The Celtics are a lock to get out of the 1st round

[slamtheking]

Brooklyn and Philadelphia are both a lot better. 

based on what?

Sure Philly added Simmons who looked good in his first summer league game but the only team I could see Philly passing in the standings in Brooklyn who have done nothing to improve for next season (yet).  Jeremy Lin isn't going to move that needle for them.

[dreamgreen]

I'll admit I missed a few games this year but the others that I watched every moment of tells me more of Turner. At times in the fourth quarter he was the only one creating his own offense and making things happen out there. The fact you believe in players that have proven absolutely nothing in the NBA to this point doesn't make me feel any better at all. I have hope but zero proof! And I'm sure as hell not going to expect a 19 year old rookie to come in and make things happen on a playoff team. It would be awesome if he does but in my mind he's a bench warmer until proven otherwise. So if you think I'm nuts for being realistic and logical so be it but that's why I'm right more often than wrong!

Except you're not being logical at all.

It's an undeniable fact that Hortford is a significantly better player than Turner. So even if everything else was the same, by this simple measure the Cs got better. Thus you aren't being logical in this regard.

You have no expectation that the #3 pick in the draft and/or no fewer than 4 young non-rookies (Smart, Rozier, Hunter, and Mickey) will have absolutely no increased positive impact on the team because they're not "proven"? That's not logical either. By that standard you would never, ever expect any young player to help any team because they're not proven. In that same regard, do you expect Philly to win just 10 games forever? Because Simmons, Okafor, Noel and Embiid are unproven. Life, and the NBA, doesn't work that way. While it's not logical that all of them will make large jumps in their abilities and contributions, it is logical to assume that one or more of them will.

The simple math is that the Celtics got better to a degree that the teams they competed with didn't (with the exception of Indy). That's really the only logical conclusion a person could make at this point. Of course, free agency isn't over and things may change significantly and quickly.

Well Mr. Logical, FYI Horford isn't a a ball handler he's a big first off so the fact you don't understand that is puzzling! Horford is going to replace fat Sully which is an upgrade at that position. We did not bring in anyone to replace Turner so that is a downgrade genius!

Don't give me your crap about the young guys are going to come in and save the day because there is zero evidence of that to this point. You can bank on the kids all you want and I too hope they are ready. But until you see it on the court it's not true, so stomp your feet all you want but that is the truth like it or not!!

On top of that I could argue we over achieved last year. So go push your pipe dreams on someone that falls for your fantasy world don't push the on me! Right now this moment I do not believe we are much better if at all than last year. Horford is a good player far from great he's not Durant and the kids are not the next best thing, and yes Philly still sucks let me send you the memo!

The NBA eat their young!!

Did you get it that time?

[BudweiserCeltic]

Brooklyn and Philadelphia are both a lot better. 

based on what?

Sure Philly added Simmons who looked good in his first summer league game but the only team I could see Philly passing in the standings in Brooklyn who have done nothing to improve for next season (yet).  Jeremy Lin isn't going to move that needle for them.

From the bottom and up I see it as, mix and match a few:

Charlotte
Brooklyn
Phoenix
Denver
Philadelphia
LA Lakers
Sacramento

[Granath]

I'll admit I missed a few games this year but the others that I watched every moment of tells me more of Turner. At times in the fourth quarter he was the only one creating his own offense and making things happen out there. The fact you believe in players that have proven absolutely nothing in the NBA to this point doesn't make me feel any better at all. I have hope but zero proof! And I'm sure as hell not going to expect a 19 year old rookie to come in and make things happen on a playoff team. It would be awesome if he does but in my mind he's a bench warmer until proven otherwise. So if you think I'm nuts for being realistic and logical so be it but that's why I'm right more often than wrong!

Except you're not being logical at all.

It's an undeniable fact that Hortford is a significantly better player than Turner. So even if everything else was the same, by this simple measure the Cs got better. Thus you aren't being logical in this regard.

You have no expectation that the #3 pick in the draft and/or no fewer than 4 young non-rookies (Smart, Rozier, Hunter, and Mickey) will have absolutely no increased positive impact on the team because they're not "proven"? That's not logical either. By that standard you would never, ever expect any young player to help any team because they're not proven. In that same regard, do you expect Philly to win just 10 games forever? Because Simmons, Okafor, Noel and Embiid are unproven. Life, and the NBA, doesn't work that way. While it's not logical that all of them will make large jumps in their abilities and contributions, it is logical to assume that one or more of them will.

The simple math is that the Celtics got better to a degree that the teams they competed with didn't (with the exception of Indy). That's really the only logical conclusion a person could make at this point. Of course, free agency isn't over and things may change significantly and quickly.

Well Mr. Logical, FYI Horford isn't a a ball handler he's a big first off so the fact you don't understand that is puzzling! Horford is going to replace fat Sully which is an upgrade at that position. We did not bring in anyone to replace Turner so that is a downgrade genius!

Don't give me your crap about the young guys are going to come in and save the day because there is zero evidence of that to this point. You can bank on the kids all you want and I too hope they are ready. But until you see it on the court it's not true, so stomp your feet all you want but that is the truth like it or not!!

On top of that I could argue we over achieved last year. So go push your pipe dreams on someone that falls for your fantasy world don't push the on me! Right now this moment I do not believe we are much better if at all than last year. Horford is a good player far from great he's not Durant and the kids are not the next best thing, and yes Philly still sucks let me send you the memo!

The NBA eat their young!!

Did you get it that time?

In other words, you got nothin'. 

An inability to project likely scenarios and incorporate that into your thinking is a logical flaw. So much for your vaunted logic and reasoning.

[dreamgreen]

I'll admit I missed a few games this year but the others that I watched every moment of tells me more of Turner. At times in the fourth quarter he was the only one creating his own offense and making things happen out there. The fact you believe in players that have proven absolutely nothing in the NBA to this point doesn't make me feel any better at all. I have hope but zero proof! And I'm sure as hell not going to expect a 19 year old rookie to come in and make things happen on a playoff team. It would be awesome if he does but in my mind he's a bench warmer until proven otherwise. So if you think I'm nuts for being realistic and logical so be it but that's why I'm right more often than wrong!

Except you're not being logical at all.

It's an undeniable fact that Hortford is a significantly better player than Turner. So even if everything else was the same, by this simple measure the Cs got better. Thus you aren't being logical in this regard.

You have no expectation that the #3 pick in the draft and/or no fewer than 4 young non-rookies (Smart, Rozier, Hunter, and Mickey) will have absolutely no increased positive impact on the team because they're not "proven"? That's not logical either. By that standard you would never, ever expect any young player to help any team because they're not proven. In that same regard, do you expect Philly to win just 10 games forever? Because Simmons, Okafor, Noel and Embiid are unproven. Life, and the NBA, doesn't work that way. While it's not logical that all of them will make large jumps in their abilities and contributions, it is logical to assume that one or more of them will.

The simple math is that the Celtics got better to a degree that the teams they competed with didn't (with the exception of Indy). That's really the only logical conclusion a person could make at this point. Of course, free agency isn't over and things may change significantly and quickly.

Well Mr. Logical, FYI Horford isn't a a ball handler he's a big first off so the fact you don't understand that is puzzling! Horford is going to replace fat Sully which is an upgrade at that position. We did not bring in anyone to replace Turner so that is a downgrade genius!

Don't give me your crap about the young guys are going to come in and save the day because there is zero evidence of that to this point. You can bank on the kids all you want and I too hope they are ready. But until you see it on the court it's not true, so stomp your feet all you want but that is the truth like it or not!!

On top of that I could argue we over achieved last year. So go push your pipe dreams on someone that falls for your fantasy world don't push the on me! Right now this moment I do not believe we are much better if at all than last year. Horford is a good player far from great he's not Durant and the kids are not the next best thing, and yes Philly still sucks let me send you the memo!

The NBA eat their young!!

Did you get it that time?

In other words, you got nothin'. 

An inability to project likely scenarios and incorporate that into your thinking is a logical flaw. So much for your vaunted logic and reasoning.

Go bet on Philly than!

[SparzWizard]

This team is a second-round exit. But depends on who they play. They'll definitely get bounced by the Cavs in a gentleman's sweep though if they ever meet them.

Kevin Durant was that missing piece to beat Cleveland.

[meangreenmachine]

A 2nd round showing or better is success for this upcoming season. Another 1st round exit or missing the playoffs would be failure. We should be the second or third seed depending on how Toronto does. Indy might surprise if they gel well, so we possibly get knocked back to the fourth seed. Finishing =<5 would be utterly disappointing unless we get seriously bit by the injury bug.

[Moranis]

In what way is Brooklyn "a lot better"?

Yeah, he lost me on fhat statement too.

Brooklyn lost Young (and Jack who wasn't on the roster at the end of the year anyway), but is essentially adding 3 1st round picks (LaVert, RHJ, McCullough) as well as Lin, Booker, and Johnson.  They will be a lot better.  They have a lot more depth and better overall roster construction.  I expect them to win 30-35 games, which is a pretty large jump.

[Moranis]

Brooklyn and Philadelphia are both a lot better. 

based on what?

Sure Philly added Simmons who looked good in his first summer league game but the only team I could see Philly passing in the standings in Brooklyn who have done nothing to improve for next season (yet).  Jeremy Lin isn't going to move that needle for them.

Philly added Rodriguez, Henderson, and Bayless to the backcourt.  3 quality veterans.  They should be projected in the 25 win range, you know a turnaround of 15ish wins.  That is a lot better. 

[nickagneta]

In what way is Brooklyn "a lot better"?

Yeah, he lost me on fhat statement too.

Brooklyn lost Young (and Jack who wasn't on the roster at the end of the year anyway), but is essentially adding 3 1st round picks (LaVert, RHJ, McCullough) as well as Lin, Booker, and Johnson.  They will be a lot better.  They have a lot more depth and better overall roster construction.  I expect them to win 30-35 games, which is a pretty large jump.

And I think you are giving the youth a llt more credit than they deserve and the Lin, Booker and Johnson dont offset the loss of Young. To me they are still bottom three in the league.

[Granath]

Go bet on Philly than!

Sure, I'll bet that they win more than 10 games this year. Done! How much do you want to put on this wager?

After all, using your "logic" you can't project them to be any better because the players haven't proven anything yet! Thus I'm sure you're eager to take that bet. Just let me know how much you want to bet and we can both send our wager amounts to Roy for holding throughout the entire season.

[loco_91]

To me, "a lock" means a 95% chance. We aren't THAT good, and an untimely injury or two could put our odds down to 50% or worse. I think our odds of landing the second or third seed are quite good, and then if healthy we'll have about a 75% chance of making the Semis.

[PhoSita]

Brooklyn and Philadelphia are both a lot better. 

based on what?

Sure Philly added Simmons who looked good in his first summer league game but the only team I could see Philly passing in the standings in Brooklyn who have done nothing to improve for next season (yet).  Jeremy Lin isn't going to move that needle for them.

From the bottom and up I see it as, mix and match a few:

Charlotte
Brooklyn
Phoenix
Denver
Philadelphia
LA Lakers
Sacramento

Dude, Charlotte could easily be better than the Celts next year. They're legit and they are getting MKG back.

[Granath]

In what way is Brooklyn "a lot better"?

Yeah, he lost me on fhat statement too.

Brooklyn lost Young (and Jack who wasn't on the roster at the end of the year anyway), but is essentially adding 3 1st round picks (LaVert, RHJ, McCullough) as well as Lin, Booker, and Johnson.  They will be a lot better.  They have a lot more depth and better overall roster construction.  I expect them to win 30-35 games, which is a pretty large jump.

Maybe it's a lack of imagination on my part but I fail to see how a team that lost their 2nd best player and lost 60+ games last year will somehow improve by 15 wins with the addition of mid-20s 1st round picks and 3 "10th man off the bench" types. That's like saying if we signed Yab and Zizic this year the Cs could expect to jump to 60 wins. We're not saying that even with the #3 overall pick and getting a 5 time All Star in free agency...and we didn't lose our 2nd best player either.

[Moranis]

In what way is Brooklyn "a lot better"?

Yeah, he lost me on fhat statement too.

Brooklyn lost Young (and Jack who wasn't on the roster at the end of the year anyway), but is essentially adding 3 1st round picks (LaVert, RHJ, McCullough) as well as Lin, Booker, and Johnson.  They will be a lot better.  They have a lot more depth and better overall roster construction.  I expect them to win 30-35 games, which is a pretty large jump.

Maybe it's a lack of imagination on my part but I fail to see how a team that lost their 2nd best player and lost 60+ games last year will somehow improve by 15 wins with the addition of mid-20s 1st round picks and 3 "10th man off the bench" types. That's like saying if we signed Yab and Zizic this year the Cs could expect to jump to 60 wins. We're not saying that even with the #3 overall pick and getting a 5 time All Star in free agency...and we didn't lose our 2nd best player either.

Once Jack got hurt Larkin and Sloan were the starting PG for the Nets.  This is also a team that mailed in the last 10 games losing them all.  Lin is a significant improvement.  RHJ showed great promise before he was hurt and McCullough looked like a real contributor the last few games.  The Nets were never going to be a good team, but they were very thin and losing two starters (RHJ and Jack) just destroyed the team.  The increased depth is going to help them immensely.

And you can't be serious about the Boston comparison.  It is a lot easier to go from terrible to bad than from good to great.