep bench player)

2011
#27 Celtics - Johnson (one season deep bench player)
#41 Lakers - Morris (two seasons deep bench player)
#46 Lakers - Goudelock (two seasons deep bench player)
#55 Celtics - Moore (one season deep bench player)

2012
#21 Celtics - Sullinger (currently out of rotation)
#22 Celtics - Melo (played 36 minutes)
#51 Celtics - Joseph (played 24 minutes for the C's)
#60 Lakers - Sacre (currently out of rotation)

2013
#13 Celtics - Olynyk (currently backup PF/C)
#48 Lakers - Kelly (currently out of rotation)

2014
#6 Celtics - Smart (currently starter)
#7 Lakers - Randle (currently starter)
#20 Celtics - Young (currently likely to spend year in D league)
#46 Lakers - Clarkson (currently starter)

The Lakers typically have drafted much lower than the C's but have done about as well.

Context, context, context.... Being starters or having more playing time on a significantly worse team means absolutely nada in the grand scheme of things...

[Timdawgg]

Let me do some data dumping here. If "young" is 24 and under, the Celtics' young players are (in age order):
Young (20) - likely to spend year in D league
Smart (21) - starter
Rozier (21) - likely to spend year in D league
Mickey (21) - likely to spend year in D league
Hunter (21) - end of rotation player
Sullinger (23) - out of rotation
Olynyk (24) - backup PF/C
Bradley (24) - starter

Lakers (assuming Holmes and J. Brown are cut):
Russell (19) - probable starter
Randle (20) - starter
Nance (22) - likely to spend year in D league
Clarkson (23) - starter
A. Brown (23) - likely to spend year in D league
Black (23) - backup PF/C
Kelly (24) - out of rotation

The C's have more young players on the roster than the Lakers (8 vs 7), but the Lakers' young players are probably going to see more total playing time than the C's.

Looking at the recent draft history:
2010
#19 Celtics - Bradly (current starter)
#43 Lakers - Ebanks (three years deep bench player)
#52 Celtics - Harangody (played half season deep bench for C's)
#58 Lakers - Caracter (one season deep bench player)

2011
#27 Celtics - Johnson (one season deep bench player)
#41 Lakers - Morris (two seasons deep bench player)
#46 Lakers - Goudelock (two seasons deep bench player)
#55 Celtics - Moore (one season deep bench player)

2012
#21 Celtics - Sullinger (currently out of rotation)
#22 Celtics - Melo (played 36 minutes)
#51 Celtics - Joseph (played 24 minutes for the C's)
#60 Lakers - Sacre (currently out of rotation)

2013
#13 Celtics - Olynyk (currently backup PF/C)
#48 Lakers - Kelly (currently out of rotation)

2014
#6 Celtics - Smart (currently starter)
#7 Lakers - Randle (currently starter)
#20 Celtics - Young (currently likely to spend year in D league)
#46 Lakers - Clarkson (currently starter)

The Lakers typically have drafted much lower than the C's but have done about as well.

Context, context, context.... Being starters or having more playing time on a significantly worse team means absolutely nada in the grand scheme of things...

Exactly. Using that logic that would mean Clarkson or Randle is better player than Isaiah Thomas since they are starter and Thomas is a bench player...

[LarBrd33]

I'd trade IT for Randle without blinking. 

Thomas is a very good backup.   Randle should be a long-term starter at the very least.

[Eddie20]

I'd trade IT for Randle without blinking. 

Thomas is a very good backup.   Randle should be a long-term starter at the very least.

Interesting choice of words. Does this mean you consider Dragic a very good backup too? Just because a guy comes off the bench, like Thomas, doesn't mean he doesn't have the ability to be a starter. Because by your definition it would make Havlicek and McHale very good backups too.

13-14

Thomas (age 24) - Dragic (age 27)
MPG 34.7 - 35.1
PPG 20.3 - 20.3
APG 6.3 - 5.9
SPG 1.3 - 1.4
TOV 3.0 - 2.8
3PT Made 127 - 122
FG% 45.3 - 50.5
FT% 85.0 - 76.0
3PT% 34.9 - 40.8
PER 20.5 - 21.4

14-15

Thomas (age 25) - Dragic (age 28)
MPG 25.8 - 33.8
PPG 16.4 - 16.3
APG 4.2 - 4.5
SPG 0.9 - 1.0
TOV 2.1 - 2.2
3PT Made 129 - 90
FG% 42.0 - 50.1
FT% 86.8 - 77.4
3PT% 37.3 - 34.7
PER 20.6 - 17.4

[jpotter33]

I'd trade IT for Randle without blinking. 

Thomas is a very good backup.   Randle should be a long-term starter at the very least.

*though Randle has proven absolutely nada outside of meaningless preseason games....

Seriously, though, the concept of "potential" has some type of magical power over you. It's the analog to the One Ring, and you're Gollum!

[BDeCosta26]

I'd trade IT for Randle without blinking. 

Thomas is a very good backup.   Randle should be a long-term starter at the very least.

IF he develops into a starter, he's so limited you have to tailor your front-court around him. He's a p----poor defender who can't shoot, so you need to play him next to a guy who can defend well, play the 5, and shoot automatically AT LEAST from 17-20 feet. Rich man's Kenneth Faried. Would you trade a prime Jamal Crawford for a young Faried?

I get that Randle is your binky, but your ready to name him a long term starter after like 4 preseason games? Even though he's limited by having to play the four even though he can't shoot and can't defend? Yet, Thomas is a "bench player" you'd just dump off for a halfway decent return? Even though he comes off the bench, he's clearly a starter level player and could easily start on a bunch of teams? Your pessimism borders on the insane.

Anyone who REALLY thinks LA has a better rebuild going on than Boston before Russell/Randle prove themselves to be super-stars are just being contrarian cause they're on CB. Objectively, in just about every facet of a rebuild, Boston has done a much, much better job.

[chambers]

Is there honestly anyone here who wouldn't trade IT for Julius Randle?


I think IT could be a starter but not a top caliber starter. Similarly Dragic ain't a top caliber starter either but both are great 2nd tier 'close, but non all star' level PG's or at least consistent serious All Star point guard candidates.

Also important to look at defensive impact if you're comparing PG's and Thomas' liability as a starter comes because of his defensive leaks/exploit-ability.


I think our rebuild is going better than LA's. When Kobe leaves after this year they'll have cap space +Jordan Clarkson+Russell+Randle (and possibly Hibbert).
The potential in Russell and Randle is arguably higher than any of our players not named Smart or Rozier.
I dunno why some people are saying Randle is a puss defender because he's looked really solid in pre season and can basically guard 3's through 5's and even some solid hedge/help on SG's.

The biggest advantage we have vs the Lakers is our coach. He's becoming a bonafide superstar and will have massive pulling power for us over the next few years for free agents. There's also our front office. Danny Ainge is great, Mitch Kuptchack is great, but Danny doesn't have the clueless owner family rotting the core from within.

[Monkhouse]

Is there honestly anyone here who wouldn't trade IT for Julius Randle?


I think IT could be a starter but not a top caliber starter. Similarly Dragic ain't a top caliber starter either but both are great 2nd tier 'close, but non all star' level PG's or at least consistent serious All Star point guard candidates.

Also important to look at defensive impact if you're comparing PG's and Thomas' liability as a starter comes because of his defensive leaks/exploit-ability.


I think our rebuild is going better than LA's. When Kobe leaves after this year they'll have cap space +Jordan Clarkson+Russell+Randle (and possibly Hibbert).
The potential in Russell and Randle is arguably higher than any of our players not named Smart or Rozier.
I dunno why some people are saying Randle is a puss defender because he's looked really solid in pre season and can basically guard 3's through 5's and even some solid hedge/help on SG's.

The biggest advantage we have vs the Lakers is our coach. He's becoming a bonafide superstar and will have massive pulling power for us over the next few years for free agents. There's also our front office. Danny Ainge is great, Mitch Kuptchack is great, but Danny doesn't have the clueless owner family rotting the core from within.

Well I still think, given Dragic career year would be hard to repeat, but he certainly has the size and speed to get away with it, and still be formidable on two ends of the floor. As you stated previously; IT personally cannot.

Randle and Russell certainly have the potential to be a franchise player. But Russell also had the highest bust probability, and Randle isn't doing himself any favors being injured. I like our chances personally, because as you also mentioned, we have Danny Ainge, who's a disciplined and savvy trader. Wyc Grousbeck, who doesn't mind opening the pocket books, and Brad Stevens, who's already getting his plays copied by other coaches, and he doesn't look a day old.

I certainly love our chances, because I believe with Stevens running the helm, I think free agents will be more likelier to come here. I think this is exactly what we've been hoping for.

Free agents that want to come here.

When you build a winning culture, right coach with playoff experience, a group of young but determined individuals; you just set the pitch for any free agent that believes he deserves to shine, and will deservedly do so in our system.

Lakers still have the advantage of course. But free agents don't always go to terrible situations if there isn't any money or other incentives involved to reel them in.

We have picks out the whazoo. Lets see what superstar gets put up for trade.

[LarBrd33]

I'd trade IT for Randle without blinking. 

Thomas is a very good backup.   Randle should be a long-term starter at the very least.

Interesting choice of words. Does this mean you consider Dragic a very good backup too? Just because a guy comes off the bench, like Thomas, doesn't mean he doesn't have the ability to be a starter. Because by your definition it would make Havlicek and McHale very good backups too.

13-14

Thomas (age 24) - Dragic (age 27)
MPG 34.7 - 35.1
PPG 20.3 - 20.3
APG 6.3 - 5.9
SPG 1.3 - 1.4
TOV 3.0 - 2.8
3PT Made 127 - 122
FG% 45.3 - 50.5
FT% 85.0 - 76.0
3PT% 34.9 - 40.8
PER 20.5 - 21.4

14-15

Thomas (age 25) - Dragic (age 28)
MPG 25.8 - 33.8
PPG 16.4 - 16.3
APG 4.2 - 4.5
SPG 0.9 - 1.0
TOV 2.1 - 2.2
3PT Made 129 - 90
FG% 42.0 - 50.1
FT% 86.8 - 77.4
3PT% 37.3 - 34.7
PER 20.6 - 17.4

Aint a GM in the league that wouldn't trade Thomas for Randle. 

[DavorCroatiaFan]

Next 5 drafts:

Celtics 9 1st rounders + 13 2nd rounders (probably lottery picks from Nets '16,'17, Mavs '16 and Grizzlies '19)

Lakers 3 1st rounders + 4 2nd rounders (probably will lose '16 lottery pick to Sixers)


Stevens >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Scott

Celtics current roster >>>> Lakers current roster

[BornReady]

celtics currently are better than LA
but the rebuild will depend on whether russell + randle end up being stars 
They already have clarkson whose probably a starter

while for us its whether smart and the rest of our young players and draft picks develop into stars or at least role players or if we can make a trade

so far we have a better coach in stevens
+ more valuable assets in draft picks

are rebuild is more versatile as we have the chance to make a big trade + picks to get young players

only time will tell who wins
but right now my money is on the celtics