The most likely plan spells the end for IT, Crowder, and possibly Smart.

[OldSchoolDude]

Some of you are missing the point.  The current plan is to keep and use the Brooklyn picks. If you draft a player #1 to 3, that player will eventually be a starter who also close games or will be a bust.  If Fultz or Ball is the real deal we have to let go of Smart or IT.   We are building a roster with top picks and those picks need to become the main go to players on the team or the picks are busts.  Also you don't sing a Max free agent to not play him.  So we have to end up with a go to line up of 2016 #3 pick (Brown), 2017 top 4 at worst, 2018 pick looking to be top 5, 2016 max FA Horford, 2017 max FA possibly Hayward or Griffin.

IT will have to be the first to go.  He is an unrestricted free agent after next season.  If Ball or Fultz looks like an all star to be there is no way we can offer IT a Max.  IT is playing to good to take 1/2 a max deal, come of the bench, and not be on the floor during crunch time. Even if he is still the better player the first year of a 5 year max deal, the team will be stuck with a horrible contact for 4 years.   The celtics have not budged on numerous opportunities to trade the pick.  They clearly want to keep it.

Saying the current plan is to build through the draft is a wild assumption, especially given the fact that Ainge has been chasing Butler for over a year now and reportedly came close to landing Paul George. What you may mean is it is your preferred option, which is something completely different.

If we get Fultz or Ball and if they turn into all NBA players then it does not mean letting go of Smart or IT. If we draft Fultz he can play alongside either of those guys for years.

Also if we are building through the draft and making our top picks the got to guys, why are we signing a max FA to be just that? Surely it would make more sense to not sign a guy like Hayward in your scenario? Surely better to extend IT this summer so that when Fultz becomes the player you envisage we can trade IT for help in another area, as opposed to letting him walk for nothing...

This whole topic was kicked off by your most likely scenario, which was in fact not the most likely scenario and has now turned into your description of one of the many routes we could take this summer, which isn't even news considering we were talking about this last summer as well. None of that means that Smart and IT must go. That's literally like saying Crowder should have gone last summer because we drafted Brown

Well I am actully saying that because we drafted Brown Croweder will go.  Just not right now.   If the #3 pick does not step into the go to SF role than the pick was wasted.  If he steps in to that role the current guy he replaces will not be given a big contract. 

You don't draft guys in the top 5 of the draft to be back up role players.  If that's where they end up that's a bust.  We did nothing at the trade deadline.  We made no draft trades last summer.   We have passed up opportunists to get Jimmy Butler a few times now.  If the team was really about wining now with IT we would have made a trade, even a minor move like Ibaka. Because we didn't make any moves, even small moves, its really an indication that the management wants to use the picks and build with them. That means that the current starters days are really numbered and there is not going to be a Brinks truck for IT.

[KGBirdBias]

These playoffs are going to tell us if we can move forward with IT, Smart and AB and sign a top tier FA forward or do they let 2 of the 3 go and look to Ball or Fultz to lead us.

I think we take a step back going with Ball or Fultz but in the long run we may have to do that.

Look at the previous top picks...KAT, Wiggins, Embiid, Davis. We are talking those types of cornerstone franchise players. Ainge has to figure out is that IT, AB, Ball or Fultz. Haywood would have to tell Stevens...I'm coming\not coming because that will help clear up a lot of possibilities.

Good luck Ainge.

[TheSundanceKid]

Some of you are missing the point.  The current plan is to keep and use the Brooklyn picks. If you draft a player #1 to 3, that player will eventually be a starter who also close games or will be a bust.  If Fultz or Ball is the real deal we have to let go of Smart or IT.   We are building a roster with top picks and those picks need to become the main go to players on the team or the picks are busts.  Also you don't sing a Max free agent to not play him.  So we have to end up with a go to line up of 2016 #3 pick (Brown), 2017 top 4 at worst, 2018 pick looking to be top 5, 2016 max FA Horford, 2017 max FA possibly Hayward or Griffin.

IT will have to be the first to go.  He is an unrestricted free agent after next season.  If Ball or Fultz looks like an all star to be there is no way we can offer IT a Max.  IT is playing to good to take 1/2 a max deal, come of the bench, and not be on the floor during crunch time. Even if he is still the better player the first year of a 5 year max deal, the team will be stuck with a horrible contact for 4 years.   The celtics have not budged on numerous opportunities to trade the pick.  They clearly want to keep it.

Saying the current plan is to build through the draft is a wild assumption, especially given the fact that Ainge has been chasing Butler for over a year now and reportedly came close to landing Paul George. What you may mean is it is your preferred option, which is something completely different.

If we get Fultz or Ball and if they turn into all NBA players then it does not mean letting go of Smart or IT. If we draft Fultz he can play alongside either of those guys for years.

Also if we are building through the draft and making our top picks the got to guys, why are we signing a max FA to be just that? Surely it would make more sense to not sign a guy like Hayward in your scenario? Surely better to extend IT this summer so that when Fultz becomes the player you envisage we can trade IT for help in another area, as opposed to letting him walk for nothing...

This whole topic was kicked off by your most likely scenario, which was in fact not the most likely scenario and has now turned into your description of one of the many routes we could take this summer, which isn't even news considering we were talking about this last summer as well. None of that means that Smart and IT must go. That's literally like saying Crowder should have gone last summer because we drafted Brown

Well I am actully saying that because we drafted Brown Croweder will go.  Just not right now.   If the #3 pick does not step into the go to SF role than the pick was wasted.  If he steps in to that role the current guy he replaces will not be given a big contract. 

You don't draft guys in the top 5 of the draft to be back up role players.  If that's where they end up that's a bust.  We did nothing at the trade deadline.  We made no draft trades last summer.   We have passed up opportunists to get Jimmy Butler a few times now.  If the team was really about wining now with IT we would have made a trade, even a minor move like Ibaka. Because we didn't make any moves, even small moves, its really an indication that the management wants to use the picks and build with them. That means that the current starters days are really numbered and there is not going to be a Brinks truck for IT.

I see where you're coming from but I fundamentally disagree on a few points you raise here.

I agree with you that Brown will supplant Crowder, I disagree that means that Crowder will go. He's on a long term contract, he's perfect as a backup SF if Brown surpasses him. He was willing to move to the bench for Durant, if he sees JAylen develop into an all NBA player then I don't see him forcing his way out, he wants to win.

Ideally all the players we draft become a part of our future, the higher the pick the more likely they are to be a bigger part of that, agreed. I disagree with the Ibaka point. DA knows his priorities and Ibaka doesn't line up with that. I'm on board with that, as a rental he would have cost a lot, as a long term piece I don't think he moves the bar more than some of our targets this summer or simple internal growth of talent.

As for the small moves I was a little surprised at that but again it doesn't mean a lack of commitment to this group. What Stevens has said in the past is that continuity means a lot to him. I imagine that he values the core group of guys we have highly and it would be difficult for a newcomer to break into that. We all think "but it would only involve waiving Mickey so whats the big deal?" Honestly I'm not sure yet but a guess might be that he's another non guaranteed guy to be dealt on draft night and that has it's own value.

I don't think it's as simple as saying the young guys are going to come in and therefore the old guys must go. I'm a massive proponent of learning in a winning environment, a unique opportunity we are afforded here. I think its already paid huge dividends with Brown. I think it massively helped Kawhi early in his career as well. Having IT and Fultz on the same team will not be a negative in my mind, it'll be a huge opportunity for Fultz. Long term there will be choices to be made but they are a long way off right now

[Rosco917]

Riding ourselves of Marcus Smart is crazy. He'll never ask for a max deal, and doesn't complain about starting or coming off the bench, he plays rock hard every night, especially in the 4th quarter, and he's just the kind of player that puts your team in the finals, sooner or later. He's cut out of a certain mold that has produced great results for championship teams, while not see his true worth in the box scores.


I've come to believe that both Fultz and Ball will be talented NBA player both in different ways. I feel Fultz can play off guard, I'm not to sure about Ball, he looks too much like a true point guard IMO, the kid is born to create pace and run. He's a point guard, no two ways about it. What this means for IT is anyone's guess, but if were in DA's shoes, I'm not for giving him a max deal, not for a one demential scorer.

I'd like to see the core of this team stay together, this team needs upgrades at the 4 and 5 position badly, yes... sign Haywood if you can, but find some valuable size to help Horford, so he can do what he does best.

[OldSchoolDude]

Some of you are missing the point.  The current plan is to keep and use the Brooklyn picks. If you draft a player #1 to 3, that player will eventually be a starter who also close games or will be a bust.  If Fultz or Ball is the real deal we have to let go of Smart or IT.   We are building a roster with top picks and those picks need to become the main go to players on the team or the picks are busts.  Also you don't sing a Max free agent to not play him.  So we have to end up with a go to line up of 2016 #3 pick (Brown), 2017 top 4 at worst, 2018 pick looking to be top 5, 2016 max FA Horford, 2017 max FA possibly Hayward or Griffin.

IT will have to be the first to go.  He is an unrestricted free agent after next season.  If Ball or Fultz looks like an all star to be there is no way we can offer IT a Max.  IT is playing to good to take 1/2 a max deal, come of the bench, and not be on the floor during crunch time. Even if he is still the better player the first year of a 5 year max deal, the team will be stuck with a horrible contact for 4 years.   The celtics have not budged on numerous opportunities to trade the pick.  They clearly want to keep it.

Saying the current plan is to build through the draft is a wild assumption, especially given the fact that Ainge has been chasing Butler for over a year now and reportedly came close to landing Paul George. What you may mean is it is your preferred option, which is something completely different.

If we get Fultz or Ball and if they turn into all NBA players then it does not mean letting go of Smart or IT. If we draft Fultz he can play alongside either of those guys for years.

Also if we are building through the draft and making our top picks the got to guys, why are we signing a max FA to be just that? Surely it would make more sense to not sign a guy like Hayward in your scenario? Surely better to extend IT this summer so that when Fultz becomes the player you envisage we can trade IT for help in another area, as opposed to letting him walk for nothing...

This whole topic was kicked off by your most likely scenario, which was in fact not the most likely scenario and has now turned into your description of one of the many routes we could take this summer, which isn't even news considering we were talking about this last summer as well. None of that means that Smart and IT must go. That's literally like saying Crowder should have gone last summer because we drafted Brown

Well I am actully saying that because we drafted Brown Croweder will go.  Just not right now.   If the #3 pick does not step into the go to SF role than the pick was wasted.  If he steps in to that role the current guy he replaces will not be given a big contract. 

You don't draft guys in the top 5 of the draft to be back up role players.  If that's where they end up that's a bust.  We did nothing at the trade deadline.  We made no draft trades last summer.   We have passed up opportunists to get Jimmy Butler a few times now.  If the team was really about wining now with IT we would have made a trade, even a minor move like Ibaka. Because we didn't make any moves, even small moves, its really an indication that the management wants to use the picks and build with them. That means that the current starters days are really numbered and there is not going to be a Brinks truck for IT.

I see where you're coming from but I fundamentally disagree on a few points you raise here.

I agree with you that Brown will supplant Crowder, I disagree that means that Crowder will go. He's on a long term contract, he's perfect as a backup SF if Brown surpasses him. He was willing to move to the bench for Durant, if he sees JAylen develop into an all NBA player then I don't see him forcing his way out, he wants to win.

Ideally all the players we draft become a part of our future, the higher the pick the more likely they are to be a bigger part of that, agreed. I disagree with the Ibaka point. DA knows his priorities and Ibaka doesn't line up with that. I'm on board with that, as a rental he would have cost a lot, as a long term piece I don't think he moves the bar more than some of our targets this summer or simple internal growth of talent.

As for the small moves I was a little surprised at that but again it doesn't mean a lack of commitment to this group. What Stevens has said in the past is that continuity means a lot to him. I imagine that he values the core group of guys we have highly and it would be difficult for a newcomer to break into that. We all think "but it would only involve waiving Mickey so whats the big deal?" Honestly I'm not sure yet but a guess might be that he's another non guaranteed guy to be dealt on draft night and that has it's own value.

I don't think it's as simple as saying the young guys are going to come in and therefore the old guys must go. I'm a massive proponent of learning in a winning environment, a unique opportunity we are afforded here. I think its already paid huge dividends with Brown. I think it massively helped Kawhi early in his career as well. Having IT and Fultz on the same team will not be a negative in my mind, it'll be a huge opportunity for Fultz. Long term there will be choices to be made but they are a long way off right now

I think we agree more than you think.  I'm really only saying  we will not renew IT and Crowder for big money deals when their current contracts expire.   Which in turn makes them essentially place holders, a term many people are upset by.   I'm all for Crowder coming off the bench for 3 years and making the bench strong. 

But when you say  Long term there will be choices to be made but they are a long way off right now, it is really not true for IT, a decision has to be made next season.    I think he will end up walking in free agency, but that's only if Fultz or Ball show they can do it.  Already Smart is showing he can run  the point , so even if Fultz isn't ready at the end of his rookie year, if he looks close to ready, I think they will have to let IT walk.   A five year max for IT is like 30 million a year.  that's too much for someone coming of the bench for 3 or 4 years of the deal.

[nickagneta]

Some of you are missing the point.  The current plan is to keep and use the Brooklyn picks. If you draft a player #1 to 3, that player will eventually be a starter who also close games or will be a bust.  If Fultz or Ball is the real deal we have to let go of Smart or IT.   We are building a roster with top picks and those picks need to become the main go to players on the team or the picks are busts.  Also you don't sing a Max free agent to not play him.  So we have to end up with a go to line up of 2016 #3 pick (Brown), 2017 top 4 at worst, 2018 pick looking to be top 5, 2016 max FA Horford, 2017 max FA possibly Hayward or Griffin.

IT will have to be the first to go.  He is an unrestricted free agent after next season.  If Ball or Fultz looks like an all star to be there is no way we can offer IT a Max.  IT is playing to good to take 1/2 a max deal, come of the bench, and not be on the floor during crunch time. Even if he is still the better player the first year of a 5 year max deal, the team will be stuck with a horrible contact for 4 years.   The celtics have not budged on numerous opportunities to trade the pick.  They clearly want to keep it.

Saying the current plan is to build through the draft is a wild assumption, especially given the fact that Ainge has been chasing Butler for over a year now and reportedly came close to landing Paul George. What you may mean is it is your preferred option, which is something completely different.

If we get Fultz or Ball and if they turn into all NBA players then it does not mean letting go of Smart or IT. If we draft Fultz he can play alongside either of those guys for years.

Also if we are building through the draft and making our top picks the got to guys, why are we signing a max FA to be just that? Surely it would make more sense to not sign a guy like Hayward in your scenario? Surely better to extend IT this summer so that when Fultz becomes the player you envisage we can trade IT for help in another area, as opposed to letting him walk for nothing...

This whole topic was kicked off by your most likely scenario, which was in fact not the most likely scenario and has now turned into your description of one of the many routes we could take this summer, which isn't even news considering we were talking about this last summer as well. None of that means that Smart and IT must go. That's literally like saying Crowder should have gone last summer because we drafted Brown

TP, Sundance. This "most likely plan" of the OP is nothing more than his preferred plan which is trade the vets, play rookies and second year players which will make us bad, draft high in following years because we will suck for a while and hopefully some of these kids turn into superstars and we contend like OKC did during their rebuild and we don't suck forever like Minny, Sacramento, Philly, New Orleans, Orlando and others that tried the "kuddie rebuild" philosophy.

[OldSchoolDude]

I said nothing about trading anyone.  Just moving them to the bench and not resigning them.  I think people have IT blinders on.  He's fun to watch but he's not getting a Max contact.  We are building a roster that will not need IT and Crowder when their contacts expire. And even if we want to keep them coming of the bench, we will not be able to pay them what they can get as free agents.   It is possible that we may not need Smart, but his play of late make me think if any of those three stick it will be Smart.  It makes no sense to spend a #1 or 2 overall pick on a PG and bring him of the bench for 6 years, so if we know the 2017 pick is going to be the guy, then it makes no sense to max IT.

[Atzar]

I said nothing about trading anyone.  Just moving them to the bench and not resigning them.  I think people have IT blinders on.  He's fun to watch but he's not getting a Max contact.  We are building a roster that will not need IT and Crowder when their contacts expire. And even if we want to keep them coming of the bench, we will not be able to pay them what they can get as free agents.   It is possible that we may not need Smart, but his play of late make me think if any of those three stick it will be Smart.  It makes no sense to spend a #1 or 2 overall pick on a PG and bring him of the bench for 6 years, so if we know the 2017 pick is going to be the guy, then it makes no sense to max IT.

Guys who score 30 per game on efficient shooting get max contracts, regardless of whatever flaws you see in his game.  If we don't pay him the max, somebody else will.

[Androslav]

Sorry OP, I just don't buy your multiple scenarios premise. Simplifying in general and not including factors like injuries, chemistry, the usual "who would have thought" surprises. It is just that it is immpossible to predict 5 years down the road. Like they say, people plan, gods laugh. GMs have to act according to their landscape and, for example, we don't even know about the cap space predictions 3 years from now. I think your mental exercise was useful to you but not valid one.

[nickagneta]

I said nothing about trading anyone.  Just moving them to the bench and not resigning them.  I think people have IT blinders on.  He's fun to watch but he's not getting a Max contact.  We are building a roster that will not need IT and Crowder when their contacts expire. And even if we want to keep them coming of the bench, we will not be able to pay them what they can get as free agents.   It is possible that we may not need Smart, but his play of late make me think if any of those three stick it will be Smart.  It makes no sense to spend a #1 or 2 overall pick on a PG and bring him of the bench for 6 years, so if we know the 2017 pick is going to be the guy, then it makes no sense to max IT.

Why would Ball or Fultz have to come off the bench for 6 years? Both can play alongside IT, possibly start alongside IT...if they ever get good enough. As long as they get minutes what does it matter if they start? They are in their teens. They can afford to come off the bench and earn their minutes on a contender because they are so young. Unless Bradley is moved next year, Brown and Smart will once agaun come off the bench. Smart for his fourth year, Brown for his second. Smart got plenty of minutes to develop and Brown's development has been slow and progressing well as he earns the time.

Ball/Fultz doesn't have to start to develop well and earning their minutes in a winning environment will be good for them. If they show they are stars right away, they will get their minutes.

[nickagneta]

edit: double post

[mmmmm]

Some of you are missing the point.  The current plan is to keep and use the Brooklyn picks. If you draft a player #1 to 3, that player will eventually be a starter who also close games or will be a bust.  If Fultz or Ball is the real deal we have to let go of Smart or IT.   We are building a roster with top picks and those picks need to become the main go to players on the team or the picks are busts.  Also you don't sing a Max free agent to not play him.  So we have to end up with a go to line up of 2016 #3 pick (Brown), 2017 top 4 at worst, 2018 pick looking to be top 5, 2016 max FA Horford, 2017 max FA possibly Hayward or Griffin.

1) You don't know that.  For all you know, Danny's most "current plan" is a trade deal that's all wrapped up and waiting for the lottery outcome to finalize the value of the pick.

2) You probably won't know if Fultz or Ball is the "real deal" for at least a year or two.

3) We just signed Al Horford to a 117M contract.   I doubt seriously that the primary plan is sending him into battle with a rookie at PG when he came here to play with an all-star.

4) We don't even know for certain that we will get a top 2 pick with which to pick Fultz or Ball.  What you are describing isn't at all "the most likely plan".  It is just your plan.  And it is not one that really seems to take in the realities of these players as people.

There are a tremendous number of variables that have to play out (that Danny doesn't have control over) before the actual path Danny will take crystalizes.  There is not going to be any single "most likely plan" until more of those variables have finalized.  In the mean time, he is doing the smart thing and making sure he is able to take any one of many possible paths.

[CoachBo]

Some of you are missing the point.  The current plan is to keep and use the Brooklyn picks. If you draft a player #1 to 3, that player will eventually be a starter who also close games or will be a bust.  If Fultz or Ball is the real deal we have to let go of Smart or IT.   We are building a roster with top picks and those picks need to become the main go to players on the team or the picks are busts.  Also you don't sing a Max free agent to not play him.  So we have to end up with a go to line up of 2016 #3 pick (Brown), 2017 top 4 at worst, 2018 pick looking to be top 5, 2016 max FA Horford, 2017 max FA possibly Hayward or Griffin.

IT will have to be the first to go.  He is an unrestricted free agent after next season.  If Ball or Fultz looks like an all star to be there is no way we can offer IT a Max.  IT is playing to good to take 1/2 a max deal, come of the bench, and not be on the floor during crunch time. Even if he is still the better player the first year of a 5 year max deal, the team will be stuck with a horrible contact for 4 years.   The celtics have not budged on numerous opportunities to trade the pick.  They clearly want to keep it.

Saying the current plan is to build through the draft is a wild assumption, especially given the fact that Ainge has been chasing Butler for over a year now and reportedly came close to landing Paul George. What you may mean is it is your preferred option, which is something completely different.

If we get Fultz or Ball and if they turn into all NBA players then it does not mean letting go of Smart or IT. If we draft Fultz he can play alongside either of those guys for years.

Also if we are building through the draft and making our top picks the got to guys, why are we signing a max FA to be just that? Surely it would make more sense to not sign a guy like Hayward in your scenario? Surely better to extend IT this summer so that when Fultz becomes the player you envisage we can trade IT for help in another area, as opposed to letting him walk for nothing...

This whole topic was kicked off by your most likely scenario, which was in fact not the most likely scenario and has now turned into your description of one of the many routes we could take this summer, which isn't even news considering we were talking about this last summer as well. None of that means that Smart and IT must go. That's literally like saying Crowder should have gone last summer because we drafted Brown

TP, Sundance. This "most likely plan" of the OP is nothing more than his preferred plan which is trade the vets, play rookies and second year players which will make us bad, draft high in following years because we will suck for a while and hopefully some of these kids turn into superstars and we contend like OKC did during their rebuild and we don't suck forever like Minny, Sacramento, Philly, New Orleans, Orlando and others that tried the "kuddie rebuild" philosophy.

Otherwise known as the "perpetual rebuild."

[LGC88]

So many plans available for Danny with FA, lottery and trades.
I don't even think the OP plan is one of Danny's. Doesn't make any sense for a sensible GM like him.
What I'm interested to hear is what will be our big rotation long term.
Because there aren't many solutions.
Horford starter, Zizic backup. That's the most likely with maybe Yabusele as a last rotation big.
Now who will be the other 2 or 3 bigs? Vets on below market value?
Even if we manage to keep KO, we still need a solid defensive starter (better than Amir if possible).

[CelticsFanFromNYC]

Noone thinks our best logical chances  would be if we signed a free agent  and   had, Marcus, Ball/Fults and Brown as our bench for a championship run Lonzo or Fultz first year or two wont be Close to IT's level. The next year we pickup a big and our bench is our future. We'd have about a strong  3-4 year window from there.