Celtics are Pri(n)celess
- Thread starter amfox1
- Start date
No, but the point remains that they are better off with all those draft picks than they were with the assets they gave up to get them. I'd rather have a 2nd round pick that has a 2% chance of being useful than Austin Rivers who has 0.5%.Dan to Theo to Ben said:
2011 and 2012, recent, but old enough so players have enough time to have developed. But if you want to play that gameGrin&MartyBarret said:
:
2005: Charlie Villanueva
2006: Randy Foye
2007: Corey Brewer
2008: Eric Gordon
Of course it does, but unless you're the Spurs, the odds aren't great. I'm gl;ad we have Danny so at least there's hope though.TheDeuce222 said:
Most of the current best teams were built through the draft.Dan to Theo to Ben said:
gs, SA, Portland, Chi, OKC, ATL.
Only see one team with a recent title there. Portland ATl have sure shown much so far in the playoffs.
SA I grant you as I did, above.
But OKC had pretty darned high draft picks. Chi too IIRC.
When was the last Eastern Conference team that won even one game in the Finals, with their best player home-drafted 4 or below?
SA I grant you as I did, above.
But OKC had pretty darned high draft picks. Chi too IIRC.
When was the last Eastern Conference team that won even one game in the Finals, with their best player home-drafted 4 or below?
Wow that is a seriously narrow tailoring on that straw man. Eliminating any team that signed or traded for a free agent star or drafted top 4 and anyone in the west.Dan to Theo to Ben said:
let me reverse that. Who is the last team to play in the finals who didn't have a home drafted player in their top 3 players?
Dan to Theo to Ben said:
Oops, my bad on the 2012 thing. Tried to post without re-reading yours. Regardless, this method you've latched onto is completely arbitrary and ignores all sorts of factors. It ignores the success rate of GMs selecting before the 7th pick, it ignores the needs of teams in those drafts, and ignores that not all drafts are created equal. You can find a Steph Curry at 7, or you can find a Randy Foye. At 10 sometimes there's a Paul Pierce or Paul George. But either way, this is a silly argument and a silly way to go about it because nobody here is even attempting to argue the inverse of what you're saying. Literally nobody is saying "well, we got these picks so we're done with the rebuild." The argument is that they're nice assets that could turn into nice players either through the draft or through trades. While your argument seems to be "you need good players to win."
The most recent alternative to building through the draft would have been to trade a boatload of assets for Love, a 1st for Asik and commit to Rondo longterm. Every road is fraught with peril if the wrong decisions are made along the way.
Anyways, I highly doubt the plan is to sit on all of these picks and hope they all work out. The idea is to have a big enough stash that when the big moves are made this time around, it won't leave the cupboard nearly bare. I imagine Ainge wants to build a long-term contender through a combination of strong drafting, trades, and flexibility to potentially compete in the FA market. It can't all happen at once. The KG/Ray series of moves seemed to happen overnight, but actually began in 2003 when Ainge took over and immediately began acquiring 1st round picks whenever possible (aside from the Antoine 2.0 interlude).
He's doing the same thing this time around, except with even more picks and financial flexibility. Granted, he doesn't have a Paul Pierce this time around but that's fine for now.
Anyways, I highly doubt the plan is to sit on all of these picks and hope they all work out. The idea is to have a big enough stash that when the big moves are made this time around, it won't leave the cupboard nearly bare. I imagine Ainge wants to build a long-term contender through a combination of strong drafting, trades, and flexibility to potentially compete in the FA market. It can't all happen at once. The KG/Ray series of moves seemed to happen overnight, but actually began in 2003 when Ainge took over and immediately began acquiring 1st round picks whenever possible (aside from the Antoine 2.0 interlude).
He's doing the same thing this time around, except with even more picks and financial flexibility. Granted, he doesn't have a Paul Pierce this time around but that's fine for now.
that's my whole point. People don't understand the meaning of the word " could"Grin&MartyBarret said:
Dan to Theo to Ben said:
I think everyone understands the draft picks are risky. I still don't see your point. Would you rather have kept Rondo, who is a free agent after the year? What about Jeff Green?
Dan to Theo to Ben said:
A run at what? The old guard was coming off a 41-40 season. Rondo coming off knee surgery. The coach bailed. And we would have ended up getting nothing or very little for KG and Pierce.
Considering how bad KG and Rondo looked last year, I can't imagine regretting the KG/Pierce trade. That's lunacy.
We did the "one more run". It was called 2011-2012 - and it was great, at least until Bradley dislocated both shoulders.
Marc J. Spears @SpearsNBAYahoo 3h3 hours ago
The Celtics are getting a lot of interest in guard Marcus Thornton, but teams are concerned about his $8.6 million salary, a source said.
The Celtics are getting a lot of interest in guard Marcus Thornton, but teams are concerned about his $8.6 million salary, a source said.
Dan to Theo to Ben said:
How in the hell was that going to happen? Jurak is right, '11-12 was the last chance they had and some folks here thought that was a bridge (year) too far. You do understand that NBA talent isn't inverse Wooderson universe. As players age, their decline is pretty damn rapid.
Look at his stats with SAC in 2010-11Eddie Jurak said:
21PPG, 4.7 RPG. 3.4 APG 1.7 SPG.
He put up huge numbers at age 23, signed a 4 year 33M deal and took steps back each of the next 4 years.
I wanted to make one mor run in 2013-14 as well. It's now pretty obvious I was wrong.Dan to Theo to Ben said:
That Brooklyn trade is a heist.
I'm assuming you'd agree by now, even if they ran it back in 13/14, it would be rebuilding time.
If you don't agree with Ainges' strategy of hoarding picks, what would you have done?
mcpickl said:
This is a great question. Whenever someone suggests a keep it together or dont blow it up strategy, when they are pushed on this question they never, ever, ever have a direct answer to this question. There isnt a single coherent conceptual plan to go from 'we keep it together here, then we rebuild by doing...'
I was playing with trade machine yesterday and had trouble finding a deal that matches salary, has only expiring contracts, and is relatively balanced.amfox1 said:
EDIT: stupid mobile formatting
I guess I'm just jaded by 1) the whole trade for overpriced contracts then buyout part of the CBA and 2) thought we'd get more for Rondo and Green precisely because of the Brooklyn "heist". and 3) not seeing Young play too muchmcpickl said:
My strategy would be based on receiving players who are assets or can be coached/developed into assets, rather just expiring contracts and picks. I do still want to have a team to root for in the present, not 5 years from now. We traded away 3 franchise players, 2 minimum, and have zero now. Now I'm not paid handsomely to figure out and identify who to obtain, so if you're looking for that answer, I can't tell you which players when and all of that.
Right now we bulldozed a historic landmark and have bult a fence, but I see no foundation yet, let alone rooms. If we're able to turn #7 (and change) into a franchise player, and Smart and Young and Zeller get better, I will be much happier. Just hate the tanking and the losing, and sick of it after only 16 months.
The problem with this idea is twofold. You're trading veteran players, so only contenders are going to be interested. You're not going to get a young cornerstone player in such a deal, because that guy would be playing a key role on that team. So at best you'd be getting a young player that hasn't fulfilled his promise. Two issues with that kind of guy, he's already failed and is being given up on by his current team, and is already closer to the end of his rookie contract.Dan to Theo to Ben said:
NBA rules which in most cases force you to take back other teams garbage to get a deal done is frustrating, but I really don't see another way to rebuild in a non-destination city other than getting as much draft capital as you can. Is it guaranteed to succeed, hell no. But I think it's proven to be the most likely avenue to a successful rebuild.
I'd change your historic landmark analogy to saying the historical landmark was found to have a dangerously cracked foundation that was going to be forced to be condemned very soon, and they razed it but they didn't build a fence. They're still drawing up blueprints, applying for permits and acquiring materials to try to rebuild that landmark. Unfortunately, that process takes time.
The problems are:Dan to Theo to Ben said:
1. Two of those franchise players were at the very end of their careers, and are currently at best league average or so role players.
2. The third is I assume Rondo? who isn't a franchise player now if he ever was one, he's about league average as a starting PG and he was walking in a few months anyway.
3. A draft pick in the first round has a chance (only a chance) to be a starter on a contending team, anyone who has shown any indication in the league of that potential isn't available for what we had to trade.
4. Getting the kind of players you need to rebuild (basically young, talented, under contract for a number of years) is difficult, those types of players are assets to any team.
So the question is how do you get franchise level players?
Looking around the league there appear to be 3 ways,
1. The most prevalent.... Draft them, usually in the high to mid lottery
2. The rarest.... trade for them. Usually involves either a S&T when a player forces his way to you, or rarely a team that can't keep all its stars (Harden style)
3. Sign them to max deals as a FA... problem is that at least recently top stars mostly only sign with teams that look like championship contenders if the money is the same, that means it takes 1 or 2 stars on the roster (or cap space for 2 max deals and a really good roster).
So 3 isn't really an option for the Celtics, so they are looking to maximize 1 and 2, the easiest way they can, by stockpiling draft picks (the easiest to trade and most valuable chips most of the time, and/or using those picks to get young cheap players under contract the second most attractive trade asset.) A plethora of picks means the Celtics jump to the top of the list if a team needs to make a Harden type deal as an attractive partner, it also means they can look to move up in drafts, it also throws you into the lottery ball luck hopefully, which is sadly by far the best way to rebuild. They are also cutting salary as much as possible, allowing them to take on money, or make bids for those max guys when the time comes.
There are a few problems here. First, the two impact players Boston traded were at the end of the line. Essentially you're arguing that we should have delayed the implosion by two more years. The problem with this is that we would still end up in the exact same spot that we're in now, only two years later and with a lot fewer draft assets.Dan to Theo to Ben said:
Two, I was sort of hoping that Boston's (much) improved play and Dallas' struggles would, for once and for all, lay to rest the "Rondo, franchise point guard!" talk. Apparently not. However, Boston will, when all is said and done, get Jae Crowder (and I will confess that my love for Crowder borders on the irrational) a #1 that has a solid shot at being a late lottery pick (thanks to the Thunderdome that's the NBA Western Conference), a bunch of #2s (or possibly another late lottery pick depending on what the 'Wolves do this summer), and a huge traded player exception that can be used to either help another team clear cap space in exchange for more draft picks or to add a player with an appropriate sized contract outright without needing to return anything other than picks (which has an added premium in trade scenarios).
Third, I'm not sure why anyone would expect Boston to land more than a first and a second for Jeff Green, Green is the very definition of replacement level player. He's not great at anything. He's not even a great "other guy on the floor". But coming out of the deal with a couple of picks to add to the warchest is a good deal. Even though the first isn't going to be conveyed until the end of the decade, Boston has a slagpile of picks between now and then.
Lastly, people like to say that bottoming out is a matter of luck (and admittedly there is some of that involved, Cleveland leaped from 9th to 1st in the draft order and their rebuilding error (sic) suddenly ended, or entered phase 2, depending on your point of view), but there's also an element of planning involved. When Boston elected to make one last run in 2013 I was an enthusiastic supporter, not because they were contenders (even at the time I admitted that), but because the 2013 draft was a horror show (Kelly Olynyk is one of the best players to come out of that pool, just ponder that for a moment). Boston chose to bottom out in front of the 2014-2016 time frame, which was an excellent decision because the high school classes of 2013-2015 are/were loaded with talent. Whereas the best of the 2012 high school class were probably Marcus Smart and Willie Cauley-Stein (and Boston might end up with both when all is said and done).
If Boston had delayed this, and rode Pierce and Garnett into the sunset they would be bottoming out in time for the 2016 draft, only with a barely above average player making max money, only the one pick to try and find an all star running mate, and a prayer that they could spin Sullynyk into another.
In a recent interview, Ainge made the point that draft picks are the only asset that always has trade value. Players' trace value is less certain because of their contracts and the salary cap.
I guess Marcus Thornton is a good example - as a player he's an asset but once his $8.6 million salary is factored in he may not be one.
I guess Marcus Thornton is a good example - as a player he's an asset but once his $8.6 million salary is factored in he may not be one.
amfox1 said:
Marc Stein @ESPNSteinLinehttps://twitter.com/ESPNSteinLinehttps://twitter.com/ESPNSteinLine · 9m 9 minutes ago
Expectation here at @nbadleague Showcase remains that Clips will seal trade to acquire Austin Rivers by week's end. Perhaps as soon as today
Phoenix increasingly mention as a likely third-team participant so Celtics don't have to take back any salary in sending Austin Rivers to LA
Suns are believed to covet Reggie Bullock from Clippers. Clips would naturally prefer to make deal without surrendering Bullock. But
But Austin Rivers, I'm told, never reported to Celtics after deal because Boston pledged to get him to Clippers. And that remains the plan
Shams Charania @ShamsCharania 2m2 minutes ago
Phoenix's Shavlik Randolph has been traded to Boston, with Reggie Bullock to Phoenix, Austin Rivers to Clippers, league sources tell RealGM.
Phoenix's Shavlik Randolph has been traded to Boston, with Reggie Bullock to Phoenix, Austin Rivers to Clippers, league sources tell RealGM.
I'm assuming a second min-level player (Udoh or CDR) and a 2nd round pick are also coming to BOS.
according to bbref, he has a non-guaranteed contract at $1.2M this seasonDan to Theo to Ben said:
http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/r/randosh01.html
Mark Murphy @Murf56 · 38m38 minutes ago
Source stresses that deal has not been finalized, but Randolph, 2017 2nd rounder, CDR (to be waived) is what has been agreed upon.
Source stresses that deal has not been finalized, but Randolph, 2017 2nd rounder, CDR (to be waived) is what has been agreed upon.
Celtics will also pick up a $2.4mm trade exception in the deal (to go with their $12.9mm, $5.0mm and $1.3mm trade exceptions).
Dan to Theo to Ben said:
Draft picks are easier to package in trades than existing players. A cache of second round draft picks is easier to trade in an upgrade than a bunch of mediocre players, because it doesn't require the other team to take on bad contracts and lets them choose guys that fit their system and want to play there.
Even if you don't like risking the draft it will be easier for Danny to turn the draft picks into a star player by a trade than it would be to directly trade Rondo, Jeff Green, etc for a star player.
The Clippers are reportedly interested in Tayshaun Prince and are hoping he gets bought out.
https://twitter.com/AlexKennedyNBA/status/556765163605737472
https://twitter.com/AlexKennedyNBA/status/556765163605737472
Farmar had an option Danny wouldn't takethe1andonly3003 said:
Also the Clippers are hard capped which makes matching tough.
if danny finds out there is interest from other teams for some of these players he has traded for, he should at least keep them on the roster to see if he can get more picks (e.g. Nate Robinson, Prince)
Well of course. Do you have any reason to believe any GM wouldn't try to trade folks before buying them out?the1andonly3003 said: