Are we a rebuilding team or playoff contender?

[PaulP34]

We could trade the #3 pick for a player who is thought of as a mediocre player but with luck he shines like IT did and also get a future 1st round pick. That is not the popular answer but it would be a way to impact the team now and later.

[CFAN38]

We could trade the #3 pick for a player who is thought of as a mediocre player but with luck he shines like IT did and also get a future 1st round pick. That is not the popular answer but it would be a way to impact the team now and later.

I could see this as a possible play maybe a trade that sends the #3 for the #7 + faired or for #10 + monroe

[greece66]

imo the only season we were rebuilding in the tanking sense of the word was Stevens' first year 2013-14.
-avoided any short-mid term commitment, such as signing a goodish FA.
-we gave lots of playing time to young players
-kept experimenting with rotations throughout the season
-arguably lost a couple of games on purpose (or did not try very hard to win; pick your terminology) to improve our lottery chances.
-and ofc we played half a season with Jordan Crawford as our starting PG.

This was both a choice, but also a necessity: Rondo was still in theory our best player but injured, and it only made sense to at least try Bass and J.Green as starters to see what they can do.

In CBS's second season, and esp. after the IT trade, we clearly made a push to make it to the playoffs. If you ask me we are a lock for the playoffs for the foreseeable future.

I do not see this however, as being an obstacle to developing young players; first, because we are a young team, and our accumulation of draft picks suggests we will probably continue being young; and second, because some of the best teams at developing talent are also elite (SAS is the best example, but GSW has not done a bad job with Barnes or D. Green either)

tl;dr unless by rebuilding you mean tanking the two are not mutually exclusive.

[PhoSita]

Rebuilding and tanking are not the same thing. There should not be a tanking sense of that word.

Rebuilding to me means that you are still shuffling pieces around and placing an emphasis on player development in a quest to figure out a long term competitive core.

That's why I think the Celts are sort of in between the categories right now. Still flexible enough to keep adding draft pieces and making moves, and they don't have a long term core that can ever hope to compete for a title. But they also have a team in place that can make the playoffs for at least the next few years.

[__ramonezy__]

Rebuilding and tanking are not the same thing. There should not be a tanking sense of that word.

Rebuilding to me means that you are still shuffling pieces around and placing an emphasis on player development in a quest to figure out a long term competitive core.

That's why I think the Celts are sort of in between the categories right now. Still flexible enough to keep adding draft pieces and making moves, and they don't have a long term core that can ever hope to compete for a title. But they also have a team in place that can make the playoffs for at least the next few years.

I actually think we lost our flexibility with our emergence as playoff contenders. Hunter, Young, Rozier and Mickey aren't getting the opportunity to develop behind pieces that arguably are not a part of our future like Turner, Sully and Jerebko. We complain about not having shooters but aren't giving our young "shooters" the time of day. It's easy to say we're both but we haven't made the commitment to give our rookies any burn and that doesn't seem to be changing soon.

[CelticsJG]

Rebuilding team

[spikelovetheCelts]

Rebuilding and tanking are not the same thing. There should not be a tanking sense of that word.

Rebuilding to me means that you are still shuffling pieces around and placing an emphasis on player development in a quest to figure out a long term competitive core.

That's why I think the Celts are sort of in between the categories right now. Still flexible enough to keep adding draft pieces and making moves, and they don't have a long term core that can ever hope to compete for a title. But they also have a team in place that can make the playoffs for at least the next few years.

I actually think we lost our flexibility with our emergence as playoff contenders. Hunter, Young, Rozier and Mickey aren't getting the opportunity to develop behind pieces that arguably are not a part of our future like Turner, Sully and Jerebko. We complain about not having shooters but aren't giving our young "shooters" the time of day. It's easy to say we're both but we haven't made the commitment to give our rookies any burn and that doesn't seem to be changing soon.

The players who are playing are young. Rozier and Hunter played more than bradley did as a rookie. Mickey will play next year..We are rated the third best team with potential. If we nail the third pick and some other players with our picks we are in great shape.All our core players next year will be better. I for one am excited especially if we get Barnes and a big.

[mctyson]

This offseason will prove that we can't be both. I'm sure this question has been asked before, but it's good to check sentiment as the actual decision time approaches.We're going to be faced with drafting future all-star potential talent like a Bender, Murray or even Chriss or pushing a good chunk of our assets in a play for players like Butler or whoever else is on Durant's wishlist.

To be honest, this is the agony of an over-achieving, rebuilding team. Crowder was a financial throw-in to make a deal work, Evan Turner was supposed to be a stop-gap, reclamation player. IT has bounced from team to team, all the while being told he was talented, but not good enough to be the lead. Our rebuild is actually only 2 years old and truly started when we drafted Smart (IMO a rebuild starts when you acquire players not release them).

Our last two drafts were always towards potential upside picks, like James Young, Jordan Mickey, Terry Rozier, and never had the feel of urgent contributors to them... that's what rebuilding teams do, but for some reason this off-season feels different.  Young who was taken to be a long-term project and who , depending on who we pick, will still be the youngest player on our team two drafts later is now "developing" too slowly.

This is a decision that we have to iron out now, because as you can see with the Heat and Cavs once we get a player like a Butler or Durant, ALL future draft picks will likely need to be traded to acquire established talent to contend. Two teams were faced with similar decisions. The Cavs just got back Lebron James and had the #1 pick in a highly touted draft, they opted to forego the potential of Wiggins to acquire Kevin Love. Compare that with the Warriors that were pushing to trade for Love - then a transcendental star, but Minnesota insisted that they wanted Klay Thompson - a scrappy 2-guard with shooting chops and Golden State declined. We know how both decisions turned out.

Minnesota is now considered one of the teams with the brightest futures... but they only had 29 wins. Why is our trajectory different?

We are now at a similar organizational crossroads. So with 2 weeks to go, how do we see ourselves, as a rebuilding team or as a playoff contender? History has shown you can't be both.

I basically stopped reading there.

[mctyson]

Rebuilding and tanking are not the same thing. There should not be a tanking sense of that word.

Rebuilding to me means that you are still shuffling pieces around and placing an emphasis on player development in a quest to figure out a long term competitive core.

That's why I think the Celts are sort of in between the categories right now. Still flexible enough to keep adding draft pieces and making moves, and they don't have a long term core that can ever hope to compete for a title. But they also have a team in place that can make the playoffs for at least the next few years.

I actually think we lost our flexibility with our emergence as playoff contenders. Hunter, Young, Rozier and Mickey aren't getting the opportunity to develop behind pieces that arguably are not a part of our future like Turner, Sully and Jerebko. We complain about not having shooters but aren't giving our young "shooters" the time of day. It's easy to say we're both but we haven't made the commitment to give our rookies any burn and that doesn't seem to be changing soon.

Love how you say these guys, as rookies/sophs, don't get the "opportunity to develop" by practicing and being around guys on a near 50-win team. 

[Beat LA]

Rebuilding and tanking are not the same thing. There should not be a tanking sense of that word.

Rebuilding to me means that you are still shuffling pieces around and placing an emphasis on player development in a quest to figure out a long term competitive core.

That's why I think the Celts are sort of in between the categories right now. Still flexible enough to keep adding draft pieces and making moves, and they don't have a long term core that can ever hope to compete for a title. But they also have a team in place that can make the playoffs for at least the next few years.

I actually think we lost our flexibility with our emergence as playoff contenders. Hunter, Young, Rozier and Mickey aren't getting the opportunity to develop behind pieces that arguably are not a part of our future like Turner, Sully and Jerebko. We complain about not having shooters but aren't giving our young "shooters" the time of day. It's easy to say we're both but we haven't made the commitment to give our rookies any burn and that doesn't seem to be changing soon.

Love how you say these guys, as rookies/sophs, don't get the "opportunity to develop" by practicing and being around guys on a near 50-win team.

How can they develop at practice with the pros if they're always in Maine?  Besides, teams rarely get the opportunity to practice during the season, anyway.

And no, we're definitely not a contender.  Not even close.

[mctyson]

Rebuilding and tanking are not the same thing. There should not be a tanking sense of that word.

Rebuilding to me means that you are still shuffling pieces around and placing an emphasis on player development in a quest to figure out a long term competitive core.

That's why I think the Celts are sort of in between the categories right now. Still flexible enough to keep adding draft pieces and making moves, and they don't have a long term core that can ever hope to compete for a title. But they also have a team in place that can make the playoffs for at least the next few years.

I actually think we lost our flexibility with our emergence as playoff contenders. Hunter, Young, Rozier and Mickey aren't getting the opportunity to develop behind pieces that arguably are not a part of our future like Turner, Sully and Jerebko. We complain about not having shooters but aren't giving our young "shooters" the time of day. It's easy to say we're both but we haven't made the commitment to give our rookies any burn and that doesn't seem to be changing soon.

Love how you say these guys, as rookies/sophs, don't get the "opportunity to develop" by practicing and being around guys on a near 50-win team.

How can they develop at practice with the pros if they're always in Maine?  Besides, teams rarely get the opportunity to practice during the season, anyway.

And no, we're definitely not a contender.  Not even close.

I don't think there are many people who would argue that starting and playing on a crap team like Philadelphia is substantially better for development versus being around veterans on a team that finished with 48 wins.

[Eja117]

We are so not a contender as currently construed. There is not a single truly contending team that is slightly concerned about us. The Raptors are maybe concerned we could take the #2 spot in the East from them but they are also not contenders.

[dreamgreen]

I didn't vote. My answer is both, we are building a playoff team with luck will be a contender in the future.

[Bobshot]

This is really a long range (team) vs short range (contender) question--I think.

Seems to me they are close enough to the contending stage to be thinking short range.

That doesn't mean they shouldn't draft anyone who is 2-3 years out. In fact, most of those 19yos are at least a year or two away, anyways.  So maybe it's a moot question--draft-wise--
unless they trade the pick for a veteran. Then the draft becomes short range.

One thing for sure: Ainge will be active in the FA and trade market thinking strictly short range.

[hwangjini_1]

We could trade the #3 pick for a player who is thought of as a mediocre player but with luck he shines like IT did and also get a future 1st round pick. That is not the popular answer but it would be a way to impact the team now and later.

Do you have any particular player in mind? I don't know of one myself.