More experience not more players

[NHHillbilly]

Blakely wrote an article after the Spurs game that "Blakely: Celtics need more experience to beat Spurs".  It seems that on forums like this, people are quick to jump to trade options and various risky ways to get a start (wait for a trade, target a disgruntled star like cousins, tank to get to the draft lottery).  But really, I think that there is no quick fix for this roster and Danny Ainge is doing things the right way:  pick and sign good players with high character, develop them in a winning culture, and don't take shortcuts. 
In the Brad Steven's interview with the Blakely article, Stevens mentioned that the Spurs bench players that killed them were West and Diaw and that both of these guys are starter quality players with experience.
Celtics should stay the course and not have a flurry of trades for the right now.   This makes for a more boring discussion board, but for a better team long run.
Stevens also said:   "if we play well, we have a chance to win."  The Spurs game was like that.  The Celtics are not good enough to say "if we play well, we will win".  But there are plenty of teams that have to say, "if we play well, so what, we still can't win." 

I do agree that we eventually need a star:  a Cowens, a Bird, a Russell, a Havlicek, a Pierce, a Garnett (or even a healthy Reggie Lewis).  But this star will eventually come by draft usually, but can also be by trade (Garnett) or development (Havlicek wasn't rookie of the year in 1962, some guy named Terry Dischinger picked at #8 right behind him was, so I think of Havlicek as a franchise star who developed).

[Future Celtics Owner]

I could not disagree more with you. We neeed to lose and trade our best players aka AB IT and then Sully etc.

We need a star. Then we need another star. And if CBS is good enough we wont need another.

[Granath]

I could not disagree more with you. We neeed to lose and trade our best players aka AB IT and then Sully etc.

We need a star. Then we need another star. And if CBS is good enough we wont need another.

Losing is for losers. Advocating losing is something done by losers.

The OP is right. While we still need that go-to guy, what much of the team needs is simply time. There's a reason young teams don't win NBA Championships and the Cs are still a very young group. They're learning how to win over the last year and doing a better job of it all the time. Given time, they'll continue to develop that skill and then the Cs will be the perfect landing spot when they do acquire that star.

[Csfan1984]

I could not disagree more with you. We neeed to lose and trade our best players aka AB IT and then Sully etc.

We need a star. Then we need another star. And if CBS is good enough we wont need another.

Losing is for losers. Advocating losing is something done by losers.

The OP is right. While we still need that go-to guy, what much of the team needs is simply time. There's a reason young teams don't win NBA Championships and the Cs are still a very young group. They're learning how to win over the last year and doing a better job of it all the time. Given time, they'll continue to develop that skill and then the Cs will be the perfect landing spot when they do acquire that star.

That can't be any more wrong. Losing for draft picks isn't wrong, its the system unfortunately. Cavs, Warriors and Spurs in large part all owe their success to tank jobs. That is the facts. Sooner C's get over it the sooner they get their stars. And let's not forget the one tank year so far got team Smart and a plethora of what looks to be good Nets picks. Tanking got this team more than making the playoffs last year.

[guava_wrench]

Blakely wrote an article after the Spurs game that "Blakely: Celtics need more experience to beat Spurs".  It seems that on forums like this, people are quick to jump to trade options and various risky ways to get a start (wait for a trade, target a disgruntled star like cousins, tank to get to the draft lottery).  But really, I think that there is no quick fix for this roster and Danny Ainge is doing things the right way:  pick and sign good players with high character, develop them in a winning culture, and don't take shortcuts. 
In the Brad Steven's interview with the Blakely article, Stevens mentioned that the Spurs bench players that killed them were West and Diaw and that both of these guys are starter quality players with experience.
Celtics should stay the course and not have a flurry of trades for the right now.   This makes for a more boring discussion board, but for a better team long run.
Stevens also said:   "if we play well, we have a chance to win."  The Spurs game was like that.  The Celtics are not good enough to say "if we play well, we will win".  But there are plenty of teams that have to say, "if we play well, so what, we still can't win." 

I do agree that we eventually need a star:  a Cowens, a Bird, a Russell, a Havlicek, a Pierce, a Garnett (or even a healthy Reggie Lewis).  But this star will eventually come by draft usually, but can also be by trade (Garnett) or development (Havlicek wasn't rookie of the year in 1962, some guy named Terry Dischinger picked at #8 right behind him was, so I think of Havlicek as a franchise star who developed).

Blakely is just talking tired cliches. Teams like the Celtics don't become great through experience. They plateau at mediocre. I love the team, but that's because I am a fan and I like their effort.

West is a former all star because of skill. Diaw has has a high bball IQ from day one in the NBA, though he lost his athleticism over the years.

What is silly about Blakely's statement is that those 2 guys are in physical decline. So is Blakely saying we will be better when our players are over the hill 30 somethings? More cliche sports journalism.

[PhoSita]

The Spurs have Kawhi and Leonard as the star core of a team buttressed by older players who were once stars.

If you want to talk about what separates the Celts from the Spurs, start there.

[Granath]

That can't be any more wrong. Losing for draft picks isn't wrong, its the system unfortunately. Cavs, Warriors and Spurs in large part all owe their success to tank jobs. That is the facts. Sooner C's get over it the sooner they get their stars. And let's not forget the one tank year so far got team Smart and a plethora of what looks to be good Nets picks. Tanking got this team more than making the playoffs last year.

Actually, it could be more wrong. It could be your post above. I think you managed to make every single sentence in that entire paragraph incorrect. That takes serious talent.

You seem to confuse tanking with losing. Those are two different things. The Warriors never tanked. They just weren't very good. They never had a pick better than the 7th overall selection during their latest rebuild. The Spurs didn't tank to get Duncan. The evidence shows that they were a bad team (http://www.boxscoregeeks.com/articles/the-myth-of-the-tanking-spurs) with David Robinson gone for the year. The Cavs simply rebuilt after losing the best player in the NBA and then got lucky in the lottery. Again, there's no proof of overt tanking, just a normal rebuild.

You seem to not understand what tanking is. You confuse it with losing. Tanking is making a concerted, intentional effort to not win in order to improve the draft position. None of the 3 teams above did that (or if they did it was for the last game or two of the season).

Nor did the Celtics the year the year they got Marcus Smart. Had they tanked, they wouldn't have won their 79th and 80th games which put them in a worse lottery position. Like all the others, they simply weren't very good. Why did they trade KG and PP? Because they knew that window had closed with Rondo's ACL injury and decided to rebuild. That's a far cry from tanking.

What the Cs did with ML Carr? That's tanking. What Philly is doing now? That's tanking. Learn the difference.

As far as this team goes, there's far too much young talent and the team is far too deep to tank. Brad would never go for it nor would the players. You might opt to tank when you have serious injuries or no hope of winning whatsoever with an aging team. That's when it might be appropriate. But it's obvious that Danny abhors tanking and that ship has long sailed. So beating the drum for it pretty [dang] idiotic because it's not even remotely possible unless half the team goes down with injuries.

[Csfan1984]

That can't be any more wrong. Losing for draft picks isn't wrong, its the system unfortunately. Cavs, Warriors and Spurs in large part all owe their success to tank jobs. That is the facts. Sooner C's get over it the sooner they get their stars. And let's not forget the one tank year so far got team Smart and a plethora of what looks to be good Nets picks. Tanking got this team more than making the playoffs last year.

Actually, it could be more wrong. It could be your post above. I think you managed to make every single sentence in that entire paragraph incorrect. That takes serious talent.

You seem to confuse tanking with losing. Those are two different things. The Warriors never tanked. They just weren't very good. They never had a pick better than the 7th overall selection during their latest rebuild. The Spurs didn't tank to get Duncan. The evidence shows that they were a bad team (http://www.boxscoregeeks.com/articles/the-myth-of-the-tanking-spurs) with David Robinson gone for the year. The Cavs simply rebuilt after losing the best player in the NBA and then got lucky in the lottery. Again, there's no proof of overt tanking, just a normal rebuild.

You seem to not understand what tanking is. You confuse it with losing. Tanking is making a concerted, intentional effort to not win in order to improve the draft position. None of the 3 teams above did that (or if they did it was for the last game or two of the season).

Nor did the Celtics the year the year they got Marcus Smart. Had they tanked, they wouldn't have won their 79th and 80th games which put them in a worse lottery position. Like all the others, they simply weren't very good. Why did they trade KG and PP? Because they knew that window had closed with Rondo's ACL injury and decided to rebuild. That's a far cry from tanking.

What the Cs did with ML Carr? That's tanking. What Philly is doing now? That's tanking. Learn the difference.

As far as this team goes, there's far too much young talent and the team is far too deep to tank. Brad would never go for it nor would the players. You might opt to tank when you have serious injuries or no hope of winning whatsoever with an aging team. That's when it might be appropriate. But it's obvious that Danny abhors tanking and that ship has long sailed. So beating the drum for it pretty [dang] idiotic because it's not even remotely possible unless half the team goes down with injuries.

No that takes a lot of talent. David Robinson was healthy and could of played everyone knows this but they wanted in the Duncan sweeps. Same as when Pierce sat for the Oden and KD sweeps. Warriors tanked for Barnes and Klay everyone knows that. Cavs tanked by shutting down players three out of four years. Those are facts. What you wrote is the lie teams spew.

Oh and year Pierce sat tanked resulted in a less then hopefully pick which was flipped for Ray Allen which convinced KG to come here. So tank has worked even for the C's. More facts

[Granath]

No that takes a lot of talent. David Robinson was healthy and could of played everyone knows this but they wanted in the Duncan sweeps. Same as when Pierce sat for the Oden and KD sweeps. Warriors tanked for Barnes and Klay everyone knows that. Cavs tanked by shutting down players three out of four years. Those are facts. What you wrote is the lie teams spew.

Son, you also have an interesting definition of "facts". Here's a hint - you're entitled to your own opinion. You're not entitled to your own facts.

Start by reading the link that was provided and go from there. That will educate you on the Spurs getting Tim Duncan. Because if they meant to tank, they did a pretty awful job of it. Tell me David Robinson was healthy with a broken foot. Was Sean Elliott faking injuries that year too - he must have gotten so good at it he faked them for the rest of his career too!!! As far as Pierce sitting in 2006, you realize he had a stress fracture in his foot, right? All the way back in December? And that he came back in March (how's that for a tanking strategy?) before re-injuring it? (see, those are facts - see the difference?).

Seriously, do you even believe the stuff you write? That the Warriors "tanked" to get the 11th pick in the draft?   

So tell us this glorious tanking strategy. How exactly should the Celtics tank this year? I'm all ears...

[CelticSince83]

That can't be any more wrong. Losing for draft picks isn't wrong, its the system unfortunately. Cavs, Warriors and Spurs in large part all owe their success to tank jobs. That is the facts. Sooner C's get over it the sooner they get their stars. And let's not forget the one tank year so far got team Smart and a plethora of what looks to be good Nets picks. Tanking got this team more than making the playoffs last year.

Actually, it could be more wrong. It could be your post above. I think you managed to make every single sentence in that entire paragraph incorrect. That takes serious talent.

You seem to confuse tanking with losing. Those are two different things. The Warriors never tanked. They just weren't very good. They never had a pick better than the 7th overall selection during their latest rebuild. The Spurs didn't tank to get Duncan. The evidence shows that they were a bad team (http://www.boxscoregeeks.com/articles/the-myth-of-the-tanking-spurs) with David Robinson gone for the year. The Cavs simply rebuilt after losing the best player in the NBA and then got lucky in the lottery. Again, there's no proof of overt tanking, just a normal rebuild.

You seem to not understand what tanking is. You confuse it with losing. Tanking is making a concerted, intentional effort to not win in order to improve the draft position. None of the 3 teams above did that (or if they did it was for the last game or two of the season).

Nor did the Celtics the year the year they got Marcus Smart. Had they tanked, they wouldn't have won their 79th and 80th games which put them in a worse lottery position. Like all the others, they simply weren't very good. Why did they trade KG and PP? Because they knew that window had closed with Rondo's ACL injury and decided to rebuild. That's a far cry from tanking.

What the Cs did with ML Carr? That's tanking. What Philly is doing now? That's tanking. Learn the difference.

As far as this team goes, there's far too much young talent and the team is far too deep to tank. Brad would never go for it nor would the players. You might opt to tank when you have serious injuries or no hope of winning whatsoever with an aging team. That's when it might be appropriate. But it's obvious that Danny abhors tanking and that ship has long sailed. So beating the drum for it pretty [dang] idiotic because it's not even remotely possible unless half the team goes down with injuries.

No that takes a lot of talent. David Robinson was healthy and could of played everyone knows this but they wanted in the Duncan sweeps. Same as when Pierce sat for the Oden and KD sweeps. Warriors tanked for Barnes and Klay everyone knows that. Cavs tanked by shutting down players three out of four years. Those are facts. What you wrote is the lie teams spew.

Oh and year Pierce sat tanked resulted in a less then hopefully pick which was flipped for Ray Allen which convinced KG to come here. So tank has worked even for the C's. More facts

Tanked for Klay Thompson, the 11th pick in an awful draft?  Pretty sure they just sucked and hit in the late lottery on an All Star. 

[Csfan1984]

No that takes a lot of talent. David Robinson was healthy and could of played everyone knows this but they wanted in the Duncan sweeps. Same as when Pierce sat for the Oden and KD sweeps. Warriors tanked for Barnes and Klay everyone knows that. Cavs tanked by shutting down players three out of four years. Those are facts. What you wrote is the lie teams spew.

Son, you also have an interesting definition of "facts". Here's a hint - you're entitled to your own opinion. You're not entitled to your own facts.

Start by reading the link that was provided and go from there. That will educate you on the Spurs getting Tim Duncan. Because if they meant to tank, they did a pretty awful job of it. Tell me David Robinson was healthy with a broken foot. Was Sean Elliott faking injuries that year too - he must have gotten so good at it he faked them for the rest of his career too!!! As far as Pierce sitting in 2006, you realize he had a stress fracture in his foot, right? All the way back in December? And that he came back in March (how's that for a tanking strategy?) before re-injuring it? (see, those are facts - see the difference?).

Seriously, do you even believe the stuff you write? That the Warriors "tanked" to get the 11th pick in the draft?   

So tell us this glorious tanking strategy. How exactly should the Celtics tank this year? I'm all ears...

People have laughed at the Spurs anti tank rebuttal from their fans a long time now. Have you seen David Robinson or Elliott or any spurs players' expression when they talk about that tank year. It's a big coup for them and it shows. Don't spread those team lies. And every gm knows you can strategically tank a few games when you are out of it for draft position as C's should have done last year. You don't have to tank a full season to tank. You can give up a few games for better picks. Not opinion facts.

[Granath]

People have laughed at the Spurs anti tank rebuttal from their fans a long time now. Have you seen David Robinson or Elliott or any spurs players' expression when they talk about that tank year. It's a big coup for them and it shows. Don't spread those team lies. And every gm knows you can strategically tank a few games when you are out of it for draft position as C's should have done last year. You don't have to tank a full season to tank. You can give up a few games for better picks. Not opinion facts.

Actually, why don't you go interview David Robinson about that year? Because I've seen interviews and he says he was hurt. I tend to believe David Robinson over you. As far as Elliott somehow faking his injury and playing in only 39 games that year, tell me why that continued for the rest of his career (his last 5 years he played in 39, 36, 50, 19 and 52 games)?

Not to mention you've already been proven factually wrong in a number of your other examples - i.e., the Cs getting Marcus Smart, Klay Thompson, Pierce in 2006, etc. You keep pulling stuff out of your butt and it keeps coming right back at ya.

Do teams occasionally lose the last couple games to get a better pick? No one is debating that. But tanking has nothing to do with where the Cs are now and it's not a strategy they can currently employ. Which is exactly my response to Future Celtics Owner's comment that "we need to lose and trade our best players aka AB IT and then Sully etc." and that you're currently defending.

But since you're such a fan of losing, we're all still waiting to hear your glorious Celtics tanking strategy. Come on, out with it.

[Csfan1984]

You tell me how a 55, 62, 59 win previous seasons and multiple division winner can't win more than 20 games with 85% of the same roster. It's called tanking they should won at least 40 games. On top of that Robinson should of also played a lot more than 6 games. It's a joke to argue against the fact the Spurs tanked.

[Granath]

You tell me how a 55, 62, 59 win previous seasons and multiple division winner can't win more than 20 games with 85% of the same roster. It's called tanking they should won at least 40 games. On top of that Robinson should of also played a lot more than 6 games. It's a joke to argue against the fact the Spurs tanked.

Keep humping that chicken.

We're waiting.

[Csfan1984]

Tank strategy is easy. You keep trying to build value and then you cash in any decent offer at deadline. You make no one unavailable. Everyone on the block. Not a firesale just a a blackfriday one. If you don't get decent offers then you just don't trade and thus don't tank. You can't give guys away for free but you can't hold onto guys for king's ransom either.