Lakers vs. Celtics

[saltlover]

I'm a huge fan of what the lakers have done. They have a great coach in luke walton, and 4 quality young prospects in Russell, Ingram, clarkson, and Randle. They've also got a few solid role players in Nance, Black, and maybe Zubac. Quite simply, Kupchak has done an excellent, excellent job in the draft, even though a few of those picks were obvious picks. They also went out and got a few veterans to help the team grow over the season, and it's looked like a pretty decent investment (although I have to wonder if they'll be regretting paying Deng and Mozgov 4 years from now).

But Walton, man. He's the key to it all. I read something the other day: no Laker player is apparently averaging over 30 minutes per game this season. Yet, they still have a very good offense and their defense has also been decent (which was better than I expected it would be). They play with good ball movement, they swing the ball around, they find good looks. They're building their team as a replica of Golden State, with Russell playing their Curry (not completely unrealistic), Randle playing their Draymond (he seems to have the court vision and rebounding/bully ball aspect down, but not the J or the D), and Ingram as their KD (because, why not?).

I have to admit, I've been very surprised with how everything they've done has worked out, and I even find myself rooting for them this season too. They look legit. Like, I wouldn't be surprised to see them be a top 3 team in the west in a few years. Similar to how we felt that free agents should view us as a good young team on the rise, I really do feel like LA can get their big free agent this summer if things go right.

At times, I wonder whether I'd rather be in their shoes or not. Their future just looks so promising, and here we have to worry about whether Marcus can ever shoot, whether Brown can piece it all together, what's gonna happen to the Nets picks, are we gonna resign Avery and Isaiah.

You don't have to worry about those things.  You choose to.  I'm really not concerned about any of those at all, and it makes everything much more enjoyable.

[tankcity!]

After yesterday's win the Lakers are 7-5 and imo their young prospects are their best players. They are the cause for these wins. This is the opposite of the Celtics, who's victories are based on veterans like Thomas and Bradley, and role players like Crowder and KO. Also, the Lakers have built this team without using their landscape, which has always been an advantage.

So my question is who is the better GM? Ainge of Kupchak? Kupchak seems really underrated to me. He also drafted Bynum #10 overall and then smartly traded him for Howard when he realized the kid had knee issues.

Unlike Ainge, Kupchak went with Scott as his coach and tanked before hiring Walton. Ainge went the opposite route.  So who do you think has done a better job? And which team has a brighter future?

You make it sound like the Celtics are an old team.  It's not like Thomas and Bradley are in their 30s.  Thomas is 27.  Bradley is 25 -- Jordan Clarkson, one of the Lakers "young guys" is 24.  And you completely ignore the existence of Al Horford, who is you know, an actual star in the prime of his career.

The Celtics and Lakers have a comparable amount of cap space next season.  The Celtics also have 5-6 1st rounders in the next three seasons, whereas the Lakers have one.  The Celtics also have two first rounders from the most recent draft biding their time overseas.  In other words, if, for some reason, Danny decided that the current core wasn't working, he could blow it up for a full youth movement that would completely surpass what the Lakers have done.  I don't think he would or should do that, but he could.

Yeah Thomas is 27, but can you imagine what they will be like when Russel, Clarkson, Randle, and Ingram will be like at 27?
 
I think you are misunderstanding what I'm saying. With the exception of Ingram, who is getting role player minutes like Brown, their young core prospects are the reason for their wins. And I did include Horford. I said their veterans and role players are leading them to these wins, opposite of LA.

Smart doesn't start. He looks pretty good this year so we will see how his future pans out, but I wouldn't consider him the core 4 of the Celtics. It's Bradley, Thomas, Crowder, and Horford. I mean Lakers have cap space to add a player like Horford on top of their young core.

I definetly think it is up for debate. A lot is riding on the Brooklyn picks and that is scary to me.

[Monkhouse]

After yesterday's win the Lakers are 7-5 and imo their young prospects are their best players. They are the cause for these wins. This is the opposite of the Celtics, who's victories are based on veterans like Thomas and Bradley, and role players like Crowder and KO. Also, the Lakers have built this team without using their landscape, which has always been an advantage.

So my question is who is the better GM? Ainge of Kupchak? Kupchak seems really underrated to me. He also drafted Bynum #10 overall and then smartly traded him for Howard when he realized the kid had knee issues.

Unlike Ainge, Kupchak went with Scott as his coach and tanked before hiring Walton. Ainge went the opposite route.  So who do you think has done a better job? And which team has a brighter future?

You make it sound like the Celtics are an old team.  It's not like Thomas and Bradley are in their 30s.  Thomas is 27.  Bradley is 25 -- Jordan Clarkson, one of the Lakers "young guys" is 24.  And you completely ignore the existence of Al Horford, who is you know, an actual star in the prime of his career.

The Celtics and Lakers have a comparable amount of cap space next season.  The Celtics also have 5-6 1st rounders in the next three seasons, whereas the Lakers have one.  The Celtics also have two first rounders from the most recent draft biding their time overseas.  In other words, if, for some reason, Danny decided that the current core wasn't working, he could blow it up for a full youth movement that would completely surpass what the Lakers have done.  I don't think he would or should do that, but he could.

Yeah Thomas is 27, but can you imagine what they will be like when Russel, Clarkson, Randle, and Ingram will be like at 27?
 
I think you are misunderstanding what I'm saying. With the exception of Ingram, who is getting role player minutes like Brown, their young core prospects are the reason for their wins. And I did include Horford. I said their veterans and role players are leading them to these wins, opposite of LA.

Smart doesn't start. He looks pretty good this year so we will see how his future pans out, but I wouldn't consider him the core 4 of the Celtics. It's Bradley, Thomas, Crowder, and Horford. I mean Lakers have cap space to add a player like Horford on top of their young core.

I definetly think it is up for debate. A lot is riding on the Brooklyn picks and that is scary to me.

Sigh....

I'm a huge fan of what the lakers have done. They have a great coach in luke walton, and 4 quality young prospects in Russell, Ingram, clarkson, and Randle. They've also got a few solid role players in Nance, Black, and maybe Zubac. Quite simply, Kupchak has done an excellent, excellent job in the draft, even though a few of those picks were obvious picks. They also went out and got a few veterans to help the team grow over the season, and it's looked like a pretty decent investment (although I have to wonder if they'll be regretting paying Deng and Mozgov 4 years from now).

But Walton, man. He's the key to it all. I read something the other day: no Laker player is apparently averaging over 30 minutes per game this season. Yet, they still have a very good offense and their defense has also been decent (which was better than I expected it would be). They play with good ball movement, they swing the ball around, they find good looks. They're building their team as a replica of Golden State, with Russell playing their Curry (not completely unrealistic), Randle playing their Draymond (he seems to have the court vision and rebounding/bully ball aspect down, but not the J or the D), and Ingram as their KD (because, why not?).

I have to admit, I've been very surprised with how everything they've done has worked out, and I even find myself rooting for them this season too. They look legit. Like, I wouldn't be surprised to see them be a top 3 team in the west in a few years. Similar to how we felt that free agents should view us as a good young team on the rise, I really do feel like LA can get their big free agent this summer if things go right.

At times, I wonder whether I'd rather be in their shoes or not. Their future just looks so promising, and here we have to worry about whether Marcus can ever shoot, whether Brown can piece it all together, what's gonna happen to the Nets picks, are we gonna resign Avery and Isaiah.

You don't have to worry about those things.  You choose to.  I'm really not concerned about any of those at all, and it makes everything much more enjoyable.

This.

Celtics still have a better future, and I'm convinced Brown and Smart will be great players in the future.

[TheTruthFot18]

I'm a huge fan of what the lakers have done. They have a great coach in luke walton, and 4 quality young prospects in Russell, Ingram, clarkson, and Randle. They've also got a few solid role players in Nance, Black, and maybe Zubac. Quite simply, Kupchak has done an excellent, excellent job in the draft, even though a few of those picks were obvious picks. They also went out and got a few veterans to help the team grow over the season, and it's looked like a pretty decent investment (although I have to wonder if they'll be regretting paying Deng and Mozgov 4 years from now).

But Walton, man. He's the key to it all. I read something the other day: no Laker player is apparently averaging over 30 minutes per game this season. Yet, they still have a very good offense and their defense has also been decent (which was better than I expected it would be). They play with good ball movement, they swing the ball around, they find good looks. They're building their team as a replica of Golden State, with Russell playing their Curry (not completely unrealistic), Randle playing their Draymond (he seems to have the court vision and rebounding/bully ball aspect down, but not the J or the D), and Ingram as their KD (because, why not?).

I have to admit, I've been very surprised with how everything they've done has worked out, and I even find myself rooting for them this season too. They look legit. Like, I wouldn't be surprised to see them be a top 3 team in the west in a few years. Similar to how we felt that free agents should view us as a good young team on the rise, I really do feel like LA can get their big free agent this summer if things go right.

At times, I wonder whether I'd rather be in their shoes or not. Their future just looks so promising, and here we have to worry about whether Marcus can ever shoot, whether Brown can piece it all together, what's gonna happen to the Nets picks, are we gonna resign Avery and Isaiah.

You don't have to worry about those things.  You choose to.  I'm really not concerned about any of those at all, and it makes everything much more enjoyable.

No way LAL can keep all those guys assuming they turn into something more than a really good player on a bad/average team. Plus they'll have to pay Randle and Russell when Mozgov, clarkson,  and Deng are still on the books. Then they have to think about paying Ingram and whatever draft picks/ free agents they acquired through 2018/2019.

[alldaboston]

This.

Celtics still have a better future, and I'm convinced Brown and Smart will be great players in the future.

I dont get why though. Putting aside our anti-laker biases...

it's absolutely clear that D'Angelo Russell is one of the most offensively talented young point guards in the NBA. He's only going to get better, and he's basically a Curry-lite at this point, with the potential to get so much better as he learns the game and becomes a more mature player. Very good passer too, is playing a lot more within the system this year. His defense is a struggle.

Jordan Clarkson is a bit older than the rest of those guys, but he's still a very good scoring guard, who still has a few more years of improvement in him. Also has great size for a combo guard in today's NBA, and has gotten much stronger and much better at shooting since he was drafted 40 spots after Marcus in 2014. Not that good a defender, but he isn't a lazy defender by any means.

Ingram is not ready now, but he also has the potential to be really good in a few years. As he gets stronger over time, he'll be able to take advantage of his tools like his length and his wingspan, both on offense and especially on defense. Can you imagine trying to score against this guy when he's grown into his body and his 7'3" wingspan? his almost 10ft standing reach? he's a good shooter and they're trying to get him to be a better ball handler too, having him run the second unit offense at time.

Randle is my least favorite of their young core, but he's still been quite impressive this year. He's a nightly double double threat, a little wild in isolation but can still get you a bucket when you need one. He's also got pretty good court vision. He's averaging nearly 4 assists per game, which is pretty [dang] good for someone who's been bashed for having tunnel vision and being out of control in the past (i've actually said those things about him too, but he looks better recently). I've read about his improving jumper, but i don't buy it just yet. and his defense needs work too.

But, with all those guys, they're so young, and yet they're a key reason why the Lakers are 7-5 already. 7-5! this is a team that won 17 all of last year. And now, these 4 guys are helping them win games on a consistent basis. That's huge for them! In a few years, these players will have presumably gotten even better and even more comfortable with Walton and the NBA, and it's really not that inconceivable that they have a better future than us. Assuming all of these guys stay with the Lakers (which is likely, the cap is going up and they're all part of the younger generation. I read an article calling the 4 of them part of the "Drake-era hipsters" of today's culture. They love the LA life and i think they're all gonna be longtime lakers.

[libermaniac]

Can't you guys see it ... we are in store for another great era of Celtics/Lakers dominance, starting in about 3 years, after the fall of LeBron and Durant/Curry.  This debate will continue!  Go C's!

[Moranis]

Just remember the Lakers pick is in Philadelphia because the Lakers traded two 1sts, two 2nd's, and 3 million cash for Steve Nash.  You know the Steve Nash that in two seasons played in just 65 games and was a shell of his former self.

[LarBrd33]

After yesterday's win the Lakers are 7-5 and imo their young prospects are their best players. They are the cause for these wins. This is the opposite of the Celtics, who's victories are based on veterans like Thomas and Bradley, and role players like Crowder and KO. Also, the Lakers have built this team without using their landscape, which has always been an advantage.

So my question is who is the better GM? Ainge of Kupchak? Kupchak seems really underrated to me. He also drafted Bynum #10 overall and then smartly traded him for Howard when he realized the kid had knee issues.

Unlike Ainge, Kupchak went with Scott as his coach and tanked before hiring Walton. Ainge went the opposite route.  So who do you think has done a better job? And which team has a brighter future?

Lakers just did a better job tanking.  Randle, Russell and Ingram are an excellent young core.  We will likely see a similar mini resurgence from Philly as well once they get all their tank rewards healthy and off minutes restrictions.

Boston is a better team than both of them right now.  It's still early in the season.

[TheTruthFot18]

Can't you guys see it ... we are in store for another great era of Celtics/Lakers dominance, starting in about 3 years, after the fall of LeBron and Durant/Curry.  This debate will continue!  Go C's!

LeBron yes. But Curry and Durant will still be dominating in 5 years. Kobe and Lebron did already after 30

[tankcity!]

After yesterday's win the Lakers are 7-5 and imo their young prospects are their best players. They are the cause for these wins. This is the opposite of the Celtics, who's victories are based on veterans like Thomas and Bradley, and role players like Crowder and KO. Also, the Lakers have built this team without using their landscape, which has always been an advantage.

So my question is who is the better GM? Ainge of Kupchak? Kupchak seems really underrated to me. He also drafted Bynum #10 overall and then smartly traded him for Howard when he realized the kid had knee issues.

Unlike Ainge, Kupchak went with Scott as his coach and tanked before hiring Walton. Ainge went the opposite route.  So who do you think has done a better job? And which team has a brighter future?

Lakers just did a better job tanking.  Randle, Russell and Ingram are an excellent young core.  We will likely see a similar mini resurgence from Philly as well once they get all their tank rewards healthy and off minutes restrictions.

Boston is a better team than both of them right now.  It's still early in the season.

Tanking, AKA developing young players is a strategy. Ainge decided not to go with that strategy. If we were to tank, players like Brown, Young, Rozier would be getting more minutes and that would be beneficial for their development.

Instead they are now a better team, but to what extent. They have ceiling, and they're not going to be contenders unless 1, they trade for a superstar will keeping their core of players. Two, they get lucky with the Brooklyn picks.

Now could you imagine if they tanked these past three years and they would have brooklyn picks? I think it's up for debate.

[tankcity!]

After yesterday's win the Lakers are 7-5 and imo their young prospects are their best players. They are the cause for these wins. This is the opposite of the Celtics, who's victories are based on veterans like Thomas and Bradley, and role players like Crowder and KO. Also, the Lakers have built this team without using their landscape, which has always been an advantage.

So my question is who is the better GM? Ainge of Kupchak? Kupchak seems really underrated to me. He also drafted Bynum #10 overall and then smartly traded him for Howard when he realized the kid had knee issues.

Unlike Ainge, Kupchak went with Scott as his coach and tanked before hiring Walton. Ainge went the opposite route.  So who do you think has done a better job? And which team has a brighter future?

You make it sound like the Celtics are an old team.  It's not like Thomas and Bradley are in their 30s.  Thomas is 27.  Bradley is 25 -- Jordan Clarkson, one of the Lakers "young guys" is 24.  And you completely ignore the existence of Al Horford, who is you know, an actual star in the prime of his career.

The Celtics and Lakers have a comparable amount of cap space next season.  The Celtics also have 5-6 1st rounders in the next three seasons, whereas the Lakers have one.  The Celtics also have two first rounders from the most recent draft biding their time overseas.  In other words, if, for some reason, Danny decided that the current core wasn't working, he could blow it up for a full youth movement that would completely surpass what the Lakers have done.  I don't think he would or should do that, but he could.

Yeah Thomas is 27, but can you imagine what they will be like when Russel, Clarkson, Randle, and Ingram will be like at 27?
 
I think you are misunderstanding what I'm saying. With the exception of Ingram, who is getting role player minutes like Brown, their young core prospects are the reason for their wins. And I did include Horford. I said their veterans and role players are leading them to these wins, opposite of LA.

Smart doesn't start. He looks pretty good this year so we will see how his future pans out, but I wouldn't consider him the core 4 of the Celtics. It's Bradley, Thomas, Crowder, and Horford. I mean Lakers have cap space to add a player like Horford on top of their young core.

I definetly think it is up for debate. A lot is riding on the Brooklyn picks and that is scary to me.

Sigh....

I'm a huge fan of what the lakers have done. They have a great coach in luke walton, and 4 quality young prospects in Russell, Ingram, clarkson, and Randle. They've also got a few solid role players in Nance, Black, and maybe Zubac. Quite simply, Kupchak has done an excellent, excellent job in the draft, even though a few of those picks were obvious picks. They also went out and got a few veterans to help the team grow over the season, and it's looked like a pretty decent investment (although I have to wonder if they'll be regretting paying Deng and Mozgov 4 years from now).

But Walton, man. He's the key to it all. I read something the other day: no Laker player is apparently averaging over 30 minutes per game this season. Yet, they still have a very good offense and their defense has also been decent (which was better than I expected it would be). They play with good ball movement, they swing the ball around, they find good looks. They're building their team as a replica of Golden State, with Russell playing their Curry (not completely unrealistic), Randle playing their Draymond (he seems to have the court vision and rebounding/bully ball aspect down, but not the J or the D), and Ingram as their KD (because, why not?).

I have to admit, I've been very surprised with how everything they've done has worked out, and I even find myself rooting for them this season too. They look legit. Like, I wouldn't be surprised to see them be a top 3 team in the west in a few years. Similar to how we felt that free agents should view us as a good young team on the rise, I really do feel like LA can get their big free agent this summer if things go right.

At times, I wonder whether I'd rather be in their shoes or not. Their future just looks so promising, and here we have to worry about whether Marcus can ever shoot, whether Brown can piece it all together, what's gonna happen to the Nets picks, are we gonna resign Avery and Isaiah.

You don't have to worry about those things.  You choose to.  I'm really not concerned about any of those at all, and it makes everything much more enjoyable.

This.

Celtics still have a better future, and I'm convinced Brown and Smart will be great players in the future.

Okay cool. I love Brown. Maybe in 4 years we'll have another all star to play alongside a 31 year old IT.

As for Smart, he's been playing well. Hope he continues to do so.

[alldaboston]

After yesterday's win the Lakers are 7-5 and imo their young prospects are their best players. They are the cause for these wins. This is the opposite of the Celtics, who's victories are based on veterans like Thomas and Bradley, and role players like Crowder and KO. Also, the Lakers have built this team without using their landscape, which has always been an advantage.

So my question is who is the better GM? Ainge of Kupchak? Kupchak seems really underrated to me. He also drafted Bynum #10 overall and then smartly traded him for Howard when he realized the kid had knee issues.

Unlike Ainge, Kupchak went with Scott as his coach and tanked before hiring Walton. Ainge went the opposite route.  So who do you think has done a better job? And which team has a brighter future?

Lakers just did a better job tanking.  Randle, Russell and Ingram are an excellent young core.  We will likely see a similar mini resurgence from Philly as well once they get all their tank rewards healthy and off minutes restrictions.

Boston is a better team than both of them right now.  It's still early in the season.

Tanking, AKA developing young players is a strategy. Ainge decided not to go with that strategy. If we were to tank, players like Brown, Young, Rozier would be getting more minutes and that would be beneficial for their development.

Instead they are now a better team, but to what extent. They have ceiling, and they're not going to be contenders unless 1, they trade for a superstar will keeping their core of players. Two, they get lucky with the Brooklyn picks.

Now could you imagine if they tanked these past three years and they would have brooklyn picks? I think it's up for debate.

That might be true, but we only need 1 other of the Nets picks to be a hit. and now suddenly, we have our own 3 man core of Smart, Brown, and 17/18 nets pick.

The only glaring problem with our strategy as opposed to the Lakers strategy is that we still dont really know what we have with these young guys. The Lakers, they know that Russell is their point guard of the future. They know that Randle is eventually gonna be part of their frontcourt of the future.

What do we know? Is Smart really gonna be the PG of the future of the team? Do we actually know that? If he is, then we should do all that we can to develop him as much as we can. But, what if it's Rozier? Do we put Smart to the side and start developing Rozier? And what about Brown? Is he truly the 3 of the future for us? Are we sure it's not actually gonna be Crowder? Or the '17 Nets pick?

What I like about the Lakers future is that it's very clear: they've got players for most roles already, and those players will be in their future plans. With us, it's a murky future. Are Smart and Brown part of the next great Celtics generation? Or are they merely trade pieces for a guy like Boogie or Blake or George?

[LarBrd33]

After yesterday's win the Lakers are 7-5 and imo their young prospects are their best players. They are the cause for these wins. This is the opposite of the Celtics, who's victories are based on veterans like Thomas and Bradley, and role players like Crowder and KO. Also, the Lakers have built this team without using their landscape, which has always been an advantage.

So my question is who is the better GM? Ainge of Kupchak? Kupchak seems really underrated to me. He also drafted Bynum #10 overall and then smartly traded him for Howard when he realized the kid had knee issues.

Unlike Ainge, Kupchak went with Scott as his coach and tanked before hiring Walton. Ainge went the opposite route.  So who do you think has done a better job? And which team has a brighter future?

Lakers just did a better job tanking.  Randle, Russell and Ingram are an excellent young core.  We will likely see a similar mini resurgence from Philly as well once they get all their tank rewards healthy and off minutes restrictions.

Boston is a better team than both of them right now.  It's still early in the season.

Tanking, AKA developing young players is a strategy. Ainge decided not to go with that strategy. If we were to tank, players like Brown, Young, Rozier would be getting more minutes and that would be beneficial for their development.

Instead they are now a better team, but to what extent. They have ceiling, and they're not going to be contenders unless 1, they trade for a superstar will keeping their core of players. Two, they get lucky with the Brooklyn picks.

Now could you imagine if they tanked these past three years and they would have brooklyn picks? I think it's up for debate.

Well I mean, that's the thing... D'Angelo Russell is a better prospect than any player we have on our team.  He can become a superstar long-term... there's really nobody on our team we can say the same about.  MAYBE Jaylen Brown in a perfect storm of development.   That's the benefit of tanking, though... you get a shot at superstars.  Beyond tanking your options are signing one in free agency (extremely rare), trading for one (extremely rare), or snagging one later in the draft (also very rare).   Bottoming out for top 5 picks isn't a guarantee of anything, but the Lakers (and soon Philly) will be the latest case studies in how a franchise can turn around thanks to intentionally bottoming out.

[libermaniac]

Can't you guys see it ... we are in store for another great era of Celtics/Lakers dominance, starting in about 3 years, after the fall of LeBron and Durant/Curry.  This debate will continue!  Go C's!

LeBron yes. But Curry and Durant will still be dominating in 5 years. Kobe and Lebron did already after 30

Both have a history of leg injuries. That was my assumption in my admittedly,biased, and somewhat joking post. ;-)

[nickagneta]

After yesterday's win the Lakers are 7-5 and imo their young prospects are their best players. They are the cause for these wins. This is the opposite of the Celtics, who's victories are based on veterans like Thomas and Bradley, and role players like Crowder and KO. Also, the Lakers have built this team without using their landscape, which has always been an advantage.

So my question is who is the better GM? Ainge of Kupchak? Kupchak seems really underrated to me. He also drafted Bynum #10 overall and then smartly traded him for Howard when he realized the kid had knee issues.

Unlike Ainge, Kupchak went with Scott as his coach and tanked before hiring Walton. Ainge went the opposite route.  So who do you think has done a better job? And which team has a brighter future?

Lakers just did a better job tanking.  Randle, Russell and Ingram are an excellent young core.  We will likely see a similar mini resurgence from Philly as well once they get all their tank rewards healthy and off minutes restrictions.

Boston is a better team than both of them right now.  It's still early in the season.

Tanking, AKA developing young players is a strategy. Ainge decided not to go with that strategy. If we were to tank, players like Brown, Young, Rozier would be getting more minutes and that would be beneficial for their development.

Instead they are now a better team, but to what extent. They have ceiling, and they're not going to be contenders unless 1, they trade for a superstar will keeping their core of players. Two, they get lucky with the Brooklyn picks.

Now could you imagine if they tanked these past three years and they would have brooklyn picks? I think it's up for debate.

That might be true, but we only need 1 other of the Nets picks to be a hit. and now suddenly, we have our own 3 man core of Smart, Brown, and 17/18 nets pick.

The only glaring problem with our strategy as opposed to the Lakers strategy is that we still dont really know what we have with these young guys. The Lakers, they know that Russell is their point guard of the future. They know that Randle is eventually gonna be part of their frontcourt of the future.

What do we know? Is Smart really gonna be the PG of the future of the team? Do we actually know that? If he is, then we should do all that we can to develop him as much as we can. But, what if it's Rozier? Do we put Smart to the side and start developing Rozier? And what about Brown? Is he truly the 3 of the future for us? Are we sure it's not actually gonna be Crowder? Or the '17 Nets pick?

What I like about the Lakers future is that it's very clear: they've got players for most roles already, and those players will be in their future plans. With us, it's a murky future. Are Smart and Brown part of the next great Celtics generation? Or are they merely trade pieces for a guy like Boogie or Blake or George?

So in other words, the Celtics have options whereas the Lakers don't. The Lakers have put all their eggs into this group's basket of success. If those Laker players don't work out, the Lakers are the Orlando Magic. But Boston has a current core that isn't far from contending and has the option of using younger guys to fill holes if they show they deserve minutes.