Rudy Pemberton said:
Well, I just think the hope that things are better in 5-10 years is not unique to the C's, it's what every time says when they rebuild. Odds are that in 5 years the C's will be psyched if they are the .500 team they are now. A rebuild is nice, but I'd feel better if the C's were actually rebuilding around something. As of now, they'd be rebuidling around a coaching staff and roster that is completely theoretical. It's not as if there are a few core players people want to rebuild around, it's completely starting over.
The bolded is the essence of my point (though leaning pessimistic). Perhaps a rebuild will give you a multiple year contenda in 5 years (Ainge's work is an example that proves it is possible). But more likely, it won't. More likely, the best "good but not great luck" outcome within 5-8 years is about what next year's "good but not great outcome" would be if we keep this core together.
Wu asks
"Even if this team was mediocre and you truly thought they were going to continue to
decline, do you honestly think even then you would be willing to throw in the towel
and move onto the next team"
Ainge's gambit in '08 was fine with me: that was a team with an iffy set of parts (a Green/Rondo/Pierce/Jefferson/Perkins/Allen could of been interesting, but more likely it would of been sort of stupid and frustrating).
The key assumption is "continue to decline" -- and I believe we aren't there yet. The odds of being better next year, perhaps a lot better, are greater than the odds of being worse: there are 4 guys likely to get better (in Rondo's case, a lot better), and 2 likely to be worse (and probably not much worse). When the odds switch, probably in 2014-15, then the sadness of breaking it up becomes less important.
As for "loyalty" -- yeah, the end of the 80's didn't work out great, but there is no proof that had red followed ainge's prescription it would of been that much better (espeially in terms of championships won). And to just assume that it is costless to be "ruthlessly efficient", in a game where people are the core of the product, is hardly a sign of savvy. Or perhaps Red was coaching kids in proto-basketball?
Btw: perhaps SA's success has a mite to do with "loyal" treatment of its players.
btw2: wu and others have expressed a pre-cognition sadness at the thought of KG et al struggling to be what they once were. While I have no fundamental problems with paternalism, that's too much -- these guys are mature adults and if they want to take that risk, I don't feel a need to save them from themselves.