What if you knew the Celts won't win a title?

[vjcsmoke]

You can't "know" that you team isn't going to win a title.  You also can't "know" if they will.  All you can do is build the best team you can.  And it's a year by year basis. 

Things change with your team, with free agency, and with other teams around the league.  All you can control is what you do.

[PhoSita]

You can't "know" that you team isn't going to win a title.  You also can't "know" if they will.  All you can do is build the best team you can.  And it's a year by year basis. 

Things change with your team, with free agency, and with other teams around the league.  All you can control is what you do.

Congratulations! You've won the Missed the Point Entirely Award!

[Somebody]

You can't "know" that you team isn't going to win a title.  You also can't "know" if they will.  All you can do is build the best team you can.  And it's a year by year basis. 

Things change with your team, with free agency, and with other teams around the league.  All you can control is what you do.

Congratulations! You've won the Missed the Point Entirely Award!

Lol yeah he did miss the point, but what you proposed wasn't enitrely realistic either 😅. Btw I would blow it up, but not in the way most guys would do, I would trade guys like isaiah and other vets like Amir, and Zeller, but I would keep guys like AB, JC and Al to keep a veteran presence for our young core of Smart, Brown and the future picks.

[mctyson]

I am very much against this idea that if you don't "know" you can win the title, you tank or "blow it up."

If that's what the NBA (or any professional sport, for that matter) comes to, I will cancel my season tickets and stop watching.

[nickagneta]

I am very much against this idea that if you don't "know" you can win the title, you tank or "blow it up."

If that's what the NBA (or any professional sport, for that matter) comes to, I will cancel my season tickets and stop watching.

TP. Especially with this team you can keep a winning environment and rebuild with youth at the same time.

[JBcat]

I am very much against this idea that if you don't "know" you can win the title, you tank or "blow it up."

If that's what the NBA (or any professional sport, for that matter) comes to, I will cancel my season tickets and stop watching.

TP. Especially with this team you can keep a winning environment and rebuild with youth at the same time.

I agree with this. Even our vets aside from Horford will only be in their early 30's in 5 years, and Horford should age well.  Lebron has so much mileage and will turn 32 soon.  I say keep on the path, and we still have the luxury of the Nets picks.

[GRADYCOLNON]

Although the Celtics are not likely to win this season, the Celtics are on the right path to win a championship in the next 1-3 years.  I believe that the mix of entering prime talent and young talent is the recipe for title window being open for many years to come, similar to the Spurs in the last 20 years.  There is talent peaking, talent entering peak form, and talent not ready for peak form.  Until the Team gets one more peak Talent via a trade, the Celtics are just outside the conversation as a contender.

Also, just know: as Lebron ages his defense and athleticism diminish. The Cavs bench is filled with aging veterans, and Dan Gilbert can't continue to pay the luxury taxes for the overpriced starting lineup.  Warriors are going to have trouble keeping the supporting cast around Curry and Durant once they get paid.  If Warriors don't win Finals this year, Durant might move on. Maybe?

[greece66]

@Pho

If I knew we won't title in the next 5 years, my priority would be win one in 6 years.

[greece66]

@Pho

If I knew we won't title in the next 5 years, my priority would be win one in 6 years.

[greece66]

It's difficult to remain competitive, and build and develop through the draft. Young players need playing time to develop, that makes remaining competitive that much more difficult.

I'm a bit annoyed at where we're sitting as a team right now. We're not developing our young group of players, Young, Nader, Mickey, etc in lieu of trying to make the playoffs, only to get outed in the first round.

Either continue to build by playing, and developing these younger players to give them the experience they need to hopefully peak into a contender, or decide they're not worth the time sooner rather than later, and place them.

That would not have included signing 30 year old Al Horford as a tease, and not following through, by leaving the team in need of veterans pieces to seriously challenge in the East.

I feel trying to do both will lead to years of mediocrity.

And yet, we have been doing that with success in the Stevens era.

[rocknrollforyoursoul]

I'm amazed at how many people are having difficulty with a theoretical thought experiment.

[Greyman]

AB and Hereford are the two starters I would definitely keep. One of IT or Crowder could also start with the other coming from the bench. You add two more top line starters and you are away. Not a total blowup but significant change.

[vjcsmoke]

Nope the premise of this thread is unrealistic and you can't think like that if you are building a team seriously.  All you can do is build the best you can.  If you try to blow it up every year you end up like the Sixers.  Which is a stupid way to team-build.  Lottery candy may make for exciting mock drafts but the end product is not a team that has a chance to win.

You want a successful franchise model -- emulate the Spurs instead.  This "blow it all up" because they "might not" win in 5 years is preposterous.  You just can't "know" that.

You can't "know" that you team isn't going to win a title.  You also can't "know" if they will.  All you can do is build the best team you can.  And it's a year by year basis. 

Things change with your team, with free agency, and with other teams around the league.  All you can control is what you do.

Congratulations! You've won the Missed the Point Entirely Award!

[Boris Badenov]

I'm going "other."

Danny is clearly not pursuing a binary "now/later" approach.

What he's pursuing, and has from day one of the rebuild, is the "consistent winning culture" approach. This has been, in my mind, a remarkable success.

The first step was hiring Stevens, who has built a reputation as someone who will be here for a long time, who doesn't alienate his players, and who is a great Xs and Os guy. He's one of the top young coaches in the league and seemingly has the kind of close relationship with Danny that leads to a long-term association.

Second, he has made Boston a place where players *want to play*. Top free agents give us a look. We need no more proof than Horford, who was the #2 guy last year. We are in play for the free agents that the San Antonios and Goldent States of the world sign.

Third, he has developed a reputation as one of the smartest GMs out there, someone who can go out can get players - whether in draft, trade or free agency - to build a team from the ground up and take it to a championship.

Fourth, he and Stevens have shown he can put in place a system that maximizes player success. Jae Crowder. Isaiah Thomas. Avery Bradley. Evan Turner. Kelly Olynyk. The list of guys who have absolutely maximized their play and value to other teams is long.

Fifth, he and Stevens have begun developing a "Celtics identity" that can stick in people's minds, attract the right kind of players and lead to long-run success. It's actually not too far, that identity, from the one we had in the big three era, or that the Spurs have had: toughness, sacrifices for the team, and a slant toward defense over offense.

I think a lot of the complaints about how we are "spinning our wheels" or "not developing the young guys," or "no fireworks," just completely miss the point about how much progress we have made on all of the fronts above, and how other strategies would devalue those things.

When players around the league look at the Celtics now, going back to the Big Three era and up to now, they see something consistent in how the GM, coaches and team do things. Right? How many other teams can say that? Can the Sixers? The Lakers? OKC? Chicago? NYK? Anyone, in fact, other than the top 4-5 teams in the league?

That stability and cultural approach are the hardest things to build, and the most valuable for long-term success. The Patriots have it. The Spurs have it. Miami didn't, which is why they blew up. Philly doesn't. The Knicks and Lakers, for all of their advantages, don't have it.

Now, coming back to the question: even if the Celtics do not win soon, by continually succeeding on the court, steadily going deep into the playoffs, developing players to their fullest, and doing it all while judiciously stockpiling young talent, the Celts will end up ahead.

That might mean keeping the BKN picks and simultaneously trying to field one of the top 6 teams in the league. We aren't too far from that already.

If we do that and don't win a title for 5 years, we could have a greater chance at winning multiple titles in the decade after that than we would with an all-in "win now" or "blow it up" strategy, both of which could sacrifice on any of these other dimensions.

[nickagneta]

I'm going "other."

Danny is clearly not pursuing a binary "now/later" approach.

What he's pursuing, and has from day one of the rebuild, is the "consistent winning culture" approach. This has been, in my mind, a remarkable success.

The first step was hiring Stevens, who has built a reputation as someone who will be here for a long time, who doesn't alienate his players, and who is a great Xs and Os guy. He's one of the top young coaches in the league and seemingly has the kind of close relationship with Danny that leads to a long-term association.

Second, he has made Boston a place where players *want to play*. Top free agents give us a look. We need no more proof than Horford, who was the #2 guy last year. We are in play for the free agents that the San Antonios and Goldent States of the world sign.

Third, he has developed a reputation as one of the smartest GMs out there, someone who can go out can get players - whether in draft, trade or free agency - to build a team from the ground up and take it to a championship.

Fourth, he and Stevens have shown he can put in place a system that maximizes player success. Jae Crowder. Isaiah Thomas. Avery Bradley. Evan Turner. Kelly Olynyk. The list of guys who have absolutely maximized their play and value to other teams is long.

Fifth, he and Stevens have begun developing a "Celtics identity" that can stick in people's minds, attract the right kind of players and lead to long-run success. It's actually not too far, that identity, from the one we had in the big three era, or that the Spurs have had: toughness, sacrifices for the team, and a slant toward defense over offense.

I think a lot of the complaints about how we are "spinning our wheels" or "not developing the young guys," or "no fireworks," just completely miss the point about how much progress we have made on all of the fronts above, and how other strategies would devalue those things.

When players around the league look at the Celtics now, going back to the Big Three era and up to now, they see something consistent in how the GM, coaches and team do things. Right? How many other teams can say that? Can the Sixers? The Lakers? OKC? Chicago? NYK? Anyone, in fact, other than the top 4-5 teams in the league?

That stability and cultural approach are the hardest things to build, and the most valuable for long-term success. The Patriots have it. The Spurs have it. Miami didn't, which is why they blew up. Philly doesn't. The Knicks and Lakers, for all of their advantages, don't have it.

Now, coming back to the question: even if the Celtics do not win soon, by continually succeeding on the court, steadily going deep into the playoffs, developing players to their fullest, and doing it all while judiciously stockpiling young talent, the Celts will end up ahead.

That might mean keeping the BKN picks and simultaneously trying to field one of the top 6 teams in the league. We aren't too far from that already.

If we do that and don't win a title for 5 years, we could have a greater chance at winning multiple titles in the decade after that than we would with an all-in "win now" or "blow it up" strategy, both of which could sacrifice on any of these other dimensions.

Awesome. TP. Exactly how I feel.