Grousbeck: ‘I’d like to trade the Nets pick’

[PhoSita]

I agree this is a crock. Can you identify a single move that showcased short-sightedness?

I think Csfansince60s covered it on the last page.

[Celtics18]

I agree this is a crock. Can you identify a single move that showcased short-sightedness?

I think Csfansince60s covered it on the last page.

So, it was making the playoffs last year that was short-sighted?  Disagree. 

I don't think there was anything Danny could have done to stop that group from making the playoffs.  They were too hungry.  In my book, that bodes well for the future. 

[crimson_stallion]

he doesn't say he wants to trade the pick from what I read , but I think he is likely talking about Durant since he said an all-time great . Cousins and Melo don't fit that category .

Cousins absolutely fits that category...he's been a far better player than Melo the past two seasons and not at all far behind Durant.

He is a serious beast, and his statistical numbers over his career so far have been undeniably "All-Time-Great" caliber.

[crimson_stallion]

Between the fireworks stuff and this, I get the sense that Wyc is kind of impatient and wants Ainge to get the team winning a lot of games quickly.  Not willing to wait for an organic building process.

Not good.  Generally speaking we can't complain much about our ownership, but impatience in a rebuild process is never, ever a good thing.

Nonsense.  He stands off and lets Ainge do what's necessary.  Doesn't object to him spending money to take on dead salary if draft picks are attached.  He trusts Ainge very much.  In his ideal world, the Celtics are a championship contender every year, and as an owner who's trying to sell his team to the public, he'll always express his "ideal world" scenario.  And Ainge will always swing for the fences, anyway, because that's who he is.  But ownership isn't going to force Ainge into doing something that hurts long-run championship aspirations without a real good chance of creating a championship earlier.

He's not impatient, he's optimistic.  Those are two very different things.

Eh, I'm not convinced. 

I think the pressure to keep the team at least somewhat competitive and entertaining, and to not be bad for more than a season, has probably informed Ainge's decision making process at least somewhat in the rebuild so far.

Ainge has done a good job of keeping the team flexible and not sacrificing future assets for the sake of now.  I just can't help feeling that at least part of this strategy of always keeping open the possibility, however remote, that the team could suddenly turn it around and become a contender really quickly, is coming from ownership.  I think that same pressure has probably also informed decisions to make moves for guys who help the team win and entertain fans now, even if they are in theory also decent trade assets (e.g. Thomas, Lee, Amir, Jerebko). 

It's nice that owernship is optimistic and has high expectations. I just think patience and discipline are paramount in a rebuild.   I don't trust the idea of angling for a quick fix and placing our hopes on Ainge "bamboozling" one or more of his fellow GMs.

Tell that to the Cavs, the Rockets, etc.

I think their approach has been fantastic.  Most teams have a view of "we can either sacrifice now so we can be good later, or we try and be good now to sacrifice later". 

The Celtics have decided screw it - why should be suck at all?  Lets be good now AND be good later.

Hard to complain about that. 

The Celtics are the top offense in the east with the 2nd highest point differential and a 7th seed, and many people around the league consider them to be the best (or at least one of the best) positioned teams in the league as far as future potential.

I think that's an incredible position to be in.

[Monkhouse]

Between the fireworks stuff and this, I get the sense that Wyc is kind of impatient and wants Ainge to get the team winning a lot of games quickly.  Not willing to wait for an organic building process.

Not good.  Generally speaking we can't complain much about our ownership, but impatience in a rebuild process is never, ever a good thing.

Nonsense.  He stands off and lets Ainge do what's necessary.  Doesn't object to him spending money to take on dead salary if draft picks are attached.  He trusts Ainge very much.  In his ideal world, the Celtics are a championship contender every year, and as an owner who's trying to sell his team to the public, he'll always express his "ideal world" scenario.  And Ainge will always swing for the fences, anyway, because that's who he is.  But ownership isn't going to force Ainge into doing something that hurts long-run championship aspirations without a real good chance of creating a championship earlier.

He's not impatient, he's optimistic.  Those are two very different things.

Eh, I'm not convinced. 

I think the pressure to keep the team at least somewhat competitive and entertaining, and to not be bad for more than a season, has probably informed Ainge's decision making process at least somewhat in the rebuild so far.

Ainge has done a good job of keeping the team flexible and not sacrificing future assets for the sake of now.  I just can't help feeling that at least part of this strategy of always keeping open the possibility, however remote, that the team could suddenly turn it around and become a contender really quickly, is coming from ownership.  I think that same pressure has probably also informed decisions to make moves for guys who help the team win and entertain fans now, even if they are in theory also decent trade assets (e.g. Thomas, Lee, Amir, Jerebko). 

It's nice that owernship is optimistic and has high expectations. I just think patience and discipline are paramount in a rebuild.   I don't trust the idea of angling for a quick fix and placing our hopes on Ainge "bamboozling" one or more of his fellow GMs.

Tell that to the Cavs, the Rockets, etc.

I think their approach has been fantastic.  Most teams have a view of "we can either sacrifice now so we can be good later, or we try and be good now to sacrifice later". 

The Celtics have decided screw it - why should be suck at all?  Lets be good now AND be good later.

Hard to complain about that. 

The Celtics are the top offense in the east with the 2nd highest point differential and a 7th seed, and many people around the league consider them to be the best (or at least one of the best) positioned teams in the league as far as future potential.

I think that's an incredible position to be in.

The Crimson Stallon barges in to knock some common sense.

Thank you.

Can't believe people think DMC's antics and 'crybaby,' (which I disagree with) attitude really rubs people off so much that they seriously wouldn't take a chance on a guy as talented as this.

So what is the difference between Simmons, Brown, Ingram, and Skal versus DMC? What have they proven? Simmons can pass, and be a monster on the fast break? So? You really think hes going to be that effective against Kawhi Leonard, Paul George, MKG, Tony Allen, etc? You guys really think Brown will dominate and lock down LBJ, PG, Kawhi, Durant? Ingram is going to be the next KD? (I have said this before, so while I may be hypocritical, I still think he could under the right team/coach.)

The draft is such a toss up... There have been historical evidence that top 10 picks usually doesn't mean jack. PG, Kawhi Leonard, Manu, and other set of players have been perfect examples of that...

I wouldn't trade for DMC, unless there was a handshake agreement for him to re-sign, much like Kevin Love did.

And I don't think DMC would turn us down anyways.

[dreamgreen]

Of course they would trade the pick but I'm sure like the rest of us they want a lot for it. The problem is with the cap going up I can't see many teams dumping all-stars right now.

[Big333223]

Just because he says he would trade the pick doesn't mean we're definitely going to. I'm looking forward to listening to the interview in full, but I'll try to take it for what it is and not jump to too many conclusions.

[csfansince60s]

I agree this is a crock. Can you identify a single move that showcased short-sightedness?

I think Csfansince60s covered it on the last page.

So, it was making the playoffs last year that was short-sighted?  Disagree. 

I don't think there was anything Danny could have done to stop that group from making the playoffs.  They were too hungry.  In my book, that bodes well for the future.

I think that the discussion (at least my part of it, and I think Pho's) involved Wyc's  shortsightedness, not Ainge's.

 Wyc and Stevens were definitely on the  same page in pushing real hard for the playoffs. Wyc wanted to keep a fan-base with high expectations happy and the benefits of a couple of sellouts at the Garden at the expense of a significantly higher draft pick, that we could have used for Winslow or Turner as it turned out OR parlayed it with more assets to move up for a bigger prize. That's being impatient and that's being shortsighted.

You're right. There was nothing Ainge could do (aside from creating the imbalanced roster that he did) especially with the owner wanting what he did. Again, Ainge was not the shortsighted one.

And as far as our group of (positionally) misfits  being hungry, you are again right, they were motivated. BUT, luck "helped" (I think "hurt" is more appropriate) us AS MUCH or more than our inspired play in making those costly 4 and out playoffs. Injuries to many other teams' star players, schedule (e.g. us catching the Cavs for TWO meaningless to them games in the last week of the season) and ahost of other things breaking "right" in actuality screwed us.

But hey, Yeah (sarcasm), we got the experience of 4 blankin' games in the playoffs by barely squeaking in because of other teams' misfortunes.

Will we survive this fortune (I say misfortune)? Abso-blankin'-lutely.

Would our rebuild be farther along if we had gotten the better pick? Again, Abso-blankin'-lutely.

[tazzmaniac]

I agree this is a crock. Can you identify a single move that showcased short-sightedness?

I think Csfansince60s covered it on the last page.

So, it was making the playoffs last year that was short-sighted?  Disagree. 

I don't think there was anything Danny could have done to stop that group from making the playoffs.  They were too hungry.  In my book, that bodes well for the future.

I think that the discussion (at least my part of it) involved Wyc's  shortsightedness, not Ainge's.

 Wyc and Stevens were definitely on the  same page in pushing real hard for the playoffs. Wyc wanted to keep a fan-base with high expectations happy and the benefits of a couple of sellouts at the Garden at the expense of a significantly higher draft pick, that we could have used for Winslow or Turner as it turned out OR parlayed it with more assets to move up for a bigger prize. That's being impatient and that's being shortsighted.

You're right. There was nothing Ainge could do (aside from creating the imbalanced roster that he did) especially with the owner wanting what he did. Again, Ainge was not the shortsighted one.

And as far as our group of (positionally) misfits  being hungry, you are again right, they were motivated. BUT, luck "helped" (I think "hurt" is more appropriate) us AS MUCH or more than our inspired play in making those costly 4 and out playoffs. Injuries to many other teams' star players, schedule (e.g. us catching the Cavs for TWO meaningless to them games in the last week of the season) and ahost of other things breaking "right" in actuality screwed us.

But hey, Yeah (sarcasm), we got the experience of 4 blankin' games in the playoffs by barely squeaking in because of other teams' misfortunes.

Will we survive this fortune (I say misfortune)? Abso-blankin'-lutely.

Would our rebuild be farther along if we had gotten the better pick? Again, Abso-blankin'-lutely.

2 or 3 more losses and we would have missed the playoffs.  If Ainge hadn't traded for Thomas, we certainly wouldn't have made the playoffs.  There was no real value gained in holding onto Prince and then trading him for Jerebko and Datome.  If Ainge had just cut Prince immediately that probably would have kept us out of the playoffs. 

[csfansince60s]

I agree with all that you've said, tazz.

IT, though, was too much value considering the small cost to get him and his bargain contract.

Ainge could've also "given" Bass away. Not sure, though how doing that or cutting Prince immediately (he did win them some games) and getting no assets for him would have flown with Wyc who wanted to make the playoffs.

Another tack (not sure I would've done this) would have been to force-feed Young minutes. That would have served the dual purpose of losing us some games and seeing what we have with Young.

[Chris22]

Don't trade the pick.

[GetLucky]

I'm still waiting for fireworks.

[Granath]

Would our rebuild be farther along if we had gotten the better pick? Again, Abso-blankin'-lutely.

Not necessarily.

If the Cs were going to purposely miss the playoffs, they would have had to forgo the IT trade. IT is at $6.5 and $6.2m the next two years. For a guy who is averaging 20 points and 6 assists a game that's a pittance. Personally, I'd think IT is a far more valuable asset than a couple of draft spots. Realistically, what could you get for IT right now? A pick between 10 and 15? Probably. That's a hell of a lot more than moving from 16 to 12.

And let's just say the Cs narrowly miss the playoffs and end up with Indiana's or Utah's pick. Big whoop. Who knows who we draft at that spot? And who knows if those guys will be any better than Rozier? It's not like Booker, Lyles or Turner are knocking it out of the park right now. For all we know, Danny would have STILL drafted Rozier.

Also, who knows what losing does to the mentality of a very young and hungry team? Does failure discourage them? Does Sully end up like Oliver Miller? Does KO work less hard in the off-season? Do the Celtics even get a chance to resign Jae Crowder, who may not want to play for a losing team? There are so many variables at play here it's impossible to say that a slightly better draft pick last year somehow translates into being further along this year. The exact opposite may very well be true.

Personally, the goal in this league is to win. When you have a shot to make the playoffs - especially so with a young, impressionable group of kids - you do it. You give them that taste of success. You show them what playoff basketball is all about. And you hope that taste drives them to elevate their games the next year. It's a different scenario when you have no hope in the first place. But when you do have a chance and you don't make every effort to win, you send the exact wrong message to your team.

[Celtics18]

I agree this is a crock. Can you identify a single move that showcased short-sightedness?

I think Csfansince60s covered it on the last page.

So, it was making the playoffs last year that was short-sighted?  Disagree. 

I don't think there was anything Danny could have done to stop that group from making the playoffs.  They were too hungry.  In my book, that bodes well for the future.

I think that the discussion (at least my part of it, and I think Pho's) involved Wyc's  shortsightedness, not Ainge's.

 Wyc and Stevens were definitely on the  same page in pushing real hard for the playoffs. Wyc wanted to keep a fan-base with high expectations happy and the benefits of a couple of sellouts at the Garden at the expense of a significantly higher draft pick, that we could have used for Winslow or Turner as it turned out OR parlayed it with more assets to move up for a bigger prize. That's being impatient and that's being shortsighted.

You're right. There was nothing Ainge could do (aside from creating the imbalanced roster that he did) especially with the owner wanting what he did. Again, Ainge was not the shortsighted one.

And as far as our group of (positionally) misfits  being hungry, you are again right, they were motivated. BUT, luck "helped" (I think "hurt" is more appropriate) us AS MUCH or more than our inspired play in making those costly 4 and out playoffs. Injuries to many other teams' star players, schedule (e.g. us catching the Cavs for TWO meaningless to them games in the last week of the season) and ahost of other things breaking "right" in actuality screwed us.

But hey, Yeah (sarcasm), we got the experience of 4 blankin' games in the playoffs by barely squeaking in because of other teams' misfortunes.

Will we survive this fortune (I say misfortune)? Abso-blankin'-lutely.

Would our rebuild be farther along if we had gotten the better pick? Again, Abso-blankin'-lutely.

That is abso-blankin'-lutely not an absolute.  Myles Blankin Turner? Justise Blankin Winslow?  Please.  I'm not convinced that either is the guy who was the going to be our franchise saviour.  I'll take my chances with RJ Hunter and Terry Rozier. 

As you say, Ainge did his best.  What did you want to do?  Throw a couple?  "You're playing too hard, guys.  Back it off a little.  We need some losses."  You can't do that.  It's completely against all ethics of sports. 

I'm glad this team plays to win, in spite of a large segment of the fan base that all too often has been rooting for them to do the opposite.  Just my opinion.