Author Topic: Does this fanbase get too enamored with homegrown talent and marginal players?  (Read 8313 times)

0 Members and 0 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline CF0022

  • Brad Stevens
  • Posts: 234
  • Tommy Points: 3
One thing is certain a lot of fans do not look at it from what is best for the celtics.  A lot of people do but some don't.  A lot of people  like who they like regardless of what the celtics are actually trying to do.  That is something ive always tried to do is what is best for them.

For various reasons. Peopel are just all over the map.   It's good to hear different perspectives though.  Other times not so much.

Ainge is also engaged with other teams around the league communicating on  a regular basis so he has a much clear view of what teams are trying to do. All fans get is what is in the media.  I think fans forget that.

The media is utterly clueless sometimes and has their own agendas.  A sherrod is not a gm for a reason.
« Last Edit: May 18, 2017, 02:29:42 AM by CF0022 »

Offline tazzmaniac

  • Satch Sanders
  • *********
  • Posts: 9047
  • Tommy Points: 584
Hey yo, it's cool if you value loyalty over championships.  Most wont agree with that but nothing wrong with it. 

My wife loved Rondo and House.  Once House left all I heard was how good he was.  After Rondo left she stopped watching, she was just a fan of the players and probably preferred if they had kept Rondo not even realizing or caring about how it effects championships.

I imagine a lot of fans are like that.
I understand where your wife is coming from.  I'm from Alabama so no natural ties to any pro teams.  As a kid. I became a Phillies fan because of Mike Schmidt.  I became a Celtics fan because of Bird.  I became a Redskins fan because I hated the Cowboys.  That's continued in my adulthood.  If I become a fan of a player, I'll follow the player and by extension their team. 

I've been a steady Celtics fan over the years but my interest waxes and wanes based on the players more so than winning.  I really liked Rondo and enjoyed watching him play.  I don't dislike anyone on the current team but there is no one that I'm really a fan of.  Overall, I don't particularly enjoy the current state of NBA play.  So I pick and choose which Celtics games to watch during the regular season, mostly in replay.  I didn't see enough of Fultz to know if I'm a fan yet.  Maybe Jaylen will grow on me. 


Offline obnoxiousmime

  • Bailey Howell
  • **
  • Posts: 2438
  • Tommy Points: 262
Since the new ownership and Ainge took over they have always run the team with the goal of winning championships. History shows overwhelmingly that you need at least one MVP-caliber, no doubt-about-it HOF player surrounded by all-star level talent to do so. They are still looking for that player.

Now, there's something called the salary cap that limits your ability to add players once you've exceeded it. If they fill up the cap with too many players who are good but not great, they will end up like the 01-02 Celtics teams or Toronto the last few years or countless other teams in history that were only good enough to be second best and had to blow up their team and start over. The Celtics operate in a way that, when they make their move they want to be sure they actually have a shot at a title. In 2008, it worked.

It's quite possible that the Cavs and the Warriors are simply too dominant right now that no possible moves in the next few years could challenge them. The Warriors took advantage of the salary cap suddenly skyrocketing to add Durant, that is not something that normally happens. The Cavs were incredibly fortunate to win multiple draft lotteries that allowed them to draft LeBron the first time, draft Irving, and trade for Love (also, Tristan Thompson was a 4th overall pick). They even got to waste a pick on Anthony Bennett. They were incredibly fortunate to be able to add that much talent and then sign LeBron as a FA (I think technically it was a sign-and-trade, but he would have gone there anyway).

The Celtics are going to continue to improve the team but they are not going to expend all their assets and sacrifice the future to make an impossible run at the Cavs and Warriors. It might be different if a player like Kawhi Leonard, Anthony Davis, or Giannis Antetokounmpo suddenly became available, but I think we all know that's not going to happen anytime soon.

Frankly, the names of the people that are FAs or whom might actually available are 2nd tier stars: Paul George, Jimmy Butler, Blake Griffin, Gordon Hayward, etc. They would improve our team but we wouldn't jump a level by adding them. What we would do is just solidify our standing as the best team of the 2nd-tier teams in the East.

The Celtics are smart. They're going to keep their draft picks. We already may have a future star in Fultz (think James Harden-level ability). Brown may not be a future All-Star but he's raised his floor to be a starter on a very good team. Sign Hayward and keep the kids, then figure it out.

Also, they need to be careful with how much they pay Thomas. Just because he can get the max elsewhere doesn't mean he's worth that. Sure, you could pay him just because you don't have anyone else but then you'd be making the mistake that bad teams make - overpaying their own flawed guys because there are no other options.

If the moves were out there to make up for Thomas' deficiencies so that we could still pay him and not have too flawed a team, then sure go ahead and go over the cap to sign him. I don't think the moves are out there though.


Offline Big333223

  • NCE
  • Tiny Archibald
  • *******
  • Posts: 7850
  • Tommy Points: 770
Yes and no. I certainly get enamored with the idea of building a homegrown champion but everyone embraced outsiders like Garnett and now Isaiah and there are also no shortage of "Trade for that guy!" threads on this board.
1957, 1959, 1960, 1961, 1962, 1963, 1964, 1965, 1966, 1968, 1969, 1974, 1976, 1981, 1984, 1986, 2008, 2024

Offline Celtics4ever

  • NCE
  • Johnny Most
  • ********************
  • Posts: 20266
  • Tommy Points: 1341
Yes, it is bad here but I think a lot of fans do it and it is normal to get attached to guys.

Here are some great examples:

1)  People come out saying KO is borderline all star after game seven, but silent once disappears the next game.  He had a great game seven but no showed game one of ECF.
2)  People tolerated Sully for way too long when it was obvious early that he did not have the mindset to be a pro.
3)   People not wanting to trade Green or Rondo.

I could literally go on for days but work calls.

Offline tarheelsxxiii

  • Don Nelson
  • ********
  • Posts: 8593
  • Tommy Points: 1389
GSW could not have set the bar any higher in this regard.
The Tarstradamus Group, LLC

Offline PAOBoston

  • Don Nelson
  • ********
  • Posts: 8134
  • Tommy Points: 535
Unequivocal yes.

Remember when people said they were going to stop watching the C's because they traded Al Jefferson and Ryan Gomes? Yeah....

I get why people get attached to players or a certain group of players. Reality is you have to give something up to get something good. I would say Ainge is good at his job and realizes this and if the right opportunity came up, I don't think he'd hesitate to trade half the team of he thought it would make them contenders soon.

Offline LilRip

  • Paul Silas
  • ******
  • Posts: 6987
  • Tommy Points: 411
IMO, showing loyalty is healthy and fine. But homerism (aka green glasses) is unhealthy. Some people gave some prime examples of green glasses like with Al Jefferson or Gerald Green. Even this year, there were people saying Crowder is just about as good as Jimmy Butler.

- LilRip