We need a GM that is hungry again

[Boris Badenov]

Danny has been a top tier GM.

I don't think we should dismiss the OP's primary concern, though. I think it's an interesting question: is Danny too cautious lately?

There's the DMC debate, obviously. He passed on Giannis in the draft. Are those indicative of a GM being too risk averse? We've seen this from Danny at least once before, when he took JR Giddens because he was presumed to be more NBA-ready than guys like DeAndre Jordan.

Do you really think Danny's picks have been "safe bets" in the last several years? KO, sure. But Sully and Melo were both big gambles. Yab and Zizic are foreign unknowns. Rozier was seen to be a "reach." Was Smart the safe pick compared to Randle, Stauskas or Vonleh?

There's a concern that Danny could hold on to our "assets" too long. Look at Philly: they dealt Noel for basically a couple of second rounders, and they can't get a decent first rounder for a recent #2 pick in the draft. Could that be us? A good percentage of even top-4 picks are busts.  If Danny misses, should there be criticism for not cashing in for a sure thing?

I think this is a good point. Picks are, for whatever reason, always more than their "expected value" in talent. I ran through this a while back to ballpark the probabilities and they are not good (though higher in good drafts, which 2017 is supposed to be).

Remember, in 2007 Danny and the franchise were facing a crossroads. Pierce was threatening to leave. Danny talked publicly about potentially trading our pick, even if it was Oden or Durant. He definitely was in "championship or bust" mode.

Yes. Apples and oranges to today, where we have no such risk (and came pretty close to signing Durant anyway, according to some).

Another difference is that when we got the 2007 lottery pick, it was a one-off. We only were that awful because Pierce sat out most of the season. It wasn't like now, where we can get better and still have a decent shot at the #1 pick both this year and next year.

I don't think Danny's necessarily more risk-averse. Look at the Winslow trade proposal, right? But overall, he has more wiggle room now, if something doesn't happen right away. In other words, he's not more risk-averse, but the situation is less risky. It could be influencing his asking price in some of these deals.

We will see. Maybe we end up with the #3 pick and he trades it. If we fleece someone for a major star compared to what he could have gotten at the deadline, all of these concerns will go away.

[konkmv]

Spoiled... ask a kings or a jazz fan how many titles he has won... it is not easy to create a championship team...bird jordan magic lebron are not born eveyday...  let danny work.. i see the first pieces of a next generation... smart and brown... hopfully 2 more to come the next 2 years

[freshinthehouse]

Threads like this remind of the original CB message boards around 2004 to 2006, when some posters admonished Danny for not trading for the likes of Baron Davis, or a washed up Allen Iverson.  Some people have no patience, and would rather root for a 50-55 win club that has no shot at winning a title, than roll the dice and try to build a club that can actually take home the Larry O'Brien trophy.

This is such a dumb post

a) The Kings wanted a first round pick in 2017
b) I don't think anyone on this board including you would be happy to trade the Bkn pick for Cousins
C) Ranadive has an unhealthy fascination with Hield who he believes has "Steph Curry potential"
d) New Orleans are 0-3 since the trade
e) Cousins is suspended for their next game
f) every other tech he recives this season will result in a suspension
g) We have a top 3 pick in a loaded draft and we are ranked 2nd in the east
h) we have a max contract spot availible this summer

What exactly has Ainge done wrong?

Dude, I'm agreeing with you.  I'm glad Ainge didn't sell the farm to get either Butler or George.  We'd be stuck in a 2nd round exit zone with that roster.  And while the price was right on Boogie, as you stated, we weren't good trade partners for them.

[GreenFaith1819]

He IS hungry.

I don't think we'll find too many people with such a vested interest in this team as Ainge



He put together a Championship Team in 2007-08 and we had a great shot at repeating in 08-09 if it wasn't for this



It took almost TWO YEARS for KG to recover from this injury in Utah in 08 and by then LeBron James had a full head of momentum in front of him.

As much as I want help for IT and Big Al we should try to be patient. No use in us gutting this team for us to be on a 2nd round Playoff Treadmill.

This team - as is - is good enough to get to the 2nd round, at least - and maybe farther if some things fall our way.

Trust Danny - as hard as it may be. I do.

[PhoSita]

Danny has been a top tier GM.

I don't think we should dismiss the OP's primary concern, though. I think it's an interesting question: is Danny too cautious lately?

I would posit a different frame for this:

"Is it possible that Danny is somewhat more patient as a GM now that he's built a contender, torn that contender down once the window was closed, and then put together a good-but-not-great team to replace it?


My feeling is that the answer might be yes.

But .... maybe that's not a bad thing.

Look, the first time Ainge built a contender, it came together almost all at once.  It was a whirlwind summer, and then the team stormed the regular season, won a title in their first run, and then looked unstoppable the following year.  Until, that is, Kevin Garnett injured his knee.  After that, the team remained competitive, even coming within one quarter of a second title, but they were never the same juggernaut that they were before KG got hurt.


What I suggest is that perhaps what Ainge took away from the experience of the KG years was that a contender is a fragile thing.  One title won does not guarantee later title wins.

I think perhaps Ainge wants to build a contender very badly, but even more, he wants to build a team that can sustain success over a longer period of time.  Because Ainge doesn't just want to bring Banner 18 to the Celts.  He wants to bring Banners 19, 20 and perhaps more after that.  He doesn't want to build a team that can be the 2004 Pistons (the KG Celts compare strongly to that group) or the 2011 Mavs.  He wants to build a team that sit atop the league for a decade, or more.


To that end, he is looking for ways to maximize the talent on the team, but he is focused on building a culture, as Boris explained.  Furthermore, I think he's focused on ways to build up a talent base that is sustainable, with a cache of assets sufficient to keep the roster well stocked with affordable talent.  Danny does not want to be one knee injury away from his painstakingly constructed contender to turn into a second tier also-ran.


Ainge has already joined the ranks of GMs that built a title-winner.  Now he wants to be one of the select few who have built a dynasty.

[mctyson]

One of the funniest things after a celtics loss is to go right over to celticsblog and see the ridiculous threads and opinions people have. Never fails.

I've been criticizing Danny since the draft.  This is not new.  I'm not one of those.  Also this isn't going to be the only loss going forward.  And good luck getting out of the 1st or the 2nd round in the playoffs.

You do realize it is hypocritical to criticize the guy who created said playoff team, correct?

[positivitize]

LOL

[Ilikesports17]

Danny has been a top tier GM.

I don't think we should dismiss the OP's primary concern, though. I think it's an interesting question: is Danny too cautious lately?

I would posit a different frame for this:

"Is it possible that Danny is somewhat more patient as a GM now that he's built a contender, torn that contender down once the window was closed, and then put together a good-but-not-great team to replace it?


My feeling is that the answer might be yes.

But .... maybe that's not a bad thing.

Look, the first time Ainge built a contender, it came together almost all at once.  It was a whirlwind summer, and then the team stormed the regular season, won a title in their first run, and then looked unstoppable the following year.  Until, that is, Kevin Garnett injured his knee.  After that, the team remained competitive, even coming within one quarter of a second title, but they were never the same juggernaut that they were before KG got hurt.


What I suggest is that perhaps what Ainge took away from the experience of the KG years was that a contender is a fragile thing.  One title won does not guarantee later title wins.

I think perhaps Ainge wants to build a contender very badly, but even more, he wants to build a team that can sustain success over a longer period of time.  Because Ainge doesn't just want to bring Banner 18 to the Celts.  He wants to bring Banners 19, 20 and perhaps more after that.  He doesn't want to build a team that can be the 2004 Pistons (the KG Celts compare strongly to that group) or the 2011 Mavs.  He wants to build a team that sit atop the league for a decade, or more.


To that end, he is looking for ways to maximize the talent on the team, but he is focused on building a culture, as Boris explained.  Furthermore, I think he's focused on ways to build up a talent base that is sustainable, with a cache of assets sufficient to keep the roster well stocked with affordable talent.  Danny does not want to be one knee injury away from his painstakingly constructed contender to turn into a second tier also-ran.


Ainge has already joined the ranks of GMs that built a title-winner.  Now he wants to be one of the select few who have built a dynasty.

I think it is entirely possible that this is true and its not a very good thing in my mind.

Ironically, Ainges problem may be that he is too hungry.

He wants 3 championships, not a punchers chance at one title.

also, I wonder how many GMs have won multiple championships without a single player constant to both teams.

[Bobshot]

One criticism I have of him is he doesn't seem concerned about rebounding or defensive big guys. AJ was supposed to fill that role, but he hasn't been consistent. It was not a good sign.

It all started when they didn't pay Perkins, who was their defensive rebounding big in '08. A guy who took a lot of heat off KG. They weren't the same after that, though it was mixed in with KG's injury. The other guys they let go for $$ were Powe (offensive rebounder supreme) and Posey, defensive 3P guy. When KG got hurt, they were that much weaker because those other guys weren't around.

OK, other teams grossly overbid for these guys, but they didn't seem to make a strong effort to keep them. I always thought Wyc was the controlling factor--he figured he got his championship, and he wasn't going over the cap to get another. Plus maybe there was an under appreciation of what a defensive guy like Perk brought to the team. I don't think Wyc was in touch with Celtics history, and the importance of Bill Russell in winning championships with his defense. He just didn't want to pay a defensive guy. Maybe still doesn't, though AJ did not come cheap.

[Evantime34]

Danny has been a top tier GM.

I don't think we should dismiss the OP's primary concern, though. I think it's an interesting question: is Danny too cautious lately?

I would posit a different frame for this:

"Is it possible that Danny is somewhat more patient as a GM now that he's built a contender, torn that contender down once the window was closed, and then put together a good-but-not-great team to replace it?


My feeling is that the answer might be yes.

But .... maybe that's not a bad thing.

Look, the first time Ainge built a contender, it came together almost all at once.  It was a whirlwind summer, and then the team stormed the regular season, won a title in their first run, and then looked unstoppable the following year.  Until, that is, Kevin Garnett injured his knee.  After that, the team remained competitive, even coming within one quarter of a second title, but they were never the same juggernaut that they were before KG got hurt.


What I suggest is that perhaps what Ainge took away from the experience of the KG years was that a contender is a fragile thing.  One title won does not guarantee later title wins.

I think perhaps Ainge wants to build a contender very badly, but even more, he wants to build a team that can sustain success over a longer period of time.  Because Ainge doesn't just want to bring Banner 18 to the Celts.  He wants to bring Banners 19, 20 and perhaps more after that.  He doesn't want to build a team that can be the 2004 Pistons (the KG Celts compare strongly to that group) or the 2011 Mavs.  He wants to build a team that sit atop the league for a decade, or more.


To that end, he is looking for ways to maximize the talent on the team, but he is focused on building a culture, as Boris explained.  Furthermore, I think he's focused on ways to build up a talent base that is sustainable, with a cache of assets sufficient to keep the roster well stocked with affordable talent.  Danny does not want to be one knee injury away from his painstakingly constructed contender to turn into a second tier also-ran.


Ainge has already joined the ranks of GMs that built a title-winner.  Now he wants to be one of the select few who have built a dynasty.

I think it is entirely possible that this is true and its not a very good thing in my mind.

Ironically, Ainges problem may be that he is too hungry.

He wants 3 championships, not a punchers chance at one title.

also, I wonder how many GMs have won multiple championships without a single player constant to both teams.

I think this cuts to the heart of the disagreement on this board. Some value a punchers chance at one title over extended success.

I prefer extended success, and think that extended success will lead to us having a punchers chance at a title even if we don't trade a bunch of assets for a star.

[mahonedog88]

I'm really starting to question how much pull Brad Stevens has in the roster construction.

The Danny Ainge we all remember was strictly about talent.  Barring being a convicted felon, Ainge...up until Brad Stevens got here...would bring anyone in as long as they could play, as long as they were the most talented.

Since Stevens has gotten here though, it's been a bunch of delightful guys that are easy to coach.  The only player with talent that could be classified as a malcontent that Stevens has coached so far in his NBA coaching career is Rondo...and Brad didn't exactly handle that situation with flying colors.

Brad Stevens has to understand that in the NBA, not every player with talent is going to have a squeaky clean resume.  Managing tough personalities is a part of the job for an NBA coach.  The sooner he accepts that and steps out of his comfort zone of only wanting Al Horford-types with no baggage, the better it will be for everyone.

[vgulab]

Forget the championship, let's talk about rebuild

2013-2017 Best rebuild in NBA history.

After only 4 years of rebuild:

1. C's became regular playoff team after only 2 years rebuild.

2. C's got Brad Stevens, the best young coach in the nba.

3. C's  got 2 all star players for basically nothing - IT and Horford

4. C's developed Bradley to near all star quality and have Smart who can change a game.

5. C's have Zizic and Yabusele who might became solid players

6. C's have salary cap to sign max player

7. C's have Brown , the 3rd pick on the last draft

8. C's have 2017 and 2018 nets pick who will probably be top 3 picks, 2017 might be number 1 and that means 3 consecutive top 3 picks - 2016,2017,2018

So only after 4 years rebuild, Ainge made the C's a playoff team with top 3 picks.

If this rebuild finishes the right way the C's are gonna be contenders for the next 15 years. That should be the goal, and not a 2-3 years title contention window

[Ilikesports17]

I'm really starting to question how much pull Brad Stevens has in the roster construction.

The Danny Ainge we all remember was strictly about talent.  Barring being a convicted felon, Ainge...up until Brad Stevens got here...would bring anyone in as long as they could play, as long as they were the most talented.

Since Stevens has gotten here though, it's been a bunch of delightful guys that are easy to coach.  The only player with talent that could be classified as a malcontent that Stevens has coached so far in his NBA coaching career is Rondo...and Brad didn't exactly handle that situation with flying colors.

Brad Stevens has to understand that in the NBA, not every player with talent is going to have a squeaky clean resume.  Managing tough personalities is a part of the job for an NBA coach.  The sooner he accepts that and steps out of his comfort zone of only wanting Al Horford-types with no baggage, the better it will be for everyone.

Smart shoved a fan in college and has since hit Matt Bonner in the nuts and punched a hole in a locker room wall.
Isaiah Thomas had teammate issues in Phoenix(not his fault)
Evan Turner was a chemistry disaster in Indiana

Theres 3 guys that prior to their time in Boston had some question marks around them. Now they are beloved.

[BitterJim]

One criticism I have of him is he doesn't seem concerned about rebounding or defensive big guys. AJ was supposed to fill that role, but he hasn't been consistent. It was not a good sign.

It all started when they didn't pay Perkins, who was their defensive rebounding big in '08. A guy who took a lot of heat off KG. They weren't the same after that, though it was mixed in with KG's injury. The other guys they let go for $$ were Powe (offensive rebounder supreme) and Posey, defensive 3P guy. When KG got hurt, they were that much weaker because those other guys weren't around.

OK, other teams grossly overbid for these guys, but they didn't seem to make a strong effort to keep them. I always thought Wyc was the controlling factor--he figured he got his championship, and he wasn't going over the cap to get another. Plus maybe there was an under appreciation of what a defensive guy like Perk brought to the team. I don't think Wyc was in touch with Celtics history, and the importance of Bill Russell in winning championships with his defense. He just didn't want to pay a defensive guy. Maybe still doesn't, though AJ did not come cheap.

To be fair to Ainge, neither was Perk.  I also think that that trade would never have happened if OKC had disclosed their knowledge of Jeff Green's heart issue

[Monkhouse]

I'm really starting to question how much pull Brad Stevens has in the roster construction.

The Danny Ainge we all remember was strictly about talent.  Barring being a convicted felon, Ainge...up until Brad Stevens got here...would bring anyone in as long as they could play, as long as they were the most talented.

Since Stevens has gotten here though, it's been a bunch of delightful guys that are easy to coach.  The only player with talent that could be classified as a malcontent that Stevens has coached so far in his NBA coaching career is Rondo...and Brad didn't exactly handle that situation with flying colors.

Brad Stevens has to understand that in the NBA, not every player with talent is going to have a squeaky clean resume.  Managing tough personalities is a part of the job for an NBA coach.  The sooner he accepts that and steps out of his comfort zone of only wanting Al Horford-types with no baggage, the better it will be for everyone.

I agree to an certain extent. But to be fair, Rondo wasn't exactly none too pleased with the drafting of a 'franchise' guard, and most likely felt his job was in jeopardy.

I wish Ainge went after Cousins. Even if I felt like he would've been a locker room menace, I would've loved to see how he could've been utilized to the best of his ability, and I felt like Cousins would've enjoyed the crowd of Boston.

I'm really starting to question how much pull Brad Stevens has in the roster construction.

The Danny Ainge we all remember was strictly about talent.  Barring being a convicted felon, Ainge...up until Brad Stevens got here...would bring anyone in as long as they could play, as long as they were the most talented.

Since Stevens has gotten here though, it's been a bunch of delightful guys that are easy to coach.  The only player with talent that could be classified as a malcontent that Stevens has coached so far in his NBA coaching career is Rondo...and Brad didn't exactly handle that situation with flying colors.

Brad Stevens has to understand that in the NBA, not every player with talent is going to have a squeaky clean resume.  Managing tough personalities is a part of the job for an NBA coach.  The sooner he accepts that and steps out of his comfort zone of only wanting Al Horford-types with no baggage, the better it will be for everyone.

Smart shoved a fan in college and has since hit Matt Bonner in the nuts and punched a hole in a locker room wall.
Isaiah Thomas had teammate issues in Phoenix(not his fault)
Evan Turner was a chemistry disaster in Indiana

Theres 3 guys that prior to their time in Boston had some question marks around them. Now they are beloved.

This is also what I was gonna post next. Need to stop slacking off at work. 

But Turner and Thomas had concerns about whether or not they would've disrupted the winning 'culture,' built by Stevens and Ainge co.