How would you feel about the team if we had no Brooklyn picks

[mkogav]

Imagine for a moment that all the Brooklyn picks vanished.  How would you feel about the state of the Celtics?

At first glance, the Celtics are essentially the definition of a "treadmill" team right now.  40-50 wins each season.  Two straight playoff appearances resulting in First Round beat-downs.  Always drafting in the mid 1st and hoping for a miracle.  There would be a pretty vocal group saying Boston should tear it down and tank.

But personally, I'd still be pretty enthusiastic.  It's a young team with some interesting pieces like Bradley and Crowder.  Thomas is a borderline star who is fun to watch.   We have lots of young players and two first rounders this year (#16 and #23)... Three if you include #31.  Plus a whole host of 2nd rounders.  While we failed to trade up last season, there's potential there to move up a few spots if necessary if Danny targets a gem.   We're also still in the hunt to acquire a decent upgrade if we are able to combine #16 + #23 + #31 with either Crowder or Bradley.   

Not to mention, despite having two fairly disappointing seasons, Marcus Smart remains an intriguing young prospect that you might be able to combine with the first rounders to land one of Philly's expendable bigs like Noel or Okafor. 

Lastly, Boston still has double max cap space this Summer and that gives us hope.  Even if we end up going hard after someone like Dwight Howard, there's potential to upgrade this 40-48 win team.  It's a quality team with great coaching and exceptional management... having significant cap space for the first time in our history is something to be pumped about. 

Without the Brooklyn picks, I'd still be pretty excited about this offseason.  There's reason for enthusiasm.  And because of that, I'm not going to lose sleep if the pick ends up 6th tomorrow.  Just by having Thomas, we already won the KG/Pierce trade.  We're playing with house money when it comes to the Brooklyn picks.  Even if it lands 6th, it's just a bonus on a situation that is already pretty encouraging.

I am 100% the opposite. Without the Brooklyn picks, there is not clear path to contention. Please don't anyone throw out landing Durant or any other big time FA. It's not happening. Neither is the trading for an NBA star (Cousins, Butler, etc...).

The best we could hope for is a second/third tier FA like D12, which would bump the Cs up to the #2 slot in the East. The overall team would still be below the true contenders, CLE, OKC, and GS. Think ATL.

The Cs would have to awful lucky with their teen/low 20s picks and land a Giannis or Gobert to changes things.

Mk

[Who]

Bad = lack of high quality trade assets. Lack of high quality talent or prospects. Overly dependent on free agency without any star player here to draw top FAs here. So I would feel bad about the direction of the team. No clear path forward. High likelihood of treadmill status.

[LarBrd33]

Imagine for a moment that all the Brooklyn picks vanished.  How would you feel about the state of the Celtics?

At first glance, the Celtics are essentially the definition of a "treadmill" team right now.  40-50 wins each season.  Two straight playoff appearances resulting in First Round beat-downs.  Always drafting in the mid 1st and hoping for a miracle.  There would be a pretty vocal group saying Boston should tear it down and tank.

But personally, I'd still be pretty enthusiastic.  It's a young team with some interesting pieces like Bradley and Crowder.  Thomas is a borderline star who is fun to watch.   We have lots of young players and two first rounders this year (#16 and #23)... Three if you include #31.  Plus a whole host of 2nd rounders.  While we failed to trade up last season, there's potential there to move up a few spots if necessary if Danny targets a gem.   We're also still in the hunt to acquire a decent upgrade if we are able to combine #16 + #23 + #31 with either Crowder or Bradley.   

Not to mention, despite having two fairly disappointing seasons, Marcus Smart remains an intriguing young prospect that you might be able to combine with the first rounders to land one of Philly's expendable bigs like Noel or Okafor. 

Lastly, Boston still has double max cap space this Summer and that gives us hope.  Even if we end up going hard after someone like Dwight Howard, there's potential to upgrade this 40-48 win team.  It's a quality team with great coaching and exceptional management... having significant cap space for the first time in our history is something to be pumped about. 

Without the Brooklyn picks, I'd still be pretty excited about this offseason.  There's reason for enthusiasm.  And because of that, I'm not going to lose sleep if the pick ends up 6th tomorrow.  Just by having Thomas, we already won the KG/Pierce trade.  We're playing with house money when it comes to the Brooklyn picks.  Even if it lands 6th, it's just a bonus on a situation that is already pretty encouraging.

I am 100% the opposite. Without the Brooklyn picks, there is not clear path to contention. Please don't anyone throw out landing Durant or any other big time FA. It's not happening. Neither is the trading for an NBA star (Cousins, Butler, etc...).

The best we could hope for is a second/third tier FA like D12, which would bump the Cs up to the #2 slot in the East. The overall team would still be below the true contenders, CLE, OKC, and GS. Think ATL.

The Cs would have to awful lucky with their teen/low 20s picks and land a Giannis or Gobert to changes things.

Mk

I understand that viewpoint, but I really don't understand why a nearly 50 win team with a strong foundation, massive sports market, excellent coaching and phenomenal management, can't be a player in free agency with double max cap space.

Most here outright reject bostons potential in free agency, because they have never signed significant free agents in the past.  But as its been said numerous times, the Celtics never had cap space.  It's like saying, "All the Avengers movies failed to make money before Iron-Man came out in 2008"... Given that that was the first one they made, it makes sense. 

Fwiw, we had some cap space last summer for the first time ever of the modern era and used that money to sign a starting-caliber big man to a 1-year 12 million dollar contract.  It was a holdover move with a bigger picture in mind (potential trades), but the signing of Amir Johnson kind of already dispels the idea that Boston can't sign free agents.

Yeah, we might not land a superstar via free agency, but with 50 mil in cap space, we are absolutely in play to sign all-star level talent and we would absolutely be a player in free agency regardless of those Brooklyn picks.  Just because you haven't seen it happen before doesn't mean it's unlikely.  It was only unlikely because Boston never had cap space.  So you're looking at a team that matched the Celtics best output from 1993-2007 and now has double max cap space.   Back when Walker/Pierce won 49 games, things would have been different had they 50 million to fill out the roster.

Obviously, I'm thrilled we are adding the #6 pick + future Brooklyn picks to the mix.  No question.  I'm just saying that even if you took those picks out of the equation, there's plenty of reason for optimism here.   I'm hoping for the best in the lotto, but ultimately it's house money at this point. Even the 6th pick is gold. 

[Donoghus]

I'd feel a good amount worse.  The concern that the team was heading towards a plateau or becoming a "treadmill team" would be much greater & real. 

[LarBrd33]

I'd feel a good amount worse.  The concern that the team was heading towards a plateau or becoming a "treadmill team" would be much greater & real.

So are you guys telling me that without the Brooklyn picks, you'd have wanted Boston to tank this past season ?   You'd be unsatisified with tying for 3rd seed in the East and potentially adding 50 million dollars worth of talent to a team that already is loaded with youth, has multiple picks (16, 23, 31, 35, etc) and sent one player to the allstar game?

IMO, Boston remains a potent trade partner and major free agent designation without any of the Brooklyn picks.  The fact we have them is just a bonus.

[Donoghus]

I'd feel a good amount worse.  The concern that the team was heading towards a plateau or becoming a "treadmill team" would be much greater & real.

So are you guys telling me that without the Brooklyn picks, you'd have wanted Boston to tank this past season ?   You'd be unsatisified with tying for 3rd seed in the East and potentially adding 50 million dollars worth of talent to a team that already is loaded with youth, has multiple picks (16, 23, 31, 35, etc) and sent one player to the allstar game?

Where the hell did I say that?

[mkogav]

I understand that viewpoint, but I really don't understand why a nearly 50 win team with a strong foundation, massive sports market, excellent coaching and phenomenal management, can't be a player in free agency with double max cap space.

Most here outright reject bostons potential in free agency, because they have never signed significant free agents in the past.  But as its been said numerous times, the Celtics never had cap space.  It's like saying, "All the Avengers movies failed to make money before Iron-Man came out in 2008"... Given that that was the first one they made, it makes sense. 

I understand your point. The Red Sox had the same sigma until Dan Duquette signed Manny Ramirez way back in 2000.

Let me clarify my point. Tier 1 FAs who leave their teams are rare. It just doesn't happen very often. This offseason there are two such FAs, Durant and LBJ. Durant isn't coming to BOS b/c he's not leaving OKC and LBJ isn't leaving CLE.

I believe BOS can sign a tier 2 or 3 FA. If Danny ponies up $120m/4 years for DeRozen/Horford/Whiteside/etc... BOS has a shot.

Do any of these players make BOS a legit contender?

Nope.

Mk

[LarBrd33]

I'd feel a good amount worse.  The concern that the team was heading towards a plateau or becoming a "treadmill team" would be much greater & real.

So are you guys telling me that without the Brooklyn picks, you'd have wanted Boston to tank this past season ?   You'd be unsatisified with tying for 3rd seed in the East and potentially adding 50 million dollars worth of talent to a team that already is loaded with youth, has multiple picks (16, 23, 31, 35, etc) and sent one player to the allstar game?

Where the hell did I say that?

You didn't explicitly say it.  But if folks would feel bad about a non-Brooklyn picky team that is in the midst of being in a treadmill situation, it sort of connotates that the team would be better off tanking for high draft picks.

We know that's silly though.  Even in a potential treadmill situation, Boston would still have trade assets like #16, #23, #31, #35, all their future 1sts, the future Memphis pick, Marcus Smart, and a host of recently selected youth in the 1st round (Rozier, Mickey, young, Hunter) to trade for a star + 50 million dollars in cap space to sign talent with. 

Compare that to the treadmill Celtics of the early 00s.  No quality youth outside of Walker/Pierce.  Limited draft picks.  No cap space.  It's only a treadmill situation if there's no path to improvement.  And even without that path, Ainge turned it into a champion within 3-5 years. 

Even without the Brooklyn picks, we'd be in arguably better position than the team had been prior to KG.  It would be hard to be down on a team that tied for 3rd, had tons of trade assets, and massive space to sign impact talent. 

Overall point is, I'm not going to lose sleep over the pick ending up 6th tonight.  Whatever.  We don't even need that pick to make upgrades. 

[LarBrd33]

I understand that viewpoint, but I really don't understand why a nearly 50 win team with a strong foundation, massive sports market, excellent coaching and phenomenal management, can't be a player in free agency with double max cap space.

Most here outright reject bostons potential in free agency, because they have never signed significant free agents in the past.  But as its been said numerous times, the Celtics never had cap space.  It's like saying, "All the Avengers movies failed to make money before Iron-Man came out in 2008"... Given that that was the first one they made, it makes sense. 

I understand your point. The Red Sox had the same sigma until Dan Duquette signed Manny Ramirez way back in 2000.

Let me clarify my point. Tier 1 FAs who leave their teams are rare. It just doesn't happen very often. This offseason there are two such FAs, Durant and LBJ. Durant isn't coming to BOS b/c he's not leaving OKC and LBJ isn't leaving CLE.

I believe BOS can sign a tier 2 or 3 FA. If Danny ponies up $120m/4 years for DeRozen/Horford/Whiteside/etc... BOS has a shot.

Do any of these players make BOS a legit contender?

Nope.

Mk

I dunno, mk.  I wouldn't sleep on the team's potential if they theoretically signed horford and derozan.  Based on the success of the Hawks and Raptors of the past couple years, Brad Stevens would probably threaten to win 60 games with those two additions alone.  And that doesn't equate for the host of young players, picks and reasonably desirable super-prospect in Marcus Smart that Boston would be able to trade for additional upgrades.  Players like Gallinari would still be very reasonable targets.  I wouldn't rule out the team's ability to trade for 30+ year old star like Melo or Marc Gasol if those teams embrace rebuilding - even without the Brooklyn picks we'd have a chance of building a compelling trade package.

Obviously, having the top 6 pick magnifies our potential, but this team could be plenty dangerous without it. 

[pearljammer10]

I would not be as happy as I am with Brooklyn picks.

[nickagneta]

I would love them. I love them when they are bad, I love them when they are good. I am hopeful they get better to be in contention soon when they are bad. I am hopeful for another championship when they are good. Very little changes for me in that regard, so make the Brooklyn picks disappear, and I stll love them and am hopeful.

[mmmmm]

Different.

I would feel different because that would be a completely different team, in that alternate universe.


(Did I answer it right?)

[Moranis]

I'd feel a good amount worse.  The concern that the team was heading towards a plateau or becoming a "treadmill team" would be much greater & real.

So are you guys telling me that without the Brooklyn picks, you'd have wanted Boston to tank this past season ?   You'd be unsatisified with tying for 3rd seed in the East and potentially adding 50 million dollars worth of talent to a team that already is loaded with youth, has multiple picks (16, 23, 31, 35, etc) and sent one player to the allstar game?

Where the hell did I say that?

You didn't explicitly say it.  But if folks would feel bad about a non-Brooklyn picky team that is in the midst of being in a treadmill situation, it sort of connotates that the team would be better off tanking for high draft picks.

We know that's silly though.  Even in a potential treadmill situation, Boston would still have trade assets like #16, #23, #31, #35, all their future 1sts, the future Memphis pick, Marcus Smart, and a host of recently selected youth in the 1st round (Rozier, Mickey, young, Hunter) to trade for a star + 50 million dollars in cap space to sign talent with. 

Compare that to the treadmill Celtics of the early 00s.  No quality youth outside of Walker/Pierce.  Limited draft picks.  No cap space.  It's only a treadmill situation if there's no path to improvement.  And even without that path, Ainge turned it into a champion within 3-5 years. 

Even without the Brooklyn picks, we'd be in arguably better position than the team had been prior to KG.  It would be hard to be down on a team that tied for 3rd, had tons of trade assets, and massive space to sign impact talent. 

Overall point is, I'm not going to lose sleep over the pick ending up 6th tonight.  Whatever.  We don't even need that pick to make upgrades.

The early 00's Celtics had Paul Pierce and Antoine Walker.  Two players better than anyone currently on the team.  Boston had the 10th, 11th, and 21st picks in the 2001 draft.  Wasted two of those picks on Kedrick Brown and Joseph Forte and gave up on the other mid way through his rookie year.  That player was Joe Johnson.  The three players selected after Brown were in order, Vladimir Radmanovic, Richard Jefferson, and Troy Murphy.  Many people on this board and within the Celtics organization wanted to draft Tony Parker instead of Forte.  It is believed that Red loved Forte and Boston went with him to appease Red.

Now let me ask a question.  If the 2001/02 Celtics that won 49 games, had kept Johnson, drafted Murphy (or Rad or RJeff), and drafted Parker, what would you be saying about that team and its title chances (not that year, but down the line)?

PG - Kenny Anderson, Tony Parker
SG - Joe Johnson, Erick Strickland
SF - Paul Pierce, Eric Williams
PF - Antoine Walker, Troy Murphy, Walter McCarty
C - Tony Battie, Mark Blount, Vitaly Potapenko

And the reason, you can play a bit of the what if game, is because Boston had Paul Pierce on its roster.  Johnson, Parker, and Murphy aren't making a team without a Paul Pierce level player a contender, but with Pierce (and Walker to a lesser degree), Boston had a guy in place that had the talent to be a #1 player on championship team (Johnson and Parker bore out to be clear #2 level players and that is what Toine was as well). 

That is what sets the early 00's team apart from the current group.  There is no Paul Pierce.  Heck there is no Antoine Walker either (let's remember that the 01/02 ECF team had Toine who basically averaged 22/9/5 even added in 1.5 steals and shot 34.4% from three).

[LarBrd33]

I'd feel a good amount worse.  The concern that the team was heading towards a plateau or becoming a "treadmill team" would be much greater & real.

So are you guys telling me that without the Brooklyn picks, you'd have wanted Boston to tank this past season ?   You'd be unsatisified with tying for 3rd seed in the East and potentially adding 50 million dollars worth of talent to a team that already is loaded with youth, has multiple picks (16, 23, 31, 35, etc) and sent one player to the allstar game?

Where the hell did I say that?

You didn't explicitly say it.  But if folks would feel bad about a non-Brooklyn picky team that is in the midst of being in a treadmill situation, it sort of connotates that the team would be better off tanking for high draft picks.

We know that's silly though.  Even in a potential treadmill situation, Boston would still have trade assets like #16, #23, #31, #35, all their future 1sts, the future Memphis pick, Marcus Smart, and a host of recently selected youth in the 1st round (Rozier, Mickey, young, Hunter) to trade for a star + 50 million dollars in cap space to sign talent with. 

Compare that to the treadmill Celtics of the early 00s.  No quality youth outside of Walker/Pierce.  Limited draft picks.  No cap space.  It's only a treadmill situation if there's no path to improvement.  And even without that path, Ainge turned it into a champion within 3-5 years. 

Even without the Brooklyn picks, we'd be in arguably better position than the team had been prior to KG.  It would be hard to be down on a team that tied for 3rd, had tons of trade assets, and massive space to sign impact talent. 

Overall point is, I'm not going to lose sleep over the pick ending up 6th tonight.  Whatever.  We don't even need that pick to make upgrades.

The early 00's Celtics had Paul Pierce and Antoine Walker.  Two players better than anyone currently on the team.  Boston had the 10th, 11th, and 21st picks in the 2001 draft.  Wasted two of those picks on Kedrick Brown and Joseph Forte and gave up on the other mid way through his rookie year.  That player was Joe Johnson.  The three players selected after Brown were in order, Vladimir Radmanovic, Richard Jefferson, and Troy Murphy.  Many people on this board and within the Celtics organization wanted to draft Tony Parker instead of Forte.  It is believed that Red loved Forte and Boston went with him to appease Red.

Fwiw, they only won 36 games before ending up with picks 10, 11 and 21.   They won 49 games in-part, because they traded guys like Joe Johnson midway through that season for contributors like Rodney Rodgers.  I hated the move at the time, but it highlights how worse they were than this team.   They needed to give up prospects like Johnson (as well as their 2002 1st rounder) to get vets like Rogers and Delk in order to reach 49 wins.  By the time they got there, they had little to show for it...  Rogers left within a year and Phoenix had our 2002 1st round pick.

So actually, by attempting to show how much better off that 2002 team was, you actually just magnified just how significantly worse it was.

Outside of Walker and Pierce, the best player was 31 year old Kenny Anderson, 29 year old Eric Williams and 25 year old Tonnie Battie.   Rodney Rogers was no longer on the roster after leaving in free agency.   The only player under the age of 24 was 20 year old bust Kedrick Brown (who was a reach even when we selected him) and the aforementioned Joe Forte.    The team was over the cap.  They had no 1st round pick that Summer.   They lost Rogers to free agency.   Just to tread water, they moved Forte, Potapenko and Kenny Anderson for alcoholic Vin Baker... a move that backfired so dramatically that we ended up paying him 5 mil per year for three years after he left the team. 

SO yeah... compare that to this 48 win team built around all-star Isaiah Thomas and capable players like Bradley and Crowder...   Our core will remain mostly in-tact.  Our key contributors are young and remain under contract for bargain deals.  We have oodles of youth, multiple first rounders, 50 million dollars in cap space - all without the Brooklyn picks.   It's no context... even without the picks, this team is in DRAMATICALLY better shape than the 49 win Celtic team that entered the Summer of 2002.   I do agree that Paul Pierce is better than anyone on this roster, but it took 5 years after 2002 for the Celtics to position themselves in a way to surround Pierce with proper talent.   This 48 win Celtic team is positioned to make significant improvements immediately regardless of those Brooklyn picks.

[Moranis]

I'd feel a good amount worse.  The concern that the team was heading towards a plateau or becoming a "treadmill team" would be much greater & real.

So are you guys telling me that without the Brooklyn picks, you'd have wanted Boston to tank this past season ?   You'd be unsatisified with tying for 3rd seed in the East and potentially adding 50 million dollars worth of talent to a team that already is loaded with youth, has multiple picks (16, 23, 31, 35, etc) and sent one player to the allstar game?

Where the hell did I say that?

You didn't explicitly say it.  But if folks would feel bad about a non-Brooklyn picky team that is in the midst of being in a treadmill situation, it sort of connotates that the team would be better off tanking for high draft picks.

We know that's silly though.  Even in a potential treadmill situation, Boston would still have trade assets like #16, #23, #31, #35, all their future 1sts, the future Memphis pick, Marcus Smart, and a host of recently selected youth in the 1st round (Rozier, Mickey, young, Hunter) to trade for a star + 50 million dollars in cap space to sign talent with. 

Compare that to the treadmill Celtics of the early 00s.  No quality youth outside of Walker/Pierce.  Limited draft picks.  No cap space.  It's only a treadmill situation if there's no path to improvement.  And even without that path, Ainge turned it into a champion within 3-5 years. 

Even without the Brooklyn picks, we'd be in arguably better position than the team had been prior to KG.  It would be hard to be down on a team that tied for 3rd, had tons of trade assets, and massive space to sign impact talent. 

Overall point is, I'm not going to lose sleep over the pick ending up 6th tonight.  Whatever.  We don't even need that pick to make upgrades.

The early 00's Celtics had Paul Pierce and Antoine Walker.  Two players better than anyone currently on the team.  Boston had the 10th, 11th, and 21st picks in the 2001 draft.  Wasted two of those picks on Kedrick Brown and Joseph Forte and gave up on the other mid way through his rookie year.  That player was Joe Johnson.  The three players selected after Brown were in order, Vladimir Radmanovic, Richard Jefferson, and Troy Murphy.  Many people on this board and within the Celtics organization wanted to draft Tony Parker instead of Forte.  It is believed that Red loved Forte and Boston went with him to appease Red.

Fwiw, they only won 36 games before ending up with picks 10, 11 and 21.   They won 49 games in-part, because they traded guys like Joe Johnson midway through that season for contributors like Rodney Rodgers.  I hated the move at the time, but it highlights how worse they were than this team.   They needed to give up prospects like Johnson (as well as their 2002 1st rounder) to get vets like Rogers and Delk in order to reach 49 wins.  By the time they go there, they had little to show for it...  Rogers left within a year and Phoenix had our 2002 1st round pick.

So actually, by attempting to show how much better off that 2002 team was, you actually just magnified just how significantly worse it was.

Outside of Walker and Pierce, the best player was 31 year old Kenny Anderson, 29 year old Eric Williams and 25 year old Tonnie Battie.   Rodney Rogers was no longer on the roster.   The only player under the age of 24 was 20 year old bust Kedrick Brown (who was a reach even when we selected him) and the aforementioned Joe Forte.    The team was over the cap.  They had no 1st round picks.   They lost Rogers to free agency.   Just to tread water, they moved Forte, Potapenko and Kenny Anderson for alcoholic Vin Baker.   

SO yeah... compare that to this 48 win team built around all-star Isaiah Thomas and capable players like Bradley and Crowder...   Our core will remain mostly in-tact.  We have oodles of youth, multiple first rounders, 50 million dollars in cap space - all without the Brooklyn picks.   It's no context... this team is in DRAMATICALLY better shape than the 49 win Celtic team that entered the Summer of 2002.

Your are going from the wrong point though.  You need to go before the 2001 draft.  That is the key as that team had Paul Pierce and Antoine Walker each not yet in their prime had the 10th, 11th, and 21st pick in the draft and had all of its future draft picks.  That team was in much better shape than the current team (without the Brooklyn picks).  Boston messed up the draft and then made horribly short sighted trades during the season (I believe Boston was 31-23 or a 47 win pace before the Rogers trade so it wasn't like the trades gave them a big boost).