Kudos to Ainge and the FO

[Drucci]

Great job by Danny and the front office indeed. I didn't think we would endure potential heart failures so far in the playoffs only 4 years removed from the Pierce/KG trade. I'm also excited to see how we improve this summer, it's a nice luxury to have multiple options of doing so.

[RockinRyA]

Horford, Smart, and Brown are all top 6 picks. Horford and Brown were both top 3 picks.

When I talk about draft slots for GMs (me personally, not OP obviously,) I tend to look at the picks they made. Kind of like I wouldn't count Horford's success for the Celtics as part of their drafting acumen. Same with IT. Those are lumped in for FA discussions and trades for me.

So in effect, this current roster was built with 2 top 10 picks, and tons of savvy moves in trading and FA.

Ah but then San Antonio has no top 10 picks (despite Aldridge and Gasol being top 3 picks).  Same with Houston (despite Harden being a top 5 pick and Gordon and Nene being top 10 picks).  Cleveland only has 2 top ten picks (Irving and Thompson - from the same draft no less) since you can't count James, Love, Deron, Frye.  Golden State just has Curry and Thompson, since you are disregarding Durant and Iguodala.  You can't just disregard players acquired via means other than the draft.

This is stupid. The argument is the Celtics only had 2 top 10 pick to work on, so of course Horford isn't counted. To be able to acquire top ranked picks from other teams is a point in your favor, not against. This is the exact nitpicking that the other posters have been warning about.

Cleveland had more than just 2 top 10 picks. They turned Wiggins into Lebron. Being in the company of the likes of SA is an amazing feat, and no matter how you want to use this argument to paint the Celtics FO in a bad light, Im sorry but it only add points in their favor. Typical 

[aefgogreen]

I think it's just as important to give credit for the moves DA hasn't made.  No bad trades (granted we're lucky Charlotte didn't pull the trigger when Ainge wanted Winslow) or awful long-term free agent signings.  It's meant we have flexibility with both cap space and the Brooklyn picks.

[Moranis]

Horford, Smart, and Brown are all top 6 picks. Horford and Brown were both top 3 picks.

When I talk about draft slots for GMs (me personally, not OP obviously,) I tend to look at the picks they made. Kind of like I wouldn't count Horford's success for the Celtics as part of their drafting acumen. Same with IT. Those are lumped in for FA discussions and trades for me.

So in effect, this current roster was built with 2 top 10 picks, and tons of savvy moves in trading and FA.

Ah but then San Antonio has no top 10 picks (despite Aldridge and Gasol being top 3 picks).  Same with Houston (despite Harden being a top 5 pick and Gordon and Nene being top 10 picks).  Cleveland only has 2 top ten picks (Irving and Thompson - from the same draft no less) since you can't count James, Love, Deron, Frye.  Golden State just has Curry and Thompson, since you are disregarding Durant and Iguodala.  You can't just disregard players acquired via means other than the draft.

This is stupid. The argument is the Celtics only had 2 top 10 pick to work on, so of course Horford isn't counted. To be able to acquire top ranked picks from other teams is a point in your favor, not against. This is the exact nitpicking that the other posters have been warning about.

Cleveland had more than just 2 top 10 picks. They turned Wiggins into Lebron. Being in the company of the likes of SA is an amazing feat, and no matter how you want to use this argument to paint the Celtics FO in a bad light, Im sorry but it only add points in their favor. Typical 

it was Love not LeBron.  By this logic San Antonio and Houston have 0 top ten picks.  Same as Atlanta. Golden State has 2.  Toronto and Washington have 3 (Poetl is 1 of the Raptors and he doesn't play much at all). The Clippers have 1.  So when you look at it like that not quite so impressive is it?

[aingeforthree]

I think one thing that gets overlooked with how quickly we've rebuilt is that we didn't go for a quick fix. We have traded no core pieces or premium draft picks to get to where we are since the Pierce/Garnett trade. We ultimately used a trade exception to get our best player, and traded an expiring, value depressed Rondo for another starting piece. This was the first year we went into Free Agency and spent money. By any measure, we have no business being this good except for Danny and the FO making great decisions.

Great point. It's key in all of this. Ainge has always stayed patient in the process. In doing so, he's setup this franchise with a huge opportunity.

Funny thing is, he doesn't even need to hit in the draft. If he hits again in free agency, the C's are right there once again contending in the East & beyond. It's crazy.

[kraidstar]

Horford, Smart, and Brown are all top 6 picks. Horford and Brown were both top 3 picks.

When I talk about draft slots for GMs (me personally, not OP obviously,) I tend to look at the picks they made. Kind of like I wouldn't count Horford's success for the Celtics as part of their drafting acumen. Same with IT. Those are lumped in for FA discussions and trades for me.

So in effect, this current roster was built with 2 top 10 picks, and tons of savvy moves in trading and FA.

Ah but then San Antonio has no top 10 picks (despite Aldridge and Gasol being top 3 picks).  Same with Houston (despite Harden being a top 5 pick and Gordon and Nene being top 10 picks).  Cleveland only has 2 top ten picks (Irving and Thompson - from the same draft no less) since you can't count James, Love, Deron, Frye.  Golden State just has Curry and Thompson, since you are disregarding Durant and Iguodala.  You can't just disregard players acquired via means other than the draft.

This is stupid. The argument is the Celtics only had 2 top 10 pick to work on, so of course Horford isn't counted. To be able to acquire top ranked picks from other teams is a point in your favor, not against. This is the exact nitpicking that the other posters have been warning about.

Cleveland had more than just 2 top 10 picks. They turned Wiggins into Lebron. Being in the company of the likes of SA is an amazing feat, and no matter how you want to use this argument to paint the Celtics FO in a bad light, Im sorry but it only add points in their favor. Typical 

it was Love not LeBron.  By this logic San Antonio and Houston have 0 top ten picks.  Same as Atlanta. Golden State has 2.  Toronto and Washington have 3 (Poetl is 1 of the Raptors and he doesn't play much at all). The Clippers have 1.  So when you look at it like that not quite so impressive is it?

The bottom line is that we gutted a fading PP/KG team but weren't bad for very long at all. We've not yet had a chance to draft the sort of transcendent talent that wins championships (no-one with transcendent talent was available the two times we've picked in the top-10), and yet we're still a #1 seed going deep into the playoffs with some high draft picks coming down the pipe, and plenty of assets and space.

Offhand i can't think of any other team that has done this, it is a pretty unique situation, Ainge has cobbled together a very good team without being bad for long and while still hording excellent assets and plenty of cap flexibility.

[arctic 3.0]

Monday game 7 of second round
Tuesday lotto

Man, most teams would trade there mothers to achieve our worst case scenario.

[hodgy03038]

Monday game 7 of second round
Tuesday lotto

Man, most teams would trade there mothers to achieve our worst case scenario.

I would trade what we have to get my mother back.

Happy Mother's Day to all the Moms out there.

[arctic 3.0]

Monday game 7 of second round
Tuesday lotto

Man, most teams would trade there mothers to achieve our worst case scenario.

I would trade what we have to get my mother back.

Happy Mother's Day to all the Moms out there.

My apologies,
sports metaphors are often jarring when compared to realty.

[nickagneta]

I think they've done a wonderful job!

And since the draft can be such a crapshoot...I give more weight to the trades that are completed.

And in the trades department, Ainge and his crew have killed it!...A++

And I give even more weight to the trades that have not been completed that would have put us in a less enviable situation... (how many picks for Winslow again..)

Thats nuts. How do we know what trade offers Ainge didn't take or was turned down on. We have speculative rumors but thats it. For all we know that Winslow offer could have been wrongly reported and we have no idea what counter offers Danny turned down because the other team was asking for a king's ransom.

[mctyson]

I think one thing that gets overlooked with how quickly we've rebuilt is that we didn't go for a quick fix. We have traded no core pieces or premium draft picks to get to where we are since the Pierce/Garnett trade. We ultimately used a trade exception to get our best player, and traded an expiring, value depressed Rondo for another starting piece. This was the first year we went into Free Agency and spent money. By any measure, we have no business being this good except for Danny and the FO making great decisions.

Great point. It's key in all of this. Ainge has always stayed patient in the process. In doing so, he's setup this franchise with a huge opportunity.

Funny thing is, he doesn't even need to hit in the draft. If he hits again in free agency, the C's are right there once again contending in the East & beyond. It's crazy.

Not really.  I would certainly consider Rajon Rondo to be a core player from the 2007-2012 Cs.  He was traded and was arguably the 1st domino to fall in the true rebuild.

[RockinRyA]

Horford, Smart, and Brown are all top 6 picks. Horford and Brown were both top 3 picks.

When I talk about draft slots for GMs (me personally, not OP obviously,) I tend to look at the picks they made. Kind of like I wouldn't count Horford's success for the Celtics as part of their drafting acumen. Same with IT. Those are lumped in for FA discussions and trades for me.

So in effect, this current roster was built with 2 top 10 picks, and tons of savvy moves in trading and FA.

Ah but then San Antonio has no top 10 picks (despite Aldridge and Gasol being top 3 picks).  Same with Houston (despite Harden being a top 5 pick and Gordon and Nene being top 10 picks).  Cleveland only has 2 top ten picks (Irving and Thompson - from the same draft no less) since you can't count James, Love, Deron, Frye.  Golden State just has Curry and Thompson, since you are disregarding Durant and Iguodala.  You can't just disregard players acquired via means other than the draft.

This is stupid. The argument is the Celtics only had 2 top 10 pick to work on, so of course Horford isn't counted. To be able to acquire top ranked picks from other teams is a point in your favor, not against. This is the exact nitpicking that the other posters have been warning about.

Cleveland had more than just 2 top 10 picks. They turned Wiggins into Lebron. Being in the company of the likes of SA is an amazing feat, and no matter how you want to use this argument to paint the Celtics FO in a bad light, Im sorry but it only add points in their favor. Typical 

it was Love not LeBron.  By this logic San Antonio and Houston have 0 top ten picks.  Same as Atlanta. Golden State has 2.  Toronto and Washington have 3 (Poetl is 1 of the Raptors and he doesn't play much at all). The Clippers have 1.  So when you look at it like that not quite so impressive is it?

Lol Moranis and your usual crap. Being in the company of the likes of San Antonio and Golden State isnt impressive? The Celtics had 2 top 10 picks sure, but its gonna be a few years till the Cs will feel the addition of Jaylen Brown.

besides, how many of these teams came from really high level of basketball play before their rebuild? None of these teams aside from San Antonio came from championship level to either rebuild, or stay as a contender. During the times the Cs were contending, their competition were the Pistons, the Hawks, the Lakers, Spurs, Magic, and Lebron teams. Other than the Hawks, Spurs, and Cavs (who were aided by multiple top picks+Lebron) where are those teams now?

Keep underselling this Moranis

 

[Moranis]

Horford, Smart, and Brown are all top 6 picks. Horford and Brown were both top 3 picks.

When I talk about draft slots for GMs (me personally, not OP obviously,) I tend to look at the picks they made. Kind of like I wouldn't count Horford's success for the Celtics as part of their drafting acumen. Same with IT. Those are lumped in for FA discussions and trades for me.

So in effect, this current roster was built with 2 top 10 picks, and tons of savvy moves in trading and FA.

Ah but then San Antonio has no top 10 picks (despite Aldridge and Gasol being top 3 picks).  Same with Houston (despite Harden being a top 5 pick and Gordon and Nene being top 10 picks).  Cleveland only has 2 top ten picks (Irving and Thompson - from the same draft no less) since you can't count James, Love, Deron, Frye.  Golden State just has Curry and Thompson, since you are disregarding Durant and Iguodala.  You can't just disregard players acquired via means other than the draft.

This is stupid. The argument is the Celtics only had 2 top 10 pick to work on, so of course Horford isn't counted. To be able to acquire top ranked picks from other teams is a point in your favor, not against. This is the exact nitpicking that the other posters have been warning about.

Cleveland had more than just 2 top 10 picks. They turned Wiggins into Lebron. Being in the company of the likes of SA is an amazing feat, and no matter how you want to use this argument to paint the Celtics FO in a bad light, Im sorry but it only add points in their favor. Typical 

it was Love not LeBron.  By this logic San Antonio and Houston have 0 top ten picks.  Same as Atlanta. Golden State has 2.  Toronto and Washington have 3 (Poetl is 1 of the Raptors and he doesn't play much at all). The Clippers have 1.  So when you look at it like that not quite so impressive is it?

Lol Moranis and your usual crap. Being in the company of the likes of San Antonio and Golden State isnt impressive? The Celtics had 2 top 10 picks sure, but its gonna be a few years till the Cs will feel the addition of Jaylen Brown.

besides, how many of these teams came from really high level of basketball play before their rebuild? None of these teams aside from San Antonio came from championship level to either rebuild, or stay as a contender. During the times the Cs were contending, their competition were the Pistons, the Hawks, the Lakers, Spurs, Magic, and Lebron teams. Other than the Hawks, Spurs, and Cavs (who were aided by multiple top picks+Lebron) where are those teams now?

Keep underselling this Moranis

 

you guys really missed my point. You can't just ignore the fact that Horford was a top 3 pick unless you are going to apply the same logic to other teams.  Houston has 0 top ten picks if you don't count Harden, Gordin, or Nene because they weren't drafted by Houston. How about Memphis only drafted Conley as a top 10 pick.  San Antonio drafted 0 top ten picks. Atlanta drafted 0 top ten picks. Indiana 0 top ten picks. Chicago 0 top ten picks. Toronto 2 top ten picks. Golden State 2 top ten picks. LAC 1 top ten pick. Utah 2 tip ten picks.
Again this is using the logic you only coint someone yoi draft. We are giving kudos to the front office for doing something more than half the playoffs team did and are acting like it is a big deal.  Having a top 4 pick and being the 1 seed is worth giving kudos for but only drafting two top ten players not worth it.

[nickagneta]

Horford, Smart, and Brown are all top 6 picks. Horford and Brown were both top 3 picks.

When I talk about draft slots for GMs (me personally, not OP obviously,) I tend to look at the picks they made. Kind of like I wouldn't count Horford's success for the Celtics as part of their drafting acumen. Same with IT. Those are lumped in for FA discussions and trades for me.

So in effect, this current roster was built with 2 top 10 picks, and tons of savvy moves in trading and FA.

Ah but then San Antonio has no top 10 picks (despite Aldridge and Gasol being top 3 picks).  Same with Houston (despite Harden being a top 5 pick and Gordon and Nene being top 10 picks).  Cleveland only has 2 top ten picks (Irving and Thompson - from the same draft no less) since you can't count James, Love, Deron, Frye.  Golden State just has Curry and Thompson, since you are disregarding Durant and Iguodala.  You can't just disregard players acquired via means other than the draft.

This is stupid. The argument is the Celtics only had 2 top 10 pick to work on, so of course Horford isn't counted. To be able to acquire top ranked picks from other teams is a point in your favor, not against. This is the exact nitpicking that the other posters have been warning about.

Cleveland had more than just 2 top 10 picks. They turned Wiggins into Lebron. Being in the company of the likes of SA is an amazing feat, and no matter how you want to use this argument to paint the Celtics FO in a bad light, Im sorry but it only add points in their favor. Typical 

it was Love not LeBron.  By this logic San Antonio and Houston have 0 top ten picks.  Same as Atlanta. Golden State has 2.  Toronto and Washington have 3 (Poetl is 1 of the Raptors and he doesn't play much at all). The Clippers have 1.  So when you look at it like that not quite so impressive is it?

Lol Moranis and your usual crap. Being in the company of the likes of San Antonio and Golden State isnt impressive? The Celtics had 2 top 10 picks sure, but its gonna be a few years till the Cs will feel the addition of Jaylen Brown.

besides, how many of these teams came from really high level of basketball play before their rebuild? None of these teams aside from San Antonio came from championship level to either rebuild, or stay as a contender. During the times the Cs were contending, their competition were the Pistons, the Hawks, the Lakers, Spurs, Magic, and Lebron teams. Other than the Hawks, Spurs, and Cavs (who were aided by multiple top picks+Lebron) where are those teams now?

Keep underselling this Moranis

 

you guys really missed my point. You can't just ignore the fact that Horford was a top 3 pick unless you are going to apply the same logic to other teams.  Houston has 0 top ten picks if you don't count Harden, Gordin, or Nene because they weren't drafted by Houston. How about Memphis only drafted Conley as a top 10 pick.  San Antonio drafted 0 top ten picks. Atlanta drafted 0 top ten picks. Indiana 0 top ten picks. Chicago 0 top ten picks. Toronto 2 top ten picks. Golden State 2 top ten picks. LAC 1 top ten pick. Utah 2 tip ten picks.
Again this is using the logic you only coint someone yoi draft. We are giving kudos to the front office for doing something more than half the playoffs team did and are acting like it is a big deal.  Having a top 4 pick and being the 1 seed is worth giving kudos for but only drafting two top ten players not worth it.

I think this all goes to the point as to just how difficult it is to build a contender through the draft. So many teams that are successful get their best players through free agency and trade, not neccessarily drafting high in the lottery.

[Moranis]

Horford, Smart, and Brown are all top 6 picks. Horford and Brown were both top 3 picks.

When I talk about draft slots for GMs (me personally, not OP obviously,) I tend to look at the picks they made. Kind of like I wouldn't count Horford's success for the Celtics as part of their drafting acumen. Same with IT. Those are lumped in for FA discussions and trades for me.

So in effect, this current roster was built with 2 top 10 picks, and tons of savvy moves in trading and FA.

Ah but then San Antonio has no top 10 picks (despite Aldridge and Gasol being top 3 picks).  Same with Houston (despite Harden being a top 5 pick and Gordon and Nene being top 10 picks).  Cleveland only has 2 top ten picks (Irving and Thompson - from the same draft no less) since you can't count James, Love, Deron, Frye.  Golden State just has Curry and Thompson, since you are disregarding Durant and Iguodala.  You can't just disregard players acquired via means other than the draft.

This is stupid. The argument is the Celtics only had 2 top 10 pick to work on, so of course Horford isn't counted. To be able to acquire top ranked picks from other teams is a point in your favor, not against. This is the exact nitpicking that the other posters have been warning about.

Cleveland had more than just 2 top 10 picks. They turned Wiggins into Lebron. Being in the company of the likes of SA is an amazing feat, and no matter how you want to use this argument to paint the Celtics FO in a bad light, Im sorry but it only add points in their favor. Typical 

it was Love not LeBron.  By this logic San Antonio and Houston have 0 top ten picks.  Same as Atlanta. Golden State has 2.  Toronto and Washington have 3 (Poetl is 1 of the Raptors and he doesn't play much at all). The Clippers have 1.  So when you look at it like that not quite so impressive is it?

Lol Moranis and your usual crap. Being in the company of the likes of San Antonio and Golden State isnt impressive? The Celtics had 2 top 10 picks sure, but its gonna be a few years till the Cs will feel the addition of Jaylen Brown.

besides, how many of these teams came from really high level of basketball play before their rebuild? None of these teams aside from San Antonio came from championship level to either rebuild, or stay as a contender. During the times the Cs were contending, their competition were the Pistons, the Hawks, the Lakers, Spurs, Magic, and Lebron teams. Other than the Hawks, Spurs, and Cavs (who were aided by multiple top picks+Lebron) where are those teams now?

Keep underselling this Moranis

 

you guys really missed my point. You can't just ignore the fact that Horford was a top 3 pick unless you are going to apply the same logic to other teams.  Houston has 0 top ten picks if you don't count Harden, Gordin, or Nene because they weren't drafted by Houston. How about Memphis only drafted Conley as a top 10 pick.  San Antonio drafted 0 top ten picks. Atlanta drafted 0 top ten picks. Indiana 0 top ten picks. Chicago 0 top ten picks. Toronto 2 top ten picks. Golden State 2 top ten picks. LAC 1 top ten pick. Utah 2 tip ten picks.
Again this is using the logic you only coint someone yoi draft. We are giving kudos to the front office for doing something more than half the playoffs team did and are acting like it is a big deal.  Having a top 4 pick and being the 1 seed is worth giving kudos for but only drafting two top ten players not worth it.

I think this all goes to the point as to just how difficult it is to build a contender through the draft. So many teams that are successful get their best players through free agency and trade, not neccessarily drafting high in the lottery.

I don't think that is the case at all most teams are led by players they drafted they just weren't all top ten picks, but historically top ten picks yield better players more consistently (and top 5 is even larger odds).  Also many of the players acquired via trade were traded for using high draft picks.