Could we be a lottery team?

[TheSundanceKid]

I think we can go .500 the rest of the way. I expect Crowder to be back for the end stretch that will decide seeding (Miami, Charlotte, Atlanta last 3 games).

We probably lose tonight, but I expect things to start to turn around when we play Philly this weekend.

That's a nice finish for us! All 3 are winnable and it would be a nice message to send just before the playoffs start!

[SparzWizard]

#TankNation returns!! 

[hwangjini_1]

No IT and Crowder = lottery

well, when you take away the two best players from any team, chances are the team won't fare all that well. 

[Celtics18]

This year, if the team has a similar finish to things (i.e. out in 4-5 games in the first round), while players from the 2014 and 2015 drafts (1/3 of the roster) combine for less than 12% of the team's total minutes played, that would be frustrating to me.

I agree that if we were to lose in a sweep (or near sweep) in the first round, that would be frustrating. 

As to the other part of your complaint, I feel like ideally you would want your end of the bench guys to be first or second year late draft picks.  If you can develop them into long-term useful players, awesome job!!  If not, you can replace them without too much lost.  Nobody's going to cry too much if your seventeenth or twenty-seventh pick doesn't pan out.

I mean, it beats having veterans who cost more and have no upside on the end of your bench.

[PhoSita]

This year, if the team has a similar finish to things (i.e. out in 4-5 games in the first round), while players from the 2014 and 2015 drafts (1/3 of the roster) combine for less than 12% of the team's total minutes played, that would be frustrating to me.

I agree that if we were to lose in a sweep (or near sweep) in the first round, that would be frustrating. 

As to the other part of your complaint, I feel like ideally you would want your end of the bench guys to be first or second year late draft picks.  If you can develop them into long-term useful players, awesome job!!  If not, you can replace them without too much lost.  Nobody's going to cry too much if your seventeenth or twenty-seventh pick doesn't pan out.

I mean, it beats having veterans who cost more and have no upside on the end of your bench.

I guess my feeling is, unless you've got a mandate to win in the short term because of the age of your core players, or because you've got a shot at a title, I don't see the point in drafting guys only to sit their butts on the bench all year long. 

Draft picks have a lot of value as trade pieces, and they have a lot of value when they provide cheap rotation talent.  When you use a draft pick on a guy and then park him on your bench, you're just wasting a roster spot.  You're not developing the player and you're not getting any depth in the case of injuries (e.g. Crowder's out and now Smart is our starting SF).


You're right that some draft picks just aren't rotation-caliber NBA players, at least not during the life of their rookie contract.  There's value in finding out whether or not a guy you draft can play, and the Celts haven't really done that this year either.  Some guys are too young and raw when drafted to have a real chance at contributing their first couple of years.  That's fine.  Ainge drafted three 21 year olds last year, though, and none of them has really played this year.

[Celtics18]

This year, if the team has a similar finish to things (i.e. out in 4-5 games in the first round), while players from the 2014 and 2015 drafts (1/3 of the roster) combine for less than 12% of the team's total minutes played, that would be frustrating to me.

I agree that if we were to lose in a sweep (or near sweep) in the first round, that would be frustrating. 

As to the other part of your complaint, I feel like ideally you would want your end of the bench guys to be first or second year late draft picks.  If you can develop them into long-term useful players, awesome job!!  If not, you can replace them without too much lost.  Nobody's going to cry too much if your seventeenth or twenty-seventh pick doesn't pan out.

I mean, it beats having veterans who cost more and have no upside on the end of your bench.

I guess my feeling is, unless you've got a mandate to win in the short term because of the age of your core players, or because you've got a shot at a title, I don't see the point in drafting guys only to sit their butts on the bench all year long. 

Draft picks have a lot of value as trade pieces, and they have a lot of value when they provide cheap rotation talent.  When you use a draft pick on a guy and then park him on your bench, you're just wasting a roster spot.  You're not developing the player and you're not getting any depth in the case of injuries (e.g. Crowder's out and now Smart is our starting SF).


You're right that some draft picks just aren't rotation-caliber NBA players, at least not during the life of their rookie contract.  There's value in finding out whether or not a guy you draft can play, and the Celts haven't really done that this year either.  Some guys are too young and raw when drafted to have a real chance at contributing their first couple of years.  That's fine.  Ainge drafted three 21 year olds last year, though, and none of them has really played this year.

I think where we differ most sharply on this issue is that you seem to believe young players can't develop unless they are playing regular, significant NBA minutes.  I happen to think these guys are developing plenty in practice, in the d-league, in workouts.  Their job is to develop.  Development is happening.  Unfortunately, we don't get to see most of it as fans.

[PhoSita]

I think where we differ most sharply on this issue is that you seem to believe young players can't develop unless they are playing regular, significant NBA minutes.  I happen to think these guys are developing plenty in practice, in the d-league, in workouts.  Their job is to develop.  Development is happening.  Unfortunately, we don't get to see most of it as fans.

Yeah, that's where we differ.  I think it's a Schrodinger's cat thing and we just can't know what we have until these guys play real, substantial NBA minutes. 

I'm sure playing in practice and the D-League helps guys, especially really young ones.  But when we're talking about 21 year old rookies who spent 2-3+ years in college, I think they ought to have some NBA level skills to justify drafting them in the first place, so now it's a matter of giving them the chance to learn how to settle into a role at the NBA level that showcases those skills.   

[Celtics18]

I think where we differ most sharply on this issue is that you seem to believe young players can't develop unless they are playing regular, significant NBA minutes.  I happen to think these guys are developing plenty in practice, in the d-league, in workouts.  Their job is to develop.  Development is happening.  Unfortunately, we don't get to see most of it as fans.

Yeah, that's where we differ.  I think it's a Schrodinger's cat thing and we just can't know what we have until these guys play real, substantial NBA minutes. 

I'm sure playing in practice and the D-League helps guys, especially really young ones.  But when we're talking about 21 year old rookies who spent 2-3+ years in college, I think they ought to have some NBA level skills to justify drafting them in the first place, so now it's a matter of giving them the chance to learn how to settle into a role at the NBA level that showcases those skills.

They may have some NBA transferable skills already.  Unfortunately, there's no room to show them currently in NBA games.

Again, an NBA rotation is typically nine to eleven guys.  An NBA roster is fifteen guys.  The math is pretty simple.  Somebody is going to end up comprising the end of the bench. 

I think it makes sense for those end of the bench guys to be lower pick rookies and sophomores who are still learning the pro game.

[greece66]

No, come on...

We lost three games to teams with better rosters and some fans are like the sky is falling upon us

[PhoSita]

Again, an NBA rotation is typically nine to eleven guys.  An NBA roster is fifteen guys.  The math is pretty simple.  Somebody is going to end up comprising the end of the bench. 

Right, and I'd prefer the guys in those slots to provide strategic depth (i.e. they can actually play when needed), or be younger draftees with higher upside.

[Celtics18]

Again, an NBA rotation is typically nine to eleven guys.  An NBA roster is fifteen guys.  The math is pretty simple.  Somebody is going to end up comprising the end of the bench. 

Right, and I'd prefer the guys in those slots to provide strategic depth (i.e. they can actually play when needed), or be younger draftees with higher upside.

I would say that our rookies still have plenty of upside.  Despite the almost pathological obsession with youth, I think it's very, very rare that you'll find a basketball player that is a finished product at twenty-one.  Those who are done improving at that age probably aren't worth keeping.

I'm hoping that at least one or two of Rozier, Hunter and Mickey will prove to be keepers who will play valuable minutes as Celtics within the next couple of years.  I don't think that's a far-fetched wish.

[Tr1boy]

With Crowder out and Smart at the three, it's possible.

god I hope that.  What a disaster that would be

Crowder comeback soon. 

CBS free Mickey!

[Lucky17]

With Crowder out and Smart at the three, it's possible.

god I hope that.  What a disaster that would be

Crowder comeback soon. 

CBS free Mickey!

Strange. A week ago, we were a lock for 50 wins and a 3 seed. Why all the naysaying?

[SHAQATTACK]

No IT and Crowder = lottery

well, when you take away the two best players from any team, chances are the team won't fare all that well. 

Whut I pointing out ......we are only IT going down from being really bad.

I think the Cavs are the most dramatically LOST team without LeBron .......even with Irving and Love ....they have no plan on how to play REAL team basketball.   

[PhoSita]

Again, an NBA rotation is typically nine to eleven guys.  An NBA roster is fifteen guys.  The math is pretty simple.  Somebody is going to end up comprising the end of the bench. 

Right, and I'd prefer the guys in those slots to provide strategic depth (i.e. they can actually play when needed), or be younger draftees with higher upside.

I would say that our rookies still have plenty of upside.  Despite the almost pathological obsession with youth, I think it's very, very rare that you'll find a basketball player that is a finished product at twenty-one.  Those who are done improving at that age probably aren't worth keeping.

I'm hoping that at least one or two of Rozier, Hunter and Mickey will prove to be keepers who will play valuable minutes as Celtics within the next couple of years.  I don't think that's a far-fetched wish.

I'm still hopeful about that, too ... which is why I wanted the three you mentioned to actually get some time this year.

Kinda late now.  The Celts are fighting to maintain a decent playoff seeding now.  The time to experiment and integrate was earlier in the year, when we were trying to make David Lee happen.